Datasets:

Fawazzx
/

full

Dataset card Data Studio Files Files and versions Community

Split (1)

train · 42.8k rows

id int64 17 1.89B	cases stringlengths 8 539k	labels stringlengths 38 1.25k	instruction stringclasses 1 value
1,173,940	There was some dispute between the family of the deceased and the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 640/04 over the cutting of a peepal tree which was there inside the house of the deceased by his father when some construction was to be carried out in their house.On the night of 19th June, 1997 accused Intezar Hussain parked his rehris in front of the house of the deceased.The father of the deceased (PW-12 Lakhan Singh) raised objection to the parking of the rehris by Intezar Hussain in front of his house.Upon that Intezar Hussain along with his brother Ansar(proclaimed offender) started beating him.When his wife(PW-6 Usha Devi) intervened to save him appellant-accused Smt. Rajbala came out of her house and she caught hold of PW-6 Usha Devi and took her in her grip and when PW-7 Vinod Kumar tried to save his mother from accused Rajbala she called her husband Ran Singh @ Ram Singh and her sons Kuldeep, Lalit @ Billoo and Rupesh @ Bhondu (all of whom are the appellants in Crl. A. No. 640/04) and when they came out she told them that it was the appropriate time to finish off Lakhan Singh and his family.In the meantime Yoginder, other son of Lakhan Singh, came out of his house and then accused Rupesh, who was having a hockey in his hand, started beating Lakhan Singh and when Yoginder tried to save his father accused Ran Singh caught hold of him and accused Rupesh gave a hockey blow on his head.Accused Intezar and his brother Ansar (proclaimed offender) gave danda blows to Yoginder and accused Kuldeep and Lalit stabbed him with knives.On getting injured Yoginder tried to run away from the spot to save himself but after some distance from the place of occurrence he fell down.His brother then took him to a nearby hospital where he was declared to have been brought dead.All these facts were narrated before the police by PW-7 Vinod Kumar, the brother of the deceased Yoginder, in his first information statement Ex. PW-7/A and on that basis formal FIR was registered.Vinod Kumar had also claimed that he had also intervened to save his parents and brother but he himself did not receive any visible injury and so he did not require any medical aid.The investigating officer recovered from the place of occurrence one piece of broken hockey.At the spot he also noticed that one rehri was parked there.As it was raining the investigating officer did not notice any blood at the spot.Post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased was conducted by PW-13 Dr. K.L.Sharma on 20-06-97 and he gave his report Ex. PW-13/A wherein he had noticed seven external injuries out of which injury No. 4 was a lacerated punctured wound on the chest below middle part of clavical and injury No. 5 was an incised penetrating wound located over back of the right side chest.The autopsy surgeon gave his opinion that the cause of death was haemothorax as a result of injury No. 5 which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.According to him injuries No. 4 and 5 were caused by the sharp cutting penetrating weapon while other injuries were caused by hard blunt weapon and fist blows.Out of the seven assailants only six could be arrested by the police during investigation and since the seventh one, namely, Ansar could not be arrested he was got declared a proclaimed offender.As per the further prosecution case appellant-accused Kuldeep made a disclosure statement in police custody after his arrest and pursuant thereto he got recovered two guptis/daggers Ex. P-2 & 3, one broken hockey piece Ex. P-1 from the roof of his house.The two guptis/daggers got recovered by accused Kuldeep were shown to the autopsy surgeon for seeking his opinion about the possibility of the injuries found on the person of the deceased being caused by them with those weapons.Accused persons thereafter ran away thinking that his son Yoginder had succumbed to injuries.Vinod removed Yoginder in TSR to the hospital.PW-12 also deposed that during this scuffle his wife had also received injuries and because of the blow given by accused Raj Bala to his wife she had lost her two teeth of her lower jabra.He thereafter deposed that he along with his wife went to the DDU hospital for treatment and MLC was also prepared by the doctor in respect of injuries.He also deposed that he was waiting for his son Yoginder in the hospital but his son did not reach hospital and when he was coming back to his house he checked about his son in Khera hospital and came to know that his son was brought dead in the said hospital.The third eye witness PW-6 Usha Devi is the mother of the deceased.JUDGMENT P.K. Bhasin, J.In these two appeals six accused persons have challenged their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and also under Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC vide judgment dated 27-07-2004 as also the sentences imposed on them vide order dated 28-07-2004 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions case No. 179/01 arising out of FIR No. 528/97 of Patel Nagar police station.Since both these appeals arise out of the same judgment of conviction and they were heard also together we are deciding both the appeals by this common judgment.The facts leading to the conviction of the six appellants for the murder of one Yoginder on 19-06-97 are that the deceased Yoginder was residing in house No. 2392/1, gali Mandir Wali, Shadipur, Delhi along with his father PW-12 Lakhan Singh, mother PW-6 Usha Devi and brother PW-7 Vinod Kumar.Appellant Intezar Hussain(the sole appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 722/2004) was a neighbour of the deceased.The five appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 640/04, who are all members of one framily, were also the neighbours of the deceased.The broken hockey piece and the two dandas were also shown to the autopsy surgeon who gave his opinion that the injuries No. 4 and 5, which were noticed on the body of the deceased at the time of post-mortem examination, were possible with the said two weapons and injury No. 1, which was a lacerated wound behind the left ear of the deceased,could be caused with the afore-said hockey.The two guptis and the broken hockey piece got recovered by the accused persons were sent to CFSL during the investigation for Chemical analysis and on examination there human blood was detected on the recovered piece of hockey stick.On the completion of the investigation the six appellants - accused were charge-sheeted and the trial Court framed charges under Sections 147 IPC, 148 IPC, 302/149 IPC, 325/149 IPC and 323/149 IPC.Since all the accused had pleaded not guilty the prosecution was called upon to adduce evidence in support of its claim.Twenty one witnesses were then examined by the prosecution out of whom three were the eye witnesses of the occurrence.The accused persons when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution allegations in toto and pleaded false implication at the instance of the police in order to solve this case of blind murder.No evidence was adduced by any of the accused persons in defense.However, during cross-examination of PW-6 Smt. Usha Devi it was suggested to her on behalf of all the accused that her son Yoginder fell down in front of the shop of Surender Kumar and from there he was removed to the hospital and that no quarrel had taken place with accused Intezar and Ansar regarding the parking of rehri with her husband prior to the incident.The other defense taken by the accused persons was that after hearing the noise of abuses about twenty boys from Mohd. Community collected at the spot, they pelted stones and Usha Devi received injuries at the hands of those persons who were pelting stones and also that those 20 boys followed the son of PW-6 Smt. Usha Devi and some of them caused injuries in the main street at a distance of about 2000 yds.from the house.After examining the prosecution evidence the learned trial Court found the evidence of all the eye witnesses to be trustworthy and reliable and relying upon their evidence as also the recovery of two guptis and a broken piece of blood stained hockey stick at the instance of accused Kuldeep and two dandas at the instance of accused Intezar Hussain held that all the accused persons had formed an unlawful assembly and they were sharing the common object which was to harm the family of Lakhan Singh and in furtherance of that common object and on the exhortation of the accused Rajbala to finish the family of Lakhan Singh injuries were caused on the person of the deceased which resulted into his death and accordingly convicted them under Sections 302 and read with Section 149 IPC and also under Section 323 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced all of them to undergo life imprisonment for their conviction for the offences of murder and also to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- each and for their conviction under Section 323/149 IPC they were awarded rigorous imprisonment for 10 days and were also imposed a fine of Rs. 500/- each.The substantive sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently and the benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. was also extended to the accused persons.Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court five accused persons, namely, Ran Singh @ Ram Singh, Kuldeep , Lalit @ Billoo, Rupesh @ Bhondu and Rajbala filed Criminal Appeal No. 640/2004 while the sixth convicted accused Intezar Hussain filed Criminal Appeal No. 722/2004 and, as noticed already, now both these appeals are being disposed of together by this common judgment.We have heard Shri Naresh Kaushik, learned Counsel for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 640/2004, Shri G.B.Sewak, learned Counsel for the sole appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 722/2004 and Shri Ravinder Chadha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State and with their assistance we have also gone through the relevant prosecution evidence which only was referred to from both the sides during the course of hearing of these appeals.It was not disputed by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the deceased Yoginder's death was homicidal.That fact is even otherwise fully established from the evidence of the autopsy surgeon PW-13 Dr. K.L.Sharma.The injuries noticed by him on the body of the deceased at the time of post-mortem examination are as follows: EXTERNAL INJURIESLacerated wound 1 x 1 cm was present with bruised around below and behind the left ear.The lips were bruised, nose had an abrasion 1 x 1 cm with swelling.A linear with bruised around over top of the left shoulder 4 x 1 cm.There was lacerated punctured wound circular in disposition 1.5 x 1.5 cm over chest below middle part of left clavicle (muscle deep only).Incised penetrating wound 2.5 x 1 cm., upper margins were shelved and lower margins were flap cut, blood was oozing from the wound and it was located over back of the right side chest, horizontal being 4 cm away from middle part of the right scapular border, lower margin being 130 cm.above right heel.Both angles were acutely cut.Two upper central incisors were broken with laceration of the gums.Bleeding was seen.Nasal bones were fractured and bleeding was present.INTERNAL EXAMINATION Head and brain were normal, neck and its structures were normal except wind by contained frothy blood.Chest: Injury No. 5 after cutting skin, intercostal muscle and inner border of 5th and 6th ribs near right side vertebral column, entered posterior upper border of right lower lobe of lung, passed through whole thickness and came out through base of the lung after cutting pluera.This injury further cut the right dome of diaphragm and entered the convex border of liver and penetrated up to the depth of 8 cm.The total depth was 25 cm.and plane was upside downwards.We have already referred to the opinion of the autopsy surgeon regarding the cause of death.From the afore-said injuries and the opinion of the autopsy surgeon there is no manner of doubt that the death of the deceased Yoginder was homicidal.Learned Counsel for the appellants, however, seriously challenged the correctness of the findings of the learned Trial Court holding the appellants guilty of the offence of murder.It was contended that the learned Trial Judge had not properly appreciated the flaws in the evidence of the three eye witnesses.It was also contended that on proper appreciation of the evidence of the three eye witnesses they could not be said to have been the eye witnesses and their claim of being eye witnesses was absolutely false.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, on the other hand, while supporting the judgment of the Trial Court submitted that all the three eye witnesses were rightly relied upon by the Trial Court and that there is no infirmity at all in their evidence which could discredit them and, therefore, the learned trial Judge has rightly convicted the appellants.Before dealing with the submissions of the counsel for the parties in detail and in order to find out whether the prosecution had been able to establish its case against the appellants the evidence of the eye witnesses needs to be noticed and then independently analysed by this Court.We shall first take up the testimony of PW-7 Vinod Kumar, who is the brother of the deceased and also the first informant of the incident to the police.After narrating the initial incident between his father(PW-12) and accused Intezar and his brother Ansar(PO) PW-7 over the parking of rehris by Intezar in front of their house deposed that when his mother Usha Rani(PW-6) came out of the house in order to save his father accused Raj Bala, the wife of accused Ran Singh, who were also their neighbours, came outside his (PW-7's) house and started grappling with his mother.He was standing outside his house at that time and when he went to rescue his mother, accused Raj Bala gave a call to her husband and sons.Accused Ran Singh and his sons, namely, Kuldeep, Lalit and Rupesh came outside their house and then accused Raj Bala made a 'lalkara' and exhorted her sons and her husband that there was an opportunity to finish Lakhan Singh and his family.On hearing the noise his elder brother Yoginder(the deceased) came outside.PW-7 further deposed that accused Kuldeep and Lalit were carrying churris in their hands at that time while accused Rupesh was carrying hockey stick and accused Intjar and Ansar were carrying dandas in their hands.Accused Rupesh started beating his father Lakhan Singh with hockey stick and when his elder brother Yoginder tried to save his father, accused Ram Singh @ Ran Singh caught hold of his brother Yoginder and accused Lalit then stabbed Yoginder with churri on his chest while accused Kuldeep stabbed him on his back.Accused Rupesh hit his brother Joginder with hockey stick on his head and accused Intjar and Ansar hit his brother with dandas.His brother tried to run away in order to save himself but he fell down at some distance and then his father directed him(PW-7) to rush his brother Yoginder to DDU hospital.PW-7 further deposed that finding the serious condition of his brother he removed him to Khera hospital in Pandav Nagar where the concerned doctor declared his brother Yoginder as brought dead.He also deposed that in the incident his parents(PWs 6 and 12) also sustained injuries and he himself sustained invisible injuries but he did not get himself medically examined.The police recorded his statement Ex. PW-7/A at Khera Hospital.Now we come to the evidence of the other injured eye witness.He is PW-12 Lakhan Singh, the father of the deceased.He has deposed that on 19.6.1997 he was residing at H. No. 2392/1 Mandir Wali Gali, Shadipur, Delhi which was purchased by him in October, 1996 from the son of Maha Singh, who was related to accused Ran Singh and his family.Accused Ran Singh was also residing along with his family just next to his house.Accused Ran Singh and his wife Raj Bala were claiming that the house purchased by him belonged to their family and threatened him with dire consequences.In March, 1997 when he started constructing the first floor of the said house, he cut the pipal tree in his house for making construction on which he was again threatened by Ran Singh and his family for having removed the tree as they claimed that the peepal tree belonged to the ancestors of their family.He also deposed that during the construction of house 2-3 members of family of Ran Singh called him to stop the construction but the matter was reconciled.On 19.6.1997 accused Intjar, who was residing with his brother Ansar(proclaimed offender) as tenant of one Sunil, who was related to accused Ran Singh, parked rehris in front of his(PW-12's) house due to which the passage was blocked.He requested Intezar to remove the rehris and park them on one side and on that accused Intjar along with his brother Ansar started abusing and beating him with danda.He further deposed that at that time his wife Usha(PW-6) also came and tried to take him out of the clutches of the aforesaid two accused persons and at the same time accused Raj Bala also came to the spot and caught hold of his wife and started beating her.Accused Raj Bala also gave lalkara to her children by stating "Aa jao, aaj moka hai, Lakhan Singh ke pariwar ko khatam kar do" and on hearing that accused Ran Singh, Kuldeep, Lalit and Rupesh came there.His sons Yoginder (the deceased) and Vinod(PW-7) also came there to save them.Accused Rupesh was having a hockey in his hand, whereas Lalit and Kuldeep were having churri in their hands and soon after reaching the spot, accused Ran Singh caught hold of his son Yoginder.Rupesh gave a hockey blow on the left side of the head of Yoginder near his ear and Lalit gave a churri blow on the left side of his chest.Kuldeep gave a churri blow on the back of Yoginder near left shoulder.Yoginder tried to run with a view to save himself but fell down just after about 15 paces.He further deposed that Intjar and Ansar had also given danda blows to Yoginder.Accused Intjar and Ansar gave danda blows to him(PW-12) also on his head.She has deposed that there was a peepal tree inside their house which they had purchased from Maha Singh, uncle of accused Ran Singh but since accused Ran Singh had cut off two of its branches they totally uprooted the peepal tree.Accused persons took strong exception to that claiming that tree was planted by their forefathers.She also deposed that when they started constructing their house the accused persons had extended threat to them that they will have to face the consequences for cutting the peepal tree.She further deposed that on 19-06-97 at about 10.15 p.m. when she was present on the first floor of her house accused Intjar Hussain parked two/three reharis in front of their house blocking the passage of their house and when her husband Lakhan Singh objected to that accused Intjar Hussain and Ansar started beating her husband with dandas on which she came down to save her husband.At that time Raj Bala, wife of accused Ran Singh, came out of her house and took her(PW-6) in her grip and called her husband Ran Singh and her sons Rupesh, Lalit and Kuldeep and when they came out from their house.Accused Intjar Hussain and Ansar started raining danda blows on her husband.Accused Rupesh was carrying a hockey stick and he attacked her husband with the hockey stick.On hearing the noise her two sons, namely, Yoginder(the deceased) and Vinod came out from their house in order to save their father and then accused Ran Singh caught hold of her son Yoginder and accused Rupesh attacked Yoginder with hockey stick on his head.Accused Lalit then stabbed Yoginder with 'churi' on the front side of his chest and accused Kuldeep stabbed Yoginder with 'churi' on his back.Yoginder tried to save himself and started running but he fell down after a short distance.Her husband told her son Vinod(PW-7) to rush her son Yoginder to DDU hospital and her son Yoginder was rushed to DDU hospital by her son Vinod in a three wheeler scooter.She also deposed that she along with her husband went to DDU hospital for medical treatment as her tooth broken in that incident.After reaching DDU hospital they came to know that their son Yoginder had been taken by Vinod to Khera hospital and after getting treatment from DDU hospital when they came to Khera hospital they came to know that Yoginder had died.She further deposed that at the time of the incident accused Raj Bala had uttered that today it was a golden opportunity to wipe out the family of Lakhan Singh.This is the only evidence referred to before us during the course of arguments from both the sides.Learned Counsel for the six appellants in Crl.A. No. 640/04 had contended that the entire prosecution case is unbelievable since PW-12 Lakhan Singh was an Assistant Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police and so it is not possible to accept that the accused persons would have dared to fight with a police officer and kill his son.In any case, the evidence of the eye witnesses is unreliable for many reasons.It was submitted that as far as PW-7 Vinod Kumar is concerned his evidence should not be relied upon since his abnormal conduct at the time of incident in not making any attempt to save his father and brother when they were being assaulted makes his claim of being an eye witness highly doubtful.It was also contended that even though he claims to have received invisible injuries in the incident but there is no proof submitted by the prosecution to substantiate the same and the non-production of any evidence to show that he had also received an injury in the incident also makes his evidence quite doubtful.Learned Counsel also contended that if actually PW-7 had been present at the time of the alleged incident and had received an injury he would have definitely got himself medically examined but he himself has claimed in his examination-in-chief itself that he had not got himself medically examined.Learned Counsel, however, submitted that presence of PW-7 at the place of incident becomes doubtful also for the reason that his mother PW-6 Usha Devi had admitted in her cross-examination that she had seen Vinod for the first time at Khera Hospital.It was also contended that PW-7 Vinod Kumar has although deposed that he had taken his brother Yoginder to the hospital but that statement of his gets falsified from the MLC of the deceased which was prepared at the time of his examination by the doctor in which the names of the assailants were not mentioned which would have been there if Vinod had been an eye witness and if actually he had gone to the hospital with the deceased.Regarding the evidence of PW-6 Usha Devi and her husband PW-12 Lakhan Singh the submission of learned Counsel for the appellants was that both of them should be disbelieved because both of them do not corroborate each other inasmuch as PW-12 claims that his wife Usha Devi had lost her two teeth because of the blow given to her by accused Rajbala while Usha Devi although claimed in her examination-in-chief that in the incident her tooth was broken not that it was because of Rajbala beating her and during her cross-examination she had claimed that she had not sustained very serious injuries.Learned Counsel further contended that in cross-examination PW-6 had also admitted that she had not tried to lift her injured son nor had she tried to console him and she also did not get him medically treated and that abnormal conduct of hers belies her claim also of being an eye witness of the incident because it is highly improbable that a mother on seeing her son being stabbed would not even try to save him.Learned Counsel also contended that there are other material inconsistencies also in the evidence of the three eye witnesses inasmuch as PW-6 Usha Devi has deposed that when on the call of Rajbala her husband and sons came out of their house accused Intezar Hussain and his brother Ansar had started giving danda blows to her husband(PW-12) and similarly PW-12 Lakhan Singh himself has also claimed that Intezar Hussain and Ansar had given him also danda blows on his head but PW-7 has not claimed that Intezar Hussain and Ansar had also assaulted his father after other accused had come out of their house.It was also submitted that PW-6 Usha Devi and PW-7 Vinod have deposed that accused Rupesh had hit PW-12 Lakhan Singh with a hockey but PW-12 Lakhan Singh himself has not claimed that he was hit with a hockey by accused Rupesh.Learned Counsel also contended that as far as accused Rupesh is concerned it is the prosecution case that he had assaulted the deceased and PW-12 with a hockey but in evidence two broken pieces of hockey were produced out of which one piece was allegedly got recovered by accused Kuldeep and not by Rupesh and other broken piece was shown to have been recovered from the spot.However, none of the witnesses has claimed that at the time of incident the hockey used by Rupesh had broken with the force with which it was struck on the head of the deceased or otherwise and in any case to none of the eye witnesses the broken piece of hockey got recovered by Kuldeep was shown to have it identified as the weapon of offence.It was also contended that even though as per the FSL report some human blood was noticed on the broken piece of hockey which Kuldeep had got recovered but considering the fact that no blood was detected on the two churis which also he had allegedly got recovered it becomes highly improbable that blood could have been found on the hockey when it was not found on the churis one of which had, as per the prosecution case, pierced up to the lungs of the deceased and that shows that the police had thrown some blood on the piece of hockey.So, no reliance can be placed on the FSL report also and based on that accused Rupesh cannot be implicated nor can that recovery be used as a corroborative evidence.So the role attributed to Rupesh by eye witnesses definitely becomes highly doubtful and consequently their evidence in entirety should have been discarded.Learned Counsel also submitted that as far as accused Rajbala is concerned no overt act has been attributed to her except that she gave a call to her family members to come out of their house when accused Intezar Hussain and Ansar were giving beatings to PW-12 Lakhan Singh.It was also contended that all the three eye witnesses have given inconsistent statements regarding what all Rajbala did at the time of occurrence inasmuch as PW-6 Usha Devi has deposed that when she rushed to the spot on seeing her husband being beaten by Intezar Hussain and Ansar accused Rajbala also came out of her house and she(Rajbala) took her in her grip and then she called her husband and her sons while PW-7 Vinod has deposed that when his mother came to the spot to save his father accused Rajbala on coming out of her house had started grappling with his mother and when he went to rescue his mother Rajbala called her husband and sons.Usha Devi does not claim that Vinod had come to rescue her.PW-7 says that when her husband and three sons came out of their house accused Rajbala then exhorted them that they had got an opportunity to finish Lakhan Singh and his family.Learned Counsel submitted that although PW-6 had also stated in her chief-examination that at the time of incident Rajbala had uttered that it was a golden opportunity to wipe out the family of Lakhan Singh but she did not state as to whether she had said so before the coming of her husband and her sons out of their house or after they had come while her husband PW-12 Lakhan Singh has claimed that Rajbala had caught hold of his wife and had also started beating her and then called her children by shouting that they had got an opportunity and they should come out and finish off the family of Lakhan Singh and hearing that lalkara her husband and three sons had come to the spot.Learned Counsel also contended that when the deceased Yoginder came to the spot and was allegedly assaulted by Kuldeep and Lalit Rajbala did not do anything at that time and further that while PW-12 has deposed that because of the blow given by accused Rajbala to his wife Usha Devi her two teeth had broken but PW-6 Usha Devi herself has not claimed that Rajbala had given any blow to her which broke her teeth and she had simply stated that Rajblala had taken her in her grip when she (PW-6) had come out of her house to save her husband.There is no medical evidence also to show that teeth of Usha Devi were broken in the incident.As far as PW-7 Vinod is concerned he has also not claimed that Rajbala had beaten his mother and that because of that beating her mother's teeth had broken.It was also pointed out that PW-7 has claimed that Rajbala had called out her husband and sons when he(PW-7) had gone to save his mother when Rajbala was grappling with her but PW-6 does not claim that Rajbala had called out her husband and sons when Vinod had come to save her when Rajbala had taken her in her grip.She did not claim that Vinod had come to her rescue.In these circumstances it becomes clear that as far as accused Rajbala and Rupesh are concerned they have been clearly roped in falsely just to invoke Section 149 IPC.Learned Counsel submitted that these flaws in the prosecution evidence in respect of accused Rajbala and Rupesh are sufficient enough to at least give them the benefit of doubt.Another submission made by learned Counsel for the appellants was that the prosecution has not examined any independent witness of the incident which is alleged to have taken place outside the house of the deceased and based on the evidence of the family members of the deceased only the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained.It was also argued that the prosecution has not been able to attribute any motive to the appellants for causing the death of Yoginder and that even though the eye witnesses had claimed that at some time there was some ill feeling between the appellants and the complainant party on account of cutting off of the peepal tree in the house of the complainant party which the appellants claimed to have been planted by their(appellants') ancestors but PW-12 Lakhan Singh, the father of the deceased, had also deposed that the parties had already reconciled which shows that that chapter was over and thereafter there could be no occasion for the appellants to have killed the deceased.Half heartedly it was also contended that the prosecution story that Kuldeep and Lalit had caused injuries to the deceased with churis becomes doubtful because the churis which allegedly were got recovered by accused Kuldeep were not shown to any of the eye witnesses for identification as weapons of offence.In any event, even if it is accepted that the incident did take place in the manner as deposed to by the eye witnesses none of the accused persons could be convicted for the offence of murder since the fatal injury was not on any vital part of the body and considering the fact that none of the other injuries also on the person of the deceased was caused on any vital part of his body it could not be said that the accused persons had intended to kill him and, so, as far as the nature of offence in respect of the deceased is concerned the same can at the highest be said to be one under Section 304(II) IPC and certainly not under Section 302 IPC.Even for the offence under Section 304(II) IPC all the appellants can not be convicted by invoking Section 149 IPC since there are no circumstances brought out on record by the prosecution from which it could be inferred that the common object of the so-called unlawful assembly of the appellants was to cause the death of Yoginder.Section 34 IPC also cannot be invoked in the facts and circumstances of the case since it cannot be said that all the appellants had shared common intention to cause the death of the deceased Yoginder and, therefore, all the appellants have to be dealt with as per their individual roles in the incident, if at all this Court accepts the prosecution version.PW-6 had admitted in cross-examination that prior to this incident there was never any quarrel with Intezar and Ansar(PO) over parking of rehris and so Intezar cannot be said to have become a member of the so-called unlawful assembly of the five other appellants with whom only, according to the prosecution case itself, the complainant party had a dispute over the cutting off of the peepal tree.It was further contended that the appellant Intezar Hussain cannot be attributed the knowledge that when the quarrel between him and PW-12 was going on the other five appellants would come out of their house and start assaulting the complainant party because of their own grudge against them.No other points were raised on behalf of any of the six appellants.It is quite possible that when this witness saw his father and brother being assaulted by seven persons he may have got frightened and did not gather the courage to come to their rescue.In any case, how someone should react at the time of this kind of an occurrence is not for the Courts to decide.Different persons can react differently on seeing the same occurrence and in a situation like the present one where the witness did not react in a particular manner in which according to learned Counsel for the appellants he should have reacted it cannot be said that he was not a witness of the occurrence resulting in the death of his brother.He was less than 18 years of age at the time of the incident and his not gathering courage to stop the assailants who had deadly weapons with them cannot be said to be an abnormal conduct.Another reason put forth by the learned Counsel for the appellants for discarding the evidence of PW-7 Vinod was that the MLC prepared in respect of the deceased at Khera Hospital(Ex.As far as PWs-6 and 12 are concerned their evidence is being sought to be discarded on the ground that they did not accompany their injured son to the hospital.In our view, for this reason the evidence of these two eye witnesses also cannot be considered to be unreliable.As has been noticed already, while narrating their evidence it is clear that when the incident was over they immediately told their other son Vinod to take Yoginder to DDU Hospital and then Vinod had taken Yoginder in a three wheeler scooter and then both these witnesses had also gone to DDU Hospital independently on a two wheeler scooter.PW-7 has claimed that since Khera Hospital was nearer to the place of occurrence he had decided to take his brother to that hospital and accordingly he took his brother to Khera Hospital and not to DDU Hospital and that is why PWs 6 and 12 on reaching DDU Hospital did not find them there.So, in these circumstances it cannot be said that the parents of the deceased acted abnormally in not going along with their injured son in the same three wheeler scooter in which he was taken by Vinod.PWs 6 and 12 were both injured in the same occurrence and, therefore, their presence at the place of occurrence where the deceased was fatally assaulted is beyond any doubt.The occurrence took place outside their own house during the late night period when they were expected to be present at their house and so their presence as also that of their son Vinod(PW-7) at the place of occurrence was quite natural.On behalf of appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 640/04 it was put to PW-6 Usha Devi in her cross-examination that she had received injuries at the hands of some boys of Mohammadon community who had collected at the spot after hearing the noise of abuses and had pelted stones.However, the plea taken by the accused persons that some mohammaden boys had injured PW-6 cannot be accepted since they have not substantiated the same by adducing any evidence.In fact, when they were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. they did not even take this plea at that time which shows that they had given up that stand and earlier they had taken a false plea which also shows their guilty mind.The MLCs Ex. PW-14/A and B in respect of PWs 6 and 12 respectively also corroborate their version that in the incident they had also got injured.In the cross-examination of PW-6 it was put to her that to begin with abuses were hurled between her husband on one side and accused Intezar Hussain and his brother Ansar on the other.It was also suggested to PW-6 in her cross-examination that in the incident Ran Singh, Rajbala and Kuldeep had also received injuries in the incident.The witness stated that she was not aware about that.This suggestion put to this witness also confirms that the incident did take place in the manner as deposed to by the witness.As far as the plea taken by accused that they had also received injuries in the same incident is concerned after putting this suggestion to PW-6 the same was not sought to be adopted when they were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. which shows that on this aspect also a false stand had been taken and that is also a strong circumstance to persuade us to accept the testimony of these eye witnesses.The evidence of the eye witnesses can also not be rejected for the reason that PW-7 Vinod does not claim that accused Intezar Hussain and Ansar had assaulted his father Lakhan Singh with dandas as has been claimed by his mother PW-6 Usha and PW-12 Lakhan Singh himself.PW-7 in his cross-examination had claimed in answer to a question that "when my father was being beaten by accused Intezar Hussain and Ansar with dandas my mother had gone to save him, but at that time I was standing outside my house but I had not gone to save my father at the spot." Thus, PW-7 also claims that his father was beaten by Intezar Hussain and Ansar also and, therefore, it cannot be said that there is any inconsistency in the versions of the three eye witnesses, as was the submission of the leaned counsel for the appellants.The evidence of the eye witnesses in respect of the assault on the deceased gets duly corroborated by the report of the autopsy surgeon, Ex. PW-13/A and as far as injuries to Usha Devi and Lakhan Singh are concerned the accused had themselves claimed that they were injured although not by them but by some other boys, which plea of theirs we have found to be false.Their evidence also gets corroborated from the prompt lodging of the FIR in which PW-7 narrated the manner in which the incident took place.So, we have no hesitation in accepting the evidence of the eye witnesses in respect of accused Ran Singh, Intezar Hussain, Kuldeep and Lalit.However, considering the inconsistencies highlighted by the learned Counsel for the appellants regarding the role of accused Rajbala and Rupesh we feel inclined to extend benefit of doubt to them which doubt we consider to be fair.It is a matter of common knowledge that at times there is a tendency on the part of the prosecution to exaggerate the guilt of other side and to implicate persons considered to be sympathisers of the real assailants.As noticed already, all the three eye witnesses have claimed that there was a dispute between the families of the complainant side and the appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 640/04 over the cutting of peepal tree by the complainant side from their house.It has also been claimed by PW-6 that when they started construcing their house the accused persons had extended threat to them saying that they will have to face the consequences for cutting the peepal tree.This part of her statement could not be got falsified in her cross-examination.PW-12 Lakhan Singh has also deposed that because of the removal of the peepal tree by him from his house the accused (PWs 6 and 12 were both referring to the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 640/04) had threatened him when he was constructing his house but at that time he had advised his wife to maintain her cool and not to unnecessarily talk with Ran Singh's family.There is no doubt that PW-12 had also claimed that the matter was reconciled but that does not mean that Ran Singh and his family could not have been thereafter nursing any ill-will towards the complainant party within their hearts.Motive for any crime is normally hidden within the perpetrator of the crime and it is very difficult to get direct evidence about that.The manner in which Ran Singh and his sons behaved at the time of occurrence clearly shows that they were still having grievance against the complainant party for their having cut off the peepal tree which they(Ran Singh and family) were claiming to have been planted by their own ancestors.It is not in dispute that for many people peepal tree has special value.In the present case the complainant party has not claimed that the peepal tree had been planted by them.They have also not disputed the claim of the Ran Singh's family that it was planted by their ancestors.Complainant party has also not disputed that the house in which the peepal tree was there belonged to one Maha Singh, who was related to Ran Singh's family.In these circumstances, it can be safely said that Ran Singh's family must be having the grievance against Lakhan Singh and his family for their having cut off the peepal tree planted and grown up by their ancestors.There was, thus, a motive also for Ran Singh and his family to commit the crime.As far as Intezar Hussain is concerned there is no doubt that he had no prior enmity with the complainant party but even in the absence of any motive he could be held guilty relying upon the trustworthy evidence of the eye witnesses regarding his joining the other accused along with his brother Ansar in the assault on the deceased.Here we may make a useful reference to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Dhool Singh wherein also a similar objection was raised but was rejected.In that case the fatal injury was caused with a sword and the accused had got recovered one sword.The autopsy surgeon had opined that the injuries on the deceased were caused by a sharp edged weapon.The sword got recovered by the accused was not produced in Court.It was argued before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on behalf of the convicted accused that non-production of the sword and the prosecution not getting it identified from the concerned witnesses should lead to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to establish the fact that the accused had caused the fatal injury with a sword.Hon'ble Supreme Court repelled that argument and held that even if the prosecution had not established that the fatal injury was caused by a particular sword that would not make the prosecution case doubtful because it had been established from evidence of the witnesses that the accused had caused the fatal injury with a sharp edged cutting weapon.So, in the present case also the prosecution case cannot be doubted for the reason that the weapons of offence were not shown to the eye witnesses during their evidence.Having reached the afore-said conclusions that in the incident accused Ran Singh, his sons Kuldeep and Lalit and accused Intezar Hussain and the proclaimed offender had participated in the manner stated by the three eye witnesses the next question which now arises for consideration is the applicability of Section 149 IPC.It is the prosecution case that the initial incident took place only between appellant - accused Intezar Hussain and his brother Ansar(proclaimed offender) on one side and PW-12 Lakhan Singh on the other side on account of parking of rehris by Intezar Hussain in front of the house of Lakhan Singh and, therefore, it is clear that at that time there was no unlawful assembly since for an unlawful assembly as contemplated under Section 141 IPC there has to be a group of minimum five persons getting together, inter-alia, to commit some offence.However, when accused Ran Singh along with his sons Kuldeep and Lalit came to the spot and started assaulting the deceased and his father and Intezar Hussain and his brother(proclaimed offender) also joined that assault on the deceased by giving him danda blows and also by beating PW-12 Lakhan Singh with dandas at that stage these five persons definitely constituted an unlawful assembly for committing an offence.It was also the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the common object of the unlawful assembly, in any event, could not be said to be to cause the death of Yoginder considering the fact that the injuries were not caused on any vital part of the body of the deceased and at the most it can be said to be to cause injuries to all the family members of Lakhan Singh and, therefore, all the accused persons could not be held responsible for the fatal injury caused by accused Kuldeep .We, do not subscribe to this argument.In order to find out as to what was the common object of an unlawful assembly the conduct of the members of the assembly at the scene of occurrence, weapons used by them and the nature of injuries inflicted by them can be considered as indicators of their object which can even be formed on the spur of the moment also.No prior concert is necessary.In our view, considering the fact that accused Kuldeep and Lalit were having churis in their hands and immediately on coming to the spot accused Ran Singh caught hold of the deceased Yoginder, who had in the mean time come out of his house to save his father, and then accused Lalit gave a knife blow on the chest of Yoginder and Kuldeep gave a knife blow on the back side of the chest, which injury was found to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, and Intezar Hussain and his brother also gave danda blows to the deceased there can be no manner of doubt that the common object of that unlawful assembly which developed at that time was to cause the death of Yoginder and injuries to his parents.That is also evident from the fact that when the father of the deceased had tried to save him from the assault he was also beaten up.For the fore-going reasons, we do not find any merit in the challenge of appellants Ran Singh, Kuldeep, Lalit and Intezar Hussan to their convictions under Sections 302/323/149 IPC and as a consequence of this finding of ours the conviction of appellants Ran Singh, Kuldeep, Lalit and Intezar Hussain has to be upheld.However, as far as appellants Rajbala and Rupesh are concerned, they deserve to be acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt.In the result, we allow Criminal Appeal No. 640/04 partly by acquitting appellants Rajbala and Rupesh of all the charges.The conviction of appellants Ran Singh, Kuldeep and Lalit under Sections 302/323/149 IPC and the sentences awarded to them are maintained.Criminal Appeal No. 722/04 of Intezar Hussain is dismissed.Appellants Ran Singh and Intezar Hussain are stated to be on bail but now as a result of dismissal of their appeal they shall be taken into custody immediately to serve out the sentences awarded to them by the trial Court and upheld by this Court and compliance report shall be submitted to this Court within a month.Other three appellants, namely, Kuldeep, Lalit and Rupesh are stated to be already in jail.Since Rupesh stands acquitted he shall be released forthwith, if not required to be detained for any other crime.	['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
117,394,508	The facts of the prosecution case as stated by Jai Pal (PW.5) arethat he was carrying business of taxi in Shimla.On 31st December, 2000 atabout 9 p.m. he had gone to Hotel Apsara at Cart Road, Shimla to inquirefrom Budhi Singh (PW.8), Manager of the Hotel Apsara regarding the bookingof his taxi by some passenger staying in the Hotel.Budhi Singh (PW.8)asked Jai Pal (PW.5) to come after some time.Both of them then wenttogether to Hotel Basant for celebrating New Year.They took wine anddinner together and remained in the said Hotel till 12 o’clock.Thereafter,Budhi Singh(PW.8) returned to Hotel Apsara while Jai Pal (PW.5) cametowards Cart Road where he met Romi Kapoor (PW.6), Pawan Kumar (PW.7), DeepChand and Rajnish alias Rintu who inquired about the booking of a room inthe Hotel as earlier agreed upon.Jai Pal (PW.5) went to the Hotel Apsarawhere he did not find Budhi Singh (PW.8), Therefore, he went upstairs inthe Hall of the Hotel where he found accused Manjeet Singh along withBalraj and Surender Kumar were taking liquor.Jai Pal (PW.5) inquired fromthe appellant-accused, Manjeet Singh about the Manager of the Hotel towhich the accused was alleged to have retorted that he was not theChowkidar of the Hotel so as to know and tell about the Manager.Accused-Manjeet Singh was further alleged to have started abusing Jai Pal (PW.5) byproclaiming that he was serving in Punjab Police.The accused was furtheralleged to have started beating Jai Pal (PW.5) by giving him a fist blow onhis mouth.Jai Pal (PW.5) ran outside.He met the above-named Romi Kapoor(PW.6), Deep Chand, Pawan Kumar (PW.7) and Rajnish.He narrated theincident to them.Romi Kapoor (PW.6), Rajnish alias Rintu and Pawan Kumar(PW.7) went inside the Hall while Jai Pal (PW.5) and one Roshan remainedstanding at the entrance of the Hotel.Rajnish alias Rintu inquired fromthe accused-Manjeet Singh as to the cause of his having given beatings toJai Pal (PW.5).The accused was alleged to have told his companions, Balrajand Surender Kumar to tell Rajnish and his friends about the cause of thebeatings to Jai Pal (PW.5).Balraj and Surender Kumar were then alleged tohave abetted and instigated the accused by saying “Carbine Ka KamalDekhao”.Whereupon accused was alleged to have fired shots from his Carbinewhich hit Rajnish alias Rintu, Romi Kapoor (PW.6), Jai Pal (PW.5) and PawanKumar (PW.7).Rajnish alias Rintu sustained two shots on his chest and hefell down on the ground.The accused and Balraj were alleged to have runaway after the gun shots.Jai Pal (PW.5) lifted Rajnish alias Rintu andcarried him to I.G.M.C. Hospital, Shimla, where he was declared dead.On the telephonic message of one Pradeep Kumar, Jagdish Ram(PW.25), Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar reached the spot.Surender Kumar, a companion of the accused, was apprehended from the toiletof the Hotel.Post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. V.K. Mishra (PW.24)who found the following two ante-mortem bullet injuries on the person ofthe deceased Rajnish alias Rintu:“(i) A circular wound of entry one centimeter in diameter, 1.5 cm medial to right nipple, 18 cm below right shoulder joint.Dry clotted blood was present around the wound.There was no blackening, tattooing, singeing, burning etc;“Local InjuriesA CLW 1.5 cm in size placed in the middle of inner side of upper lip placed obliquely upwards and lately on left side, reddish scabbing over lip present with clotted blood.A bruise present over upper lip in the centre reddish blue in colour 1 cm X 0.5 cm in size placed vertically.No other injury was present.Teeth were normal.Injuries No.1and 2 were simple and the duration of injuries was within 24 hours and were caused by blunt weapon.” After his examination Doctor has issued MLC Ext.PW-1/D.The accused-Manjeet Singh too was subjected to medical examination,which was carried out by Dr. Dinesh Rana (PW.2) on 1st January, 2001 atabout 5.55 p.m. The accused at the time of such medical examinationcomplained of pain in the fifth knuckle region of the left hand.X-ray wasadvised.However, local examination revealed the presence of a red colourcontusion and swelling on such knuckle region.PW5/C were taken into possession by GulamMohammad(PW.26), Additional Station House Officer of Police Station Sadar,who had partially investigated the case.Six live cartridges Ex.P1 to P6were also produced by the accused, which were taken into possession vidememo Ex.PW5/D by Gulam Mohammad(PW.26).Six empty cartridges were takeninto possession from the spot by Gulam Mohammad(PW.26) vide memo Ex.SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.By the impugned judgment the High Court dismissed theappeal and affirmed the judgment passed by the Trial Court dated 27thMarch, 2002 in Sessions Trial No.17-S/7 of 2001 wherein the Trial Courtconvicted the appellant and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and alsoto pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 302 IPC and indefault, further imprisonment for one year.The appellant was alsosentenced by the Trial Court for the offence under Section 324 IPC toundergo imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, indefault, further simple imprisonment for one month.The appellant was alsosentenced for the offence under Section 27 of Arms Act to undergoimprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default,further simple imprisonment for one month.The Trial Court ordered thatall the aforesaid sentences shall run concurrently.(ii) A circular wound of entry 1 cm x ½ cm between the base of 1st and 2nd metatarsal bone of left foot, dorsum with dry clotted blood present around the wound.No blackening, tattooing, singeing, burning etc. noticed over the skin.” In the opinion of Dr. V.K. Mishra (PW.24), the death was due tohaemorrhagic shock as a result of laceration of lung due to gun shotinjury.On Medical Examination of Romi Kappor (PW.6), Dr. M.P. Singh(PW.1)found the following injuries on the person of Romi Kapoor:“Local ExaminationA CLW 1 cm X 0.5 cm X 1 cm in size placed horizontally on little side of left upper arm on lower part of deltoid muscle, red in colour with dark edges due to soot with irregular margins which were depressed.2. A. CLW 1 cm 0.5 cm 1 cm in size placed horizontally approximately 2.5 cm lateral to first would on lateral inside of left upper arm on lower part of deltoid muscle with irregular margins elevated and margins deliberated red in colour.Same marks were present over sweater and shirt worn.” As per the opinion of the doctor, injuries Nos.1 & 2 were bulletinjuries and the same were dangerous to the life as per rule of gun shotinjuries.The Doctor has also issued MLC Ext. PW-2/B in respect of the saidinjuries.On the same day, Dr. M.P. Singh (PW.1) has also examined injuredPawan Kumar and observed as under:“Local injuries:A CLW over right foot approximately 5 cm about tip of right big toeplaced horizontally 1 cm 0.5 cm 1 cm in size with irregular margins redin colour.A bruise bluish in colour present 1 cm X 0.5 cm in size placed obliquelyover fifth metatars o-phalangel joint running lately on right foot.On the basis of x-ray report, the injury Nos.1 and 2 were declared dangerous to the life and were fresh in duration and were caused by a blunt weapon.The Doctor has issued MLC Ext.PW-1/C.” On the same day, Dr. M.P. Singh (PW.1) has also examined injuredJai Pal (PW.5) and found as under:The accused also complainedof breaking of upper incisor tooth.He was referred to Dental Surgeon.Onthe basis of dental opinion, such injury was opined to be of a simplenature having been caused within the probable duration of 24 hours.Balraj, a companion of the accused, was also medically examined byDr.Dinesh Rana (PW.2).Following injuries were found on his person:“(i) 4 cm 1 cm abrasion over the dorsum of right fore-arm;(ii) 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm round abrasion red in colour, above the writ joint;(iii) 3.5 cm x 2 cm abrasion, read in colour with linear scratch in the mid. 3 cm outer aspect of the left knee joint;(iv) Multiple irregular abrasions on the entire lateral aspect of the left lower leg.Red in colour, and(v) Small irregular abrasion on the left side of the forehead.Red in colour.” All the injuries were opined to be of simple nature having been causedwith a blunt weapon within the probable duration of 24 hours.The other companion of the accused, namely, Surender Kumar wasmedically examined by Dr. Rajneesh Sharma (PW.4) on 1st January, 2001 atabout 4.35 a.m. One injury, that is, laceration over the fore-head 1.5 cm x1 cm x 0.5 cm was found.He was smelling of liquor and there was slurringof speech.The injury was simple in nature having been caused with a bluntweapon with the probable duration of 6 hours.On having been produced by the accused, Carbine-Ex.P4 with emptymagazine vide memo Ex.PW5/E.Service belt of the accused, which was lying on the bed in the Hall of theHotel was also taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW5/F.The Ballistic Expert to whom the carbine, live and empty cartridgeswere sent for examination, vide report Ex.On completion of the investigation the accused along with his twocompanions Balraj and Surinder Kumar were sent up for trial.His twocompanions, Balraj and Surinder Kumar, were charged for the offence underSection 114 read with Sections 302 and 307 IPC, for having abetted andinstigated the commission of the offences under Section 302 and 307 IPC bythe accused.The accused and his two companions pleaded not guilty to the chargeand claimed trial.The prosecution in support of its case examined as manyas 26 witnesses.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on consideration of theevidence coming on the record, by the impugned judgment, convicted andsentenced the accused- Manjeet Singh as mentioned above.The accused was acquitted of the offence under Section 307 IPC.Thetwo companions of the accused, Balraj and Surinder Kumar were acquitted ofall the charges framed against them.By the impugned judgment the High Court noticed the submission madeon behalf of the appellant and on appreciation of the evidence on recorddismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentences imposed bythe Trial Court.Evidence on record also does not establish that the injuriescaused on the body of the deceased must in all probability cause his deathor likely to cause his death.On the spur of the moment, during the heat ofexchange of words accused caused injuries on the body of the deceased whichcaused his death.Therefore, the ingredients of the murder as defined inSection 300, IPC, have not been established against the accused.For Respondent(s) Ms. Pragati Neekhra,Adv.	['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
117,395,460	Heard Sri Raghubir Singh Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Prashant Kumar, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been moved with a prayer to quash the criminal proceedings registered as complaint case no. 5475 of 2017 (Smt. Rajani vs. Roop Singh and others) under sections 498A, IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act Police Station Shahganj, District Agra as well as summoning order dated 12.04.2018, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.4, Agra.The son of applicant no. 1 Ravindra was killed by the father of opposite party no. 2 Pooran Singh and his other family members regarding which an FIR was lodged by the applicant no.2 against the father of opposite party no.2 and his family members on 10.6.2015 as case crime no.484 of 2015 under sections 147, 302, 406 IPC.As a counter-blast of that case, the present criminal proceedings have been initiated.The applicants have been falsely implicated.Issue notice to opposite party no. 2 returnable at an early date.Both the opposite parties shall file counter affidavits by the next date fixed.List this matter on 24.9.2018 before appropriate bench.	['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,173,971	There was old tear of her hymen.The prosecutrix was about 17 years of age.There was no threat or intimidation.But the accused must have had pre-arranged plan with her and there must have been some inducement or solicitation on his part to meet in the midnight and leave for another village to enjoy sex.JUDGMENT S.P. Khare, J.Appellant Bhajanlal has been convicted under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 506B, IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years, five years, seven years and two years respectively.He has also been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- on each count.(Section 366 is only an aggravated form of the offence under Section 363, IPC and therefore there could not be conviction under both the sections).It is not in dispute that Pinki alias Sumanbai (P.W. 1) is daughter of Shankerlal (P.W. 4) and Sarojbai (P.W. 6).They are residents of Village Madgula.Accused Bhajanlal is aged about 25 years and he lives in front of their house.The prosecutrix was sleeping in the intervening night of 11th and 12th June, 2000 in her house but she was found missing in the morning.The accused was also not in his house.Both of them went to Village Kanhargaon and they were there in the house of the sister of the accused for about three days.The prosecution case is that the prosecutrix aged about 15 years got up at about 1 A.M. and went behind her house to pass urine and at that time the accused put a knife on her neck and took her to Village Kanhargaon and has sexual intercourse with her several times during a period of three days and he did so forcibly.She was brought back by her cousin Vijay (P.W. 5) and then she narrated the incident to her parents.She was sent for medical examination and it was found that she had old tear of hymen.The accused pleaded not guilty.In the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses it has been suggested that the prosecutrix went with the accused of her own accord and she was fully a consenting party.The Trial Court after appreciation of the evidence on record held that the prosecutrix was about 17 years of age and was taken by the accused on the point of knife and he had forcible sexual intercourse with her after threatening her.In this appeal, it is argued that the prosecutrix was more than 18 years of age as the date of her birth is 12-5-1982 and she went with the accused out of her own free will and consent.The evidence on record has been scanned by this Court.Chotelal (P.W. 3) is the Kotwar of the village.He has produced a "note-book" (Ex. P-6) in which according to him the date of birth of Sumanbai has been shown as "12-5-1982".He has then considered the report Ex. P-5 of the ossification test conducted by Dr. Subhlaxmi Gatlewar (P.W. 2) and the usual margin of error of two years and recorded the finding that the prosecutrix was 17 years of age on the date she is said to have been taken by the accused.This finding cannot be said to be perverse or unreasonable and it has not been challenged on behalf of the prosecution before this Court and therefore, it has to be accepted as correct.A close reading of the deposition sheet of the prosecutrix reveals that she was definitely a consenting party.She voluntarily accompanied the accused and he was not having knife at any point of time.It is undisputed that she disappeared in the night from her house.She claims that she went for urination on the back side of her house from the front door and the accused emerged with a knife.He lives in front of her house.In all probability she left the house of her parents quietly after making exit from the front door.She says that he took her on cycle from her village to several places like Bamhauri, Gardha, Gadarwara and then to Kanhargaon and all the time she was sitting on the front on the cycle holding the handle.In the FIR and in her statement under Section 161, Cr.PC (Ex. P-l) and (Ex. D-2) she has stated that she was taken by the accused on feet.She could not walk such a long distance on feet.She went with the accused on cycle without any murmur.The accused took her to the house of his sister and that is also indicative of the consensual affair.It is difficult to believe her version that he was armed with knife on each occasion.The story of brandishing of knife by the accused appears to have been invented by the prosecutrix out of the instinct of her self preservation so that she is not chastised for her conduct.She has admitted that the accused expressed that they belong to the same caste and he would marry her.She was served food by the sister of the accused.	['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
86,214,640	The permission is granted.Case diary is available.This is first bail application filed by the applicant/accused under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest in Crime No. 32/2016, Police Station- Station Road, District Morena (M.P.), offence registered under Sections 354, 354B, 323, 506, 34 of IPC and 7/8 of Protection of Children from Sexual OffencesIndisputedly the applicant/accused is a juvenile.The application filed by the juvenile is not maintainable under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., owing to which, the learned counsel for the applicant/accused seeks permission to withdraw this application.The application is hereby dismissed as withdrawn.	['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
86,219,018	The instant writ application has been preferred challenging inter alia the denial of the respondents to grant compensation to the petitioner for the loss suffered by her due to the murder of her son.Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts are that Sanjoy Chakraborty, the son of the petitioner and his two friends, namely, Radha Mohan Mali and Samiran Ghosh were returning from Serampore to Belur through G.T. Road at midnight on 3rd September, 2003, at about 12:30 a.m., when they were flagged down for checking by three men who identified themselves as police officers.The two friends of the victim accordingly stopped for such checking which was conducted by one Santanu Chakraborty, one Swapan Sengupta and one Jahar Modak but the victim did not stop and proceeded further riding his motor bike and accordingly the said Swapan Sengupta contacted one Purnendu Samanta, police constable, over mobile phone and informed him that the victim had defied their signal to stop.The said Swapan Sengupta and Santanu Chakraborty chased the said victim on a scooter up to Bally Khal College and upon reaching the said site they found the victim lying next to his motor bike but Purnendu Samanta was not found.They immediately took the victim to the hospital where it was certified that the victim was brought dead.Accordingly, such executive enquiry into the incident of police firing under Regulation 157 of the Police Regulations of Bengal, 1953, was conducted and the report was forwarded to the respondent no.2 vide memorandum dated 4th February, 2008 but thereafter no follow up action was taken by the respondents.The charge under Section 302 of the IPC was framed against the accused, namely, Purnendu Samanta to which he pleaded not guilty and as such the trial commenced and almost 5 years thereafter the judgment was delivered on 18th April, 2008 in S.T. No.2/2006/ S.C. No.204/05 and the learned Court sentenced Purnendu Samanta to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 more years.Subsequent thereto, on 3rd December, 2008 the petitioner made a representation to the respondent no.2 demanding compensation for the murder of her son but the same was not responded to.Records reveal that the writ application was admitted by an order dated 21st July, 2009 with a direction towards exchange of affidavits.But in spite of such direction no affidavit-in- opposition was filed by the respondents and no extension of time to file such opposition was sought for.By an order dated 17th February, 2015 the respondent no.2 was directed to file a substantive report as regards the steps taken by the respondents relating to the petitioner's claim accompanied with the executive enquiry report as referred to in the document dated 3rd December, 2008 at page 92 of the writ application, within a period of 4 weeks from the date of the communication of the order.Upon conducting a full-fledged enquiry, the Deputy Magistrate arrived at the following findings on 4th February, 2008:	['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.
86,219,051	HR 26AV MAC.Nos.616/2016, 594/2016, 612/2016 & 615/2016 Page 2 of 75 0007 in Sector-29, Gurgaon.Four persons, namely, Rajinder Kumar Chopra, his wife - Veena Chopra, daughter - Kshama Chopra and son-in-lawNos.616/2016, 594/2016, 612/2016 & 615/2016 Page 2 of 75- Shailesh Shetye were travelling in the Indigo car which was driven by Sanjay Gulati.The accident dated 05th May, 2012 between Indigo and BMW is not disputed.The presence of Suraj Sherawat and Daksh Jaiswal in BMW is also not disputed.Suraj Sherawat ran away after the accident, is also not disputed.Nos.616/2016, 594/2016, 612/2016 & 615/2016 Page 4 of 75On 5th May, 2012 at about 12:15 P.M., Rajinder Kumar Chopra along with his wife - Veena Chopra; daughter - Kshama Chopra and son-in-law - Shailesh Shetye were returning home in Indigo car No. DL 3 TC 0366 from Medanta Hospital, Gurgaon where Rajinder Kumar Chopra was admitted for cardiac ailment.Indigo car was being driven by its driver, Sanjay Gulati.When the Indigo car reached the inter-section near Leisure Park Valley, IFFCO Tower, Sector 29, Gurgaon; it was hit by BMW bearing No.HR 26 AV 0007 which came from South side.BMW hit the Indigo car from right side with such a great force that the Indigo turned turtle due to the impact and was thrown at a distance.The occupants of the Indigo were taken by public to Max Hospital, Gurgaon where Kshama Chopra and Sanjay Gulati, driver of Indigo car were declared brought dead.The driver and occupant of BMW were taken out by the public.The driver of BMW ran away from the spot after the accident whereas the occupant, Daksh Jaiswal was taken to MAX Hospital, Gurgaon in an injured condition.The police registered FIR No.178 of 2012 dated 5th May, 2012 under Sections 279/337/338/304A I.P.C. with P.S. Qutub Enclave, Gurgaon on the statement of Rajinder Kumar Chopra that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of BMW.The police recovered a bag from BMW which contained the books of B.Com (Hons.) 1st year and two roll number cards with photographs of Suraj MAC.Nos.616/2016, 594/2016, 612/2016 & 615/2016 Page 5 of 75 and Daksh Jaiswal issued by ARSD College, New Delhi which were shown to the eye witnesses of the accident who identified the photograph of Suraj on his roll number card and told the police that Suraj was driving the BMW at the time of accident.Nos.616/2016, 594/2016, 612/2016 & 615/2016 Page 5 of 75The police on investigation found that Suraj was driving BMW and only two persons namely Suraj and Daksh Jaiswal were travelling in BMW at the time of accident.The Crime Team of the police examined vehicles as well as scene of the accident.The Crime Team found both the air bags of BMW were open i.e. of driver seat and the seat next to the driver.On 11th May, 2012, the police interrogated Devinder, owner of the BMW, who told the police that Suraj and Daksh Jaiswal (hereinafter referred as "Daksh") were travelling in BMW which was being driven by Rajesh alias Raja (hereinafter referred as "Rajesh").On 12th May, 2012, the police issued notice to the Devinder to produce Suraj as well as Rajesh.On 12th May, 2012, Rajesh appeared before Chief Judicial Magistrate claiming to be the driver of BMW at the time of the accident which was opposed by the police on the ground that BMW was driven by Suraj at the time of the accident.On 13th May, 2012, the Commissioner of Police, Haryana formed a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by ACP Bhupinder Singh to investigate the case.On 13th May, 2012, the SIT recorded the statement of injured eye- witness, Shailesh Shetye that only two persons were there in the car and he can identify the driver.Nos.616/2016, 594/2016, 612/2016 & 615/2016 Page 6 of 75On 14th May, 2012, the Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the application of Rajesh on the ground that there was no evidence against Rajesh.This order was not challenged before any Court.On 15th May, 2012, Suraj surrendered before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon and obtained bail.On 17th May, 2012, Chief Judicial Magistrate directed Suraj to produce his driving licence and give blood sample.On 24th May, 2012, Suraj joined the investigation.According to the case diary of the Crime Team, Suraj admitted before the police that he was driving BMW at the time of the accident.Nos.616/2016, 594/2016, 612/2016 & 615/2016 Page 7 of 75 relates to the death of Kshama Chopra.PW-1/2 (Colly) and charge-sheet as Ex.In cross- examination, PW-1 deposed that the accused, Suraj was not having any driving licence at the time of the accident and was challaned under Sections 3/180/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. PW-1 deposed that he investigated the case for 3-4 days and thereafter, the case was handed over to Special MAC.Nos.616/2016, 594/2016, 612/2016 & 615/2016 Page 8 of 75 Investigation Team.PW-1 further deposed that only two persons were in BMW at the time of accident as per the eye-witnesses.Nos.616/2016, 594/2016, 612/2016 & 615/2016 Page 8 of 7534. PW-3, Rajinder Kumar Chopra was travelling in the Indigo at the time of the accident and the FIR was registered on his statement.He deposed that he saw only two persons sitting in BMW and police informed him that Suraj was driving BMW at the time of the accident.He denied the suggestion that three persons were sitting in BMW.PW-7, in cross-examination, deposed that BMW was being driven at the speed of approx.150 km per hour whereas the Indigo was being driven very slowly.He further deposed that he was fully conscious after the accident and his statement was recorded by the police in Max Hospital, Gurgaon.He deposed that only two persons were travelling in BMW.Nos.616/2016, 594/2016, 612/2016 & 615/2016 Page 15 of 75Kshama, aged 33 years was pregnant at the time of the accident and was survived by her husband, Shailesh Shetye.The deceased was working with IBM India as a Management Consultant upto 12 th March, 2012 at a salary of Rs.1,46,178.95 per month.The Claims Tribunal computed loss to the estate as Rs.98,23,300/-.The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.1 lakh towards loss of love and affection, Rs.1 lakh towards loss of consortium and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses.Vide order dated 29th August, 2016, this Court directed the Investigating Officer of FIR No.178/2012, P.S. Sector-29, DLF Qutub Enclave, Gurgaon to appear along with the relevant record.On 06th September, 2016, the Police informed this Court that SIT constituted by the Commissioner of Police, Haryana has charge-sheeted Suraj.This Court directed the Police to place on record the charge-sheet and MAC.Nos.616/2016, 594/2016, 612/2016 & 615/2016 Page 16 of 75 the relevant statements/documents and a brief note of the investigation carried out.Nos.616/2016, 594/2016, 612/2016 & 615/2016 Page 16 of 75On 06th September, 2016, the Police filed a brief note of investigation along with the charge-sheet and the relevant statements/documents.As per the brief note, the eye witness, Jitender identified the driver of BMW as Suraj after looking at the photograph on the roll number card of Suraj found in BMW.The brief note of investigation of Haryana Police is reproduced hereunder: -I reside at the aforesaid address and do labour work.On 05.05.12, I was present at IFFCO Tower Chowk.It was about 12-12:15 PM when a White Coloured Tata Indigo came towards Leisure Valley Farm's side in which three male and two female total five passengers were seated.As they were about to cross the intersection, a silver coloured BMW car came towards Huda City Centre's side, the driver of which was driving at a very high speed and in a reckless manner.Two youngsters were sitting in the car.The driver rammed into Tata Indigo.Resultantly, the Tata Indigo car flipped other side.People took out all the persons from the cars and removed them to hospital.No independent witness was examined to show that there were three persons in BMW.The positive evidence of PW7, Shailesh Shetye was discarded only to the extent of negligence aspect, stating him not to be a natural witness.No reason has been given in the award for PW7, Shailesh Shetye to be an interested witness to implicate any one driver instead of another.The finding of the Claims Tribunal holding drivers of both the cars to be negligent is contrary to the evidence on record that Indigo was being driven very slowly as it had a heart patient, Rajinder Kumar Chopra who was discharged from Medanta Hospital after his bye- pass surgery whereas BMW was being driven at 150 km per hour and BMW hit the Indigo with such a great force that the Indigo turned turtle and was thrown at a long distance.Nos.616/2016, 594/2016, 612/2016 & 615/2016 Page 25 of 7558.2. PW-3, Rajinder Kumar Chopra did not see who was driving BMW at the time of the accident whereas PW-7, Shailesh Shetye was unfit to give statement when he was taken to the hospital and he was not aware as to who was driving BMW at the time of the accident.Rajesh appeared in the witness box as R1W2 and deposed that he was driving BMW at the time of the accident.- If Suraj had remained on spot or if he had reported to the police within 24 hours, the identity of the driver would not have been in dispute.- Suraj chose to run away from the spot and surrendered after 10 days without given any justification from which the natural presumption is that he was driving BMW at the time of accident.The effect of this presumption is to shift the onus on Suraj to prove that he was not driving BMW and Suraj has chosen not to discharge the burden by entering the witness box and examining an independent witness.- The driver of the Indigo car could not notice BMW because it suddenly came on the scene due to very high speed.- The contrary findings of the Claims Tribunal are perverse and hereby set aside.The appellant has challenged four awards passed by the Claims Tribunal whereby following compensation has been awarded: - 1.1 Compensation for death of Kshama Chopra: Rs.1,00,48,300/- 1.2 Compensation for death of Veena Chopra: Rs.79,84,888/- 1.3 Compensation for injuries to Rajinder Kumar Chopra: Rs.2,83,300/- 1.4 Compensation for injuries to Shailesh Shetye:These four appeals arise out of an accident dated 05th May, 2012 between Indigo car bearing No. DL 3TC 0366 and BMW car No.The accident resulted in the death of three persons, namely, Sanjay Gulati (driver of Indigo car), Veena Chopra and Kshama Chopra, and grievous injuries to two persons namely, Rajinder Kumar Chopra and Shailesh Shetye.The driver of BMW car ran away from the spot after being taken out by the public whereas the driver of Indigo car, four occupants of Indigo car and one occupant of BMW car were taken by the public to Max Hospital.According to the claimants, only two persons were travelling in BMW at the time of the accident and Suraj Sherawat was driving BMW whereas Daksh Jaiswal was sitting on the front seat beside him.The police, on investigation, found this to be correct and the charge-sheet was filed only against Suraj Sherawat.The Court, dealing with the criminal case, has framed the charge only against Suraj Sherawat.The appellant is the insurer of BMW.According to the appellant, there is conscious breach of the insurance policy by the insured by permitting BMW to be driven by Suraj Sherawat who was not holding a driving licence at the time of accident and, therefore, the appellant cannot be held liable to pay compensation to the claimants.Suraj Sherawat admits that he was in BMW at the time of the accident but claims that he was sitting on the front seat beside the driver and the car was being driven by his relative, Rajesh alias Raja, who was holding a driving licence.Rajesh alias Raja appeared before the Court of Chief MAC.Nos.616/2016, 594/2016, 612/2016 & 615/2016 Page 3 of 75 Judicial Magistrate claiming to be the driver of BMW but his application was dismissed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon.Nos.616/2016, 594/2016, 612/2016 & 615/2016 Page 3 of 75Following questions arose for consideration before the Claims Tribunal:-Whether two or three persons were travelling in BMW at the time of the accident?Whether Suraj Sherawat was driving BMW at the time of accident, as alleged by the claimants and appellant or Rajesh alias Raja was driving BMW as alleged by Suraj Sherawat?The Claims Tribunal surprisingly did not give any finding as to the number of persons in BMW and who was driving BMW at the time of the accident.The Claims Tribunal held that it was unable to decide the above question but still held the appellant liable on the ground that there was a valid insurance policy.Whether a Claims Tribunal can decline to adjudicate the issues raised before it?Can the Claims Tribunal pass an award against the Insurance Company without determining who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident?Suraj Sherawat and Devinder Singh (owner of the BMW and father of Suraj Sherawat) are respondents No.2 and 3 respectively in MAC.Nos.594/2016, 612/2016, 615/2016 whereas they are respondents No.6 and 7 MAC.Nos.616/2016, 594/2016, 612/2016 & 615/2016 Page 4 of 75 respectively in MAC.For the sake of convenience, Suraj Sherawat and Devinder Singh are referred to as "Suraj" and "Devinder" respectively instead of respondent numbers in this judgment.On 07th August, 2012, the police added Sections 3/180/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act against Suraj for driving BMW without a driving licence.On 09th August, 2012, the police filed the challan against Suraj under Sections 279/337/338/304A IPC and Sections 3/180/181 of Motor Vehicles Act before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon.On 23rd January, 2014, Veena Chopra succumbed to her injuries suffered during the accident whereupon her legal representatives were brought on record.All the four claim petitions were consolidated by the Claims Tribunal on 01st November, 2012 and the case of Shailesh Shetye vs. Suraj Sherawat, Suit No. 169/12 was taken as a lead case.The appellant in reply to an application dated 05th May, 2016 under Order I Rule 10 CPC in MAC.616/2016 disclosed before the Claims Tribunal that the legal representatives of Sanjay Gulati (driver of Indigo) filed a claim petition bearing Suit No.399/2014 titled Vineeta Gulati v. Devinder Singh which was pending before the Claims Tribunal, Tis Hazari, Delhi.The claimants examined 13 witnesses out of which the statements of the following witnesses are relevant to decide as to who was driving the BMW at the time of the accident: -PW-1 - Jagdish Rai, Investigating Officer of FIR No.178/2012; PW-3 - Rajinder Kumar Chopra; and PW-7 - Shailesh Shetye33. PW-1, Jagdish Rai, Investigating Officer produced the record of the criminal case and exhibited FIR No.178/2012 as Ex.PW-1/1, criminal case record as Ex.35. PW-7, Shailesh Shetye was travelling in the Indigo at the time of the accident and he deposed that only two persons were sitting in BMW at the time of accident and Suraj was driving the offending vehicle.PW-7 was cross-examined at length.He denied the suggestion that three persons were travelling in BMW.He further denied the suggestion that Rajesh was driving the BMW.He deposed that he remembered the face of the driver and he informed the police that Suraj was driving BMW.Suraj did not appear in the witness box.However, Suraj examined two witnesses namely, Rajesh (R1W1) and Daksh (R1W2).R1W1, Rajesh deposed that he was cousin of Devinder and Suraj was his nephew.He deposed that he was driving the BMW at the time of the accident and Suraj was sitting beside him whereas Daksh was sitting in the back seat of BMW.He further deposed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Indigo.He further deposed that he and Suraj MAC.Nos.616/2016, 594/2016, 612/2016 & 615/2016 Page 9 of 75 ran away from the spot of accident due to fear.He further deposed that he was holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident.The driving license of Rajesh was exhibited as Ex.Nos.616/2016, 594/2016, 612/2016 & 615/2016 Page 9 of 75R1W2, Daksh deposed that he was travelling with Suraj in BMW.He further deposed that he became unconscious immediately after the accident.In cross- examination, he deposed that Rajesh was related to him and was employed by him as a driver and he was paying Rs.10,000/- to Rs.12,000/- per month as salary in cash to Rajesh at the time of the accident.He admitted that he was Income Tax payee but had not shown Rajesh as his employee in the Income Tax records.The appellant examined its Legal Manager as R3W1, who deposed that BMW was insured with the appellant by a comprehensive policy (Ex.R3W1/1); the appellant issued notices under Order XII Rule 8 CPC (Ex.R3W1/2 and Ex.The Claims Tribunal held that the Indigo car was being driven at a slow speed whereas BMW was being driven at a high speed of not less than 100 to 120 km per hour.The Claims Tribunal held the drivers of both the cars were negligent as the accident occurred in the middle of the inter- section of the road and both the drivers had the duty to slow down and take due precautions.The Claims Tribunal held that Indigo was more negligent than BMW as Indigo was coming from a link road.The findings of the Claims Tribunal in MACA 594/2016 on the issue of negligence are as under:-In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the accident has taken place on a crossing of the main double way road and a single link road, where the BMW car was going straight on the double road main road which is around 60 meter wide, though the Indigo Car was coming from the link road from the left side and the same entered the main road and was hit was by the BMW car.Suraj i.e. Respondent No.1 or Sh.Rajesh @ Raja who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident, but the testimony of Sh.Rajesh @ Raja is there on record, wherein he admitted that it was him who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident.In my opinion for deciding these proceedings i.e. for the purpose of determining the MAC.Nos.616/2016, 594/2016, 612/2016 & 615/2016 Page 13 of 75Needless to say that present case was taken up by the media at the relevant time and the chances of developing a wrong opinion about the identity of the driver cannot be ruled out and that is why the Ld.CJM Gurgaon, in its order dated 17.05.2012 emphasized for scientific investigation / evidence for establishing the identity of the accused and it is also an admitted position that blood samples were taken and car seats containing the blood stains were sent to CFL Madhuban for the said purpose which was still to be received till the filing of the charge sheet meaning thereby that even in criminal case it could not be established till now on the basis of scientific evidence, that it was Sh.Suraj who was driving the offending vehicle, therefore, as far as recovery rights are concerned I do not deem it fit to keep this matter pending for deciding the issue of recovery rights as it may take longer time, therefore, I leave this question open for the insurance company to claim their recovery rights by filing a suit against the owner in case some clinching/ scientific evidence comes on record.Therefore, I hold respondent No.3 liable to compensate the petitioner with the awarded compensation at this stage.The issue No. 2 is MAC.Nos.616/2016, 594/2016, 612/2016 & 615/2016 Page 14 of 75Veena Chopra expired on 23rd January, 2014 during the pendency of her claim petition.Veena Chopra was survived by her husband, three daughters and one son.The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.76,02,388/- towards medical expenditure, Rs.1 lakh towards compensation of loss of love and affection, Rs.1 lakh towards loss of consortium, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.97,500/- towards attendant charges and Rs.50,000/- towards special diet.The total compensation awarded is Rs.79,84,888/-.Rajinder Kumar Chopra, aged 68 years suffered stable wedge compression fracture of L1 along with abrasion over hands and feet and lower back injuries in the accident dated 5th May, 2012 for which he remained hospitalized for six days in Max Hospital, Gurgaon.The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.1,83,300/- towards medical expenditure, Rs.20,000/- towards special diet, Rs.30,000/- towards attendant charges, Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering.Total compensation awarded is Rs.2,83,300/-.Shailesh Shetye, aged 34 years suffered from pelvic fractures, dislocation (left) of sacroiliac joint with fracture in superior pubic rami (right) side and other multiple injuries in the accident for which he remained MAC.The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.38,000/- towards medical expenditure, Rs.35,000/- towards physiotherapy, Rs.20,000/- towards special diet and conveyance, Rs.30,000/- towards nursing/attendant charges , Rs.7,44,000/- towards loss of income and Rs.1 lakh towards pain and suffering.That FIR No.178 dated 05.05.2012 U/S 279/337/338/304A IPC, P.S. Sector 29, DLF Qutub Enclave, Gurgaon was registered on the complaint of Mr. Rajinder Kumar Chopra S/o Sh.Desh Raj Chopra R/o House no. 4465, New Khursipur, Bhilai, M.P. giving the details of the accident in which his cab was hit by the BMW car silver colour bearing no.HR26 AV 0007 and in the said accident his daughter, Mrs. Shama Shetty and the driver of the cab, Mr. Sanjay Gulati had died and he himself alongwith his wife Mrs. Veena Chopra and his son-in-law Mr. Shailesh Shetty were injured.That initial investigation was carried out by SI Jagdish Rai.One Jitender S/o Ram Rattan R/o Hanuman Nagar, District Gorakhpur, UP who is an independent eye-witness of the incident, identified the driver of the BMW car after looking at the roll no. cards found in the BMW car at the spot.His statement was recorded on 05.05.2012 alongwith statements of other people.That on 12.05.2012 one person named Rajesh alias Raja S/o Sh.Umed Singh R/o Kharar, Hissar surrendered before the court stating that he was the driver of the BMW car at the time of incident.That on 13.05.2012, Commissioner of Police, Haryana formed a Special Investigation Team (SIT) MAC.Nos.616/2016, 594/2016, 612/2016 & 615/2016 Page 17 of 75 headed by ACP Mr. Bhupinder Singh and others to investigate the matter.Further, on 13.05.2012 statement of other eye-witness/injured Mr. Shailesh Shetty was also recorded wherein it was stated that there were only two young people in the car and he can identify the driver.Nos.616/2016, 594/2016, 612/2016 & 615/2016 Page 17 of 75That on 14.05.12, Police informed the Ld. Court that there are no evidences against Mr. Rajesh and investigation is going on.Thus, the court discharged Mr. Rajesh.That on 15.05.2012 Mr. Suraj S/o Sh.Devinder Sherawat R/o Sector-14, Gurgaon surrendered before the Ld. Court and obtained bail from the Court.The Court on 17.05.2012 directed Mr. Suraj to give his Driving Licence and Blood sample for the investigation and denied the request of police for TIP.That on 24.05.2012 Mr. Suraj joined the investigation and informed that he do not have any driving licence and orally admitted that he was driving the car.That on 07.08.2012, Section 180/181 challan was prepared and submitted before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, Haryana.The matter is now fixed for consideration on 07.09.2016 before the Court of Ms. Kavita Yadav, JMIC, Gurgaon, Haryana.On 07th September, 2016, this Court appointed Mr. Viraj R. Datar, Advocate as amicus curiae to assist this Court in this matter.On 11th November, 2016, this Court issued Court notice to eye- witness, Jitender in exercise of power under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act to ascertain the truth.Nos.616/2016, 594/2016, 612/2016 & 615/2016 Page 18 of 75On 21st November, 2016, Jitender appeared before this Court and his statement was recorded on oath under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act. The statement of Jitender is reproduced hereunder: -No party contacted me after the receipt of the Court notice.On 05th May, 2012 at about 12.15 pm, I was travelling in a Crane as a helper near IFFCO Tower, Sector 29, when I heard the bang of accident and saw two vehicles in the accidental condition.I did not see the accident happening but saw the accident after hearing the bang.I also did not see who was driving the offending vehicle.I was going from Leisure Vally Park side towards Metro Station and was at a distance of 100 steps from the place of the accident.I got down from the Crane and ran towards the place of the accident.It may have taken about two minutes.I took out the injured persons from the cars and put them in the Ambulance.The Ambulance was called by somebody else.Out of the two cars involved in the accident, one vehicle was a BMW car and the other car I do not remember.There was an injured person in the BMW car on the seat next to the driver's seat.I took that person out from the car and put him also in the Ambulance.I do not know who was driving the BMW car.I do not know where the driver of BMW car went.The police recorded my statement as a witness.I made the same statement to the police which is stated by me before this Court today.(Statement of Jitendra recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which he stated that he saw the accident happening, there was two persons in BMW car, the driver of BMW car ran away and that he recognised the driver of the BMW car from the Roll Number Card found in the car was confronted and read- over to the witness).Nos.616/2016, 594/2016, 612/2016 & 615/2016 Page 19 of 75I have seen the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. I have not made such statement to the police.I standby the statement made before this Court.There were only two boys in the BMW car and I took them out of the car with the help of the public.I have seen the face of the boy who was driving the car.I have indentified his photo which is pasted on the Roll Number slip whose name I came to know as Suraj Sherawat S/o Devinder Sherawat.When I was trying to take out the other boy from the BMW who was trapped in the car, Suraj who was driving the car, ran away from the spot.You recorded my statement at the spot which I have heard and the same is correct.(Emphasis supplied)On 04th December, 2017, this Court directed the parties to place on record the relevant photographs and videos available on internet as referred to by the Claims Tribunal in paras 43 to 45 of the impugned award in pursuance to which counsel for the appellant placed on record the relevant MAC.The videos placed on record show the condition of both the vehicles after the accident.Two persons were travelling in BMW at the time of the accident, namely Suraj and his friend, Daksh.Suraj was driving BMW whereas Daksh was sitting beside him on the front seat.PW-3, Rajinder Kumar Chopra and PW-7, Shailesh Shetye proved that only two persons were sitting in BMW and PW-7 further proved that Suraj was driving BMW.As per the police investigation, Suraj was driving BMW at the time of the accident.The police filed the charge-sheet against Suraj under Sections 279/337/338/304A of IPC and Sections 3/180/181 of Motor Vehicles Act.The Court dealing with criminal case has framed the charge only against Suraj under Sections 279/337/338/304A/427 of IPC and Sections 3/180/181 of Motor Vehicles Act.Suraj did not step into the witness box to rebut the evidence led by PW-3 and PW-7 that Suraj was driving BMW at the time of the accident and only two persons were travelling in BMW which leads to an adverse inference that if Suraj had examined himself, his evidence would have been unfavorable to him.Rajesh surrendered before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 12th May, 2012 falsely claiming to be the driver of the BMW but his application was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and no MAC.Nos.616/2016, 594/2016, 612/2016 & 615/2016 Page 21 of 75 appeal has been preferred by Rajesh or anyone else against the said order.Nos.616/2016, 594/2016, 612/2016 & 615/2016 Page 21 of 75Rajesh was not impleaded as a respondent before the Claims Tribunal.Suraj filed an application for impleading Rajesh as a respondent which was dismissed by the Claims Tribunal.Rajesh appeared in the witness box before the Claims Tribunal and made a false statement on oath that he was driving BMW at the time of the accident.Devinder admitted that Rajesh was related to him.No independent witness was examined to prove that there were three persons in BMW at the time of the accident.The impugned award holding the appellant liable is perverse as the Claims Tribunal imposed the liability on the appellant without deciding as to who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident.Nos.616/2016, 594/2016, 612/2016 & 615/2016 Page 22 of 75In MAC.APP.594/2016 relating to the injuries suffered by Shailesh Shetye, the loss of income of Rs.7,44,000/- has not been proved.In MAC.APP.615/2016 relating to the death of Kshama Chopra, the Claims Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased as Rs.1,47,178.95 per month though the deceased was not employed and earning at the time of the accident.There is deliberate and conscious violation of the policy by the insured which have been proved by the appellant by examining its legal manager as R3W1 who proved the notices under Order XII Rule 8 CPC and the violation of the policy by the insured.Reference was made to Section 5 of the Motor Vehicle Act which casts responsibility on the owner of a motor vehicle not to permit any person to drive the vehicle who is not holding a valid licence.Section 5 of the Motor Vehicle Act is reproduced hereunder:-Section 5 - Responsibility of owners of motor vehicles for contravention of sections 3 and 4.-- No owner or person in charge of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit any person who does not satisfy the provisions of section 3 or section 4 to drive the vehicle."The Claims Tribunal failed to appreciate that PW-7 had no reason to implicate Suraj.R1W1, Rajesh and R2W2, Daksh were both known to Suraj and they were not summoned witnesses.The Claims Tribunal failed to appreciate the following chain of events: -Nos.616/2016, 594/2016, 612/2016 & 615/2016 Page 24 of 75Suraj did not possess a driving licence.Suraj never entered the witness box to depose that he was not driving BMW.The matter was investigated by the Special Investigation Team and Suraj was charge-sheeted as an accused.The loss of dependency be awarded by deducting 1/3rd as personal expenses of the deceased.The compensation awarded in respect of the death of Veena Chopra is on a lower side as the Claims Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for loss of dependency.Moreover, a claim of Rs.12,22,704/- towards the expenditure incurred on the flight tickets of Veena Chopra; her son, Rakesh Chopra and his wife, Preeti Chopra from UK to India and return was wrongly rejected.Rakesh Chopra being the only son of Veena Chopra, incurred the aforesaid expenditure to attend his ailing parents for their treatment.The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Indigo driven by Sanjay Gulati.There were three persons inside BMW.Rajesh was driving BMW, Suraj was sitting in front seat of BMW next to the driver and Daksh was sitting in the back seat behind the driver of the BMW.Daksh appeared in the MAC.The occupants of the Indigo could not have seen how many persons were sitting in BMW and there is no cogent evidence on record to show who was driving BMW at the time of the accident.The airbags of both sides of BMW were open and blood stains were found on the back seat which supports the version that two persons, namely, Rajesh and Suraj were in the front seats and Daksh was sitting in the back seat.Daksh was sitting on the back seat behind the driver seat as the blood was found on the back of driver seat and right side rear gate of BMW.The police has cooked up a false story on the basis of roll number cards of Suraj and Daksh that Suraj was driving the BMW at the time of accident.Non-examination of Suraj in the witness box is of no consequence and no adverse inference can be drawn against Suraj in this matter.Suraj was admittedly travelling in BMW and was a crucial witness to rebut the evidence led by the claimants that Suraj was driving BMW.Nos.616/2016, 594/2016, 612/2016 & 615/2016 Page 27 of 75However, Suraj did not appear in the witness box to rebut the evidence led against him and therefore, adverse inference should be drawn against him for withholding the best evidence.In the charge sheet filed against respondent no.7, the investigating officer conducted investigations and he met people who had witnessed the accident.Amit Kumar Sharma, eye witness of accident produced one piece of broken number plate of DL-4C WB-03 and stated that the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving the offending vehicle.It is true that no eyewitness of the accident was produced at the trial.But the chargesheet filed by the police speaks for itself.- The police, on investigation, found that only two persons were travelling in BMW and the chargesheet has been filed on that basis.- No independent witness was examined by Suraj and Devinder to prove that there were three persons in BMW at the time of the accident.Suraj was driving BMW and Daksh was sitting on the front seat beside him at the time of the accident.- PW-7, Shailesh Shetye deposed that Suraj was driving BMW at the time of the accident.He further deposed that he was fully conscious MAC.- The independent witness, Jitender, completely demolished the false defence that Suraj was sitting on the front seat next to the driver and Daksh was sitting on the rear seat as well as the theory of three person in BMW.- No independent witness was examined by Suraj and Devinder to rebut the aforesaid evidence.- It is proved that only two persons were travelling in BMW and Suraj was driving BMW and Daksh was sitting on the front seat next to the driver at the time of the accident.- The contrary statement of Daksh (R1W2) that he was sitting on the rear seat of BMW is false and is rejected as disproved'.- The plea that the bloodstains were found on the back seat points out to the presence of a third person, is rejected as the blood from the injuries to Daksh on the front seat can spill over to the rear seat MAC.The reasons for this finding are as under: -- Only two persons were travelling in BMW at the time of the accident.The Court vide order dated 14 th May, 2012 rejected the application of Rajesh on the ground that there was no evidence against him.The police has charge-sheeted only Suraj and the Court has framed charge only against Suraj.Nos.616/2016, 594/2016, 612/2016 & 615/2016 Page 64 of 75- The police contacted his father, Devinder on 11 th May, 2012 and directed him to produce Suraj.Despite that Suraj appeared before the Court after 10 days of the accident on 15th May, 2012 and joined the investigation on 24th May, 2012 without any justification.- Suraj misled the investigation and took a false defence that Rajesh was driving BMW.- The natural presumption from the conduct of Suraj is that he was driving BMW at the time of accident and later on Rajesh was planted MAC.- Suraj fled away from the spot after the accident and failed to appear in the witness box to give evidence and withheld the best evidence.- Adverse inference is drawn against Suraj under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act that he was driving BMW at the time of accident and if he had appeared in the witness box, evidence would have been unfavourable to him.- The police, on investigation, rejected the plea of Rajesh that he was driving BMW at the time of the accident.- The Court of CJM, Gurgaon rejected the application of Rajesh claiming to be the driver of BMW.- The police filed the charge-sheet only against Suraj.- The Court dealing with criminal case framed the charge only against Suraj.- No material has been placed on record by Suraj and Devinder to doubt the correctness of the decision of Police and the Court who were discharging their official functions.Conduct of the claimants- The Claimants were returning from Medanta Hospital where Rajinder Kumar Chopra was admitted for cardiac ailment.Nos.616/2016, 594/2016, 612/2016 & 615/2016 Page 67 of 75- The accident resulted in immediate death of Kshama Chopra whereas Rajinder Kumar Chopra, his wife - Veena Chopra and son-in-law - Shailesh Shetye suffered grievous injuries.- The whole family of the claimants was shattered by this accident.A prudent person in place of claimants would prosecute the actual driver who caused the accident.It is not believable that the claimants would forgive the culprit and falsely implicate some other person.- The natural presumption is that the claimants have implicated Suraj because he was actually driving BMW.The claimants have no enmity or animosity with Suraj to falsely implicate him and no motive can be attributed to the claimants for implicating Suraj.On the other hand, Suraj had a clear motive to plant Rajesh to avoid the criminal prosecution as well as civil liability to pay compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.The accident dated 5thMay, 2012 occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of BMW by Suraj.The reasons for this finding are as under: -Nos.616/2016, 594/2016, 612/2016 & 615/2016 Page 68 of 75- Suraj was dangerously driving and over-speeding BMW without a driving licence whereas Indigo car was being driven at a very slow speed as PW-1, Rajinder Kumar Chopra had been discharged from Medanta Hospital after a cardiac surgery.Suraj (driver) and Devinder (owner) of BMW are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants.The reasons for this finding are as under: -- Suraj was not holding any driving licence at the time of the accident which is admitted by his father, Devinder in witness box.The reasons for this finding are as under: -No other ground was urged by the learned counsels for the parties at the time of hearing.The Claims Tribunal has rightly awarded loss of income to Shailesh Shetye.- There is no merit in the claimants claim of enhancement in the cases of Kshama Chopra and Veena Chopra.- The judicial discipline required the Claims Tribunal to adjudicate who was driving BMW at the time of accident.Nos.616/2016, 594/2016, 612/2016 & 615/2016 Page 73 of 75 BMW to be driven by Suraj who was not holding any driving licence at the time of the accident.Suraj and Devinder are directed to deposit the entire compensation amount as assessed by the Claims Tribunal along with upto date interest @ 12% per annum from the date of institution, with the Claims Tribunal within 30 days.The proof of deposit along with the computation of interest on affidavit be filed with the Registrar General within one week of deposit.The Claims Tribunal shall pass fresh disbursement order in favour of the claimants after hearing the claimants.Copy of this judgment be sent to the Registrar General of this Court.Nos.616/2016, 594/2016, 612/2016 & 615/2016 Page 75 of 75	['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
86,223,610	The case is adjourned.Case diary perused.This is third application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant is in custody since 19-10-2015 in connection with Crime No.557/2015 Registered at police station Kishanganj, Tehsil Mhow, District Indore for the offence punishable under Section 304-B/34 of IPC.As per the prosecution case, the wife of the present applicant has committed suicide.Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the applicant has completed a tenure of one year in jail and there is no one in the family of the applicant to look after his two minor children.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in the crime.On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent -2- has argued before this court that keeping in view the statement of witnesses and the material available in the case diary as the husband has instigated his wife to commit suicide, the question of grant of bail does not arise.After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going through the statement available in the case diary and looking to the fact that the applicant is in jail since 19-10-2015, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I allow this bail application and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand only) with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court for his appearance before the Trial Court on all the dates fixed in this behalf by the court concerned during trial.C.C. as per rules.(S. C. SHARMA) JUDGE RP -3- 14-07-2016 Today Lawyers are abstaining from Court work.	['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
86,223,873	Kalsingh @ Kallu(PW3) is younger brother of deceased, Kendu(PW4) is maternal uncle of deceased.Awla, elder brother of deceased committed murder of 10 grand-mother of the present appellant.As per prosecution story, on 27/06/2006, at about 6.00 p.m. In the evening when Desu was taking his meal at his house situated at village Kakadpunja Falia, Hardaspura, the present appellant came there and started calling his name and when Desu came from his house, the present appellant, who was armed with falia, has stated that his brother Awla committed murder of his grandmother and, therefore, he will kill him and inflicted multiple falia injuries to him.On hearing his shriek, Mesaribai(PW1) and Somali Bai(PW2), wife and sister-in-law of deceased respectively came at the place of occurrence and tried to save him and also requested the appellant not to kill him, but by that time he inflicted two-three falia blows to him.On hearing the sound of falia, Kalsingh @ Kallu(PW3), who is elder brother of the deceased also reached at the place of occurrence and had tried to save his brother Dusu.On hearing the cry of Kalsingh @ Kallu(PW3), Kendu(PW4), Kaniya(PW5) and Manjriya(PW6) came at the place of occurrence.As per statement of Autopsy Surgeon - Dr. prakash Doke(PW8), who has prepared the postmortem report(Ex-P/11) , very categorically stated that all the injuries of deceased are caused by hard and sharp object.( 28.10.2017) Per P.K. Jaiswal, J.This appeal is filed by appellant - Miriya S/o Munna Bhil under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., 1973, against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 7/12/2006, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jobat in S.T. No.221/2006, whereby he has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/- and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further RI for two months for committing the murder of Dusu by causing falia injujry.The facts of the case are that Mesaribai(PW1) is wife of deceased - Dusu, Somali Bai(PW2) is sister-in-law of deceased and wife of Kalsingh @ Kallu(PW3).On seeing them, the present appellant ran away from the spot.Due to multiple falia injuries, deceased died on the spot itself.4. Mesaribai(PW1), wife of deceased - Dusu lodged a report at 10 Police Station - Jhabua vide Crime No.119/04 under Section 302 of IPC against the present appellant.After lodging FIR, the Investigation Officer started investigation.After investigation, challan was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, who in turn committed the matter to the Court of Sessions.The accused was tried before the learned trial Court under Section 302 of IPC.The appellant abjured his guilt and stated that he has been falsely implicated by the complainant and claimed to undergo a trial.The prosecution examined nine witnesses (PW1 to PW9) and exhibited documents (Exhibit P/1 to P/12C).Mesaribai(PW1) and Kalsingh @ Kallu(PW3) are eye- witnesses of the case.Somalibai(PW2), Kendu(PW4), Kaniya(PW5) and Manjriya(PW6) are hearsay witnesses.The learned trial Court after appreciating the statements of eye-witnesses and other material prosecution witnesses came to the conclusion that it is the present appellant who has committed murder of Dusu and, therefore, convicted the 10 appellant under Section 302 of IPC by the impugned judgment dated 7/12/2006 and sentenced him as indicated herein-above.Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the statement of both the eye-witnesses Mesaribai(PW1) and Kalsingh @ Kallu (PW3) and submitted that they are wife and brother of the deceased.PW1 and PW3 have been partly declared hostile by the learned trial Court and, therefore, their statements are not reliable and prayed for acquittal of the appellant.Per Contra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent / State has drawn our attention to Para 1 of the statement of Mesaribai(PW1) and Kalsingh @ Kallu(PW3) and submitted that both the witnesses in their statement have supported the case of the prosecution and it is very categorically stated that it is the present appellant who was armed with falia and inflicted multiple falia injuries to deceased, as a result of which, he succumbed to the injuries.As per postmortem report, all the injuries are caused by hard and sharp object.The death is homicidal in nature and prays for dismissal of the appeal.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and 10 perused the record of the case.As per postmortem report(Ex- P/11), deceased sustained the following injuries :-(i) Incised wound over back on left side 4 x 2 x 2 cm size.(ii) Incised wound over back of neck from left shoulder to right shoulder 2.5 cm x 6 cm deep upto trachea, cut out vertebra, all muscle and all blood vessels.PW8 has also deposed that the cause of death is homicidal in nature.12. Mesaribai(PW1), wife of the deceased in her statement has deposed that on the date of occurrence when her husband was taking meal, the present appellant came there armed with falia and inflicted multiple falia injuries to him.On hearing his shriek, her brother-in-law Kalsingh @ Kallu(PW3), Somalibai(PW2)Kendu(PW4), Kaniya(PW5) and Manjriya(PW6) came at the place of occurrence.On seeing them, the present appellant ran away from the place of occurrence.Immediately a report was lodged vide Ex-P/1 at Police Station - Jhabua.Ex-P/2 10 is the spot map which has been duly signed by her.This witness in Para - 2 of her statement has deposed that her sister-in-law Somalibai(PW2) was also present at the place of occurrence and also requested the appellant not to kill her husband Dusu.In cross-examination, nothing has come on record to disbelieve her statement.Similar is the statement of Kalsingh @ Kalu(PW3).This witness has been declared partly hostile by the prosecution on the ground that there is omission in his police statement (Ex-P/3) that the when he tried to intervene, the present appellant also exhorted him.Rest of the story has been duly proved by this witness also.14. Kendu(PW4), who is a hearsay witness and the witness of seizure and the same has been proved by the prosecution.Kaniya(PW5) and Manjriya(PW6) are also hearsay witnesses and as per the statement of K.S. Bhadoria(PW7), the FIR was lodged by Mesaribai(PW1), wife of deceased.He investigated the matter.Thereafter, Crime Details Form(Ex-P/2) was recorded.Ex-P/9 is the letter issued for postmortem report.He also recorded Sudden Death Information vide Ex- 10 P/12-C.On due consideration of the statement of both the eye- witnesses Mesaribai(PW1) and Kalsingh @ Kallu(PW3), wife and brother of the deceased and other prosecution witnesses so also the fact that murder of grant mother of the present appellant was committed by Awla, brother of the deceased and, therefore, to take revenge, the present appellant armed with falia came at the house of Dusu(deceased) and committed his murder.We ourselves have seen the judgment of the trial Court, which has been passed after proper appreciation of the evidence of eye-witnesses as well as the evidence of doctors and the Investigating Officer, therefore, in our opinion the finding recorded regarding inflicting multiple falia injuries by the present appellant appears to be correct because Dr.Prakash Doke(PW8) in his statement has categorically stated that all the injuries sustained by the deceased are caused by hard and sharp object.Ocular version of Mesaribai(PW1) and Kalsingh @ Kallu(PW3) that appellant had inflicted injuries on deceased with his respective weapon corroborated by medical evidence.Trial Court finding that because of murder of grandmother of the appellant by Alwa, brother of the deceased, appellant committed the murder of 10 deceased is duly proved.Conviction by Court below under Section 302, IPC, calls for no interference, since accused had no right to take law in his own hand and beat deceased mercilessly resulting in his death.Appellant had strong motive to commit offence.In the facts and circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with analysis and conclusion of trial Court.The impugned judgment of the court below does not call for any interference.Hence, conviction of appellant, stands, confirmed.In the result, we dismiss the appeal.	['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
86,224,457	Case diary perused.The learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is only an allegation against the applicant regarding demand of dowry.He also submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the case.On these grounds, learned counsel appearing for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Per contra, the learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State submits that in the statement of 161, the names of the present applicant has been mentioned and he was also raising demand of dowry and was harassing the deceased and opposes to grant the bail to the applicant.Co-accused Ramdayal and Smt. Ashabai Lodhi have already been enlarged on bail in M.Cr.Afterward statements of mother and father of the deceased Prem Prakash Lodhi and Sahodra Lodhi have been taken place and it appears that they have not supported the case of Digitally signed by MANJU CHOUKSEY Date: 21/11/2019 02:58:42 2 MCRC-26809-2019 prosecution during the course of cross-examination.At this stage it is not proper to discuss the case on merits but looking to the above said fact and circumstances of the case and the period of detention (since 20/01/2019), I am of the considered opinion that the applicant can be enlarged on bail, therefore, the application of the applicant namely Santosh is allowed.It is directed that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one solvent surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the JMFC concerned or the trial Court for his appearance before him on the dates given by the concerned Court.It is directed that the applicant shall abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Accordingly, the M.Cr.C. stands allowed and disposed of.Certified copy as per rules.(MOHD.FAHIM ANWAR) JUDGE manju Digitally signed by MANJU CHOUKSEY Date: 21/11/2019 02:58:42	['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', '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.
86,225,020	This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed, by the mother of the detenu, namely, Vimal, Male, aged about 23 years, S/o.Arumugam,, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records, in No.1397/BDFGISSV/2014 dated 29.09.2014, passed by the 2nd Respondent, detaining the detenu, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982), branding him as a Goonda, in the Central Prison, Puzhal Chennai, and to quash the same and to direct the Respondents to produce the body of the detenu and set him at liberty forthwith.Though several grounds have been raised in this Habeas Corpus Petition, Mr.K.S.Kaviarasu,the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned detention order only on the ground of non-supply of copy of the bail applications in similar cases, referred to in the grounds of detention, for arriving at the subjective satisfaction that there is likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail, which has affected the constitutional right of making an effective and purposeful representation to the authorities concerned, thereby vitiating the detention.However, he admitted that the copy of the bail applications in similar cases, referred to in the grounds of detention was not supplied to the detenu.We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival submissions put forward by the learned counsel on either side and thoroughly scanned through the impugned detention order and the entire materials available on record.It is seen from paragraph No.4 of the Grounds of Detention that in similar cases, the accused were released on bail by the V Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.460/2013 in respect of Crime No.164/2013 on the file of K3, Aminjikarai Police Station for the offence under Sections 384 and 506(ii) IPC and also by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur, in Crl.M.P.No.2392/2012 in respect of Crime No.1960/2012 on the file of T1, Ambattur Police station for the offence under sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392, 397 r/w.506(ii) IPC.	['Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
86,228,975	The case was remitted to the Juvenile Justice Board to hold an inquiry in accordance with law.In the incident, one Sandeep @ Sanjeev was inflicted stab wounds on his person which proved fatal.He was declared dead when brought to All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS).PW8 was also inflicted an injury with a knife on his face.He, however, survived and made statement Ex.PW2/B to the police.ASI Shambhu Sah made endorsement Ex.The substance of statement of PW8, Sanjay which is the fulcrum of the Crl.A.Nos.976/2012 & 802/2013 Page 2 of 25PW8 is the injured Sanjay who deposed that deceased Sandeep @ Sanjeev was his friend and the deceased used to work in a kothi, New Friends Colony, B Block.He further stated that on the intervening night of 28/29.05.2009, he went to meet Sandeep @ Sanjeev at New Friends Colony where Sandeep told him that he has to recharge his mobile phone and at about 10.30 PM they both left New Friends Colony to Taimur Nagar to recharge the mobile phone of Sandeep.At about 11.30 PM/12 night they were returning from Taimur Nagar.When they reached near a Kudadan(Dustbin) near C Block, New Friends Colony, three boys met them.He stated that all the three boys demanded the mobile phone of Sandeep to make a call but Sandeep refused to hand over his mobile phone to those boys.Thereafter, one of the boy attacked Sandeep with a knife.He further stated that he tried to intervene but the other boy took the knife from accused Jitender @ Biloo and attacked him with knife on his face.He further stated that accused Raj Kumar @ Khijjar caught hold of him while the other two accused were attacking him and his friend.He further deposed that he sustained injuries on his face and blood was oozing out from his face, he fell down and his friend Sandeep @ Sanjeev had already fell down after sustaining injuries.Thereafter, public persons gathered there and accused persons fled away from the spot.He stated that one of the public person lifted the phone of Sandeep and made a call to police.PCR reached at the spot and took them to AIIMS hospital where his friend Sandeep was declared dead by doctors.Thereafter, police officials recorded his statement Ex.PW2/B."It may be noted that in the statement Ex.PW2/B, PW8 had also informed ASI Shambhu Sah that two of the culprits were referring to the tall attacker (who inflicted injury on the person of the deceased) by the name Crl.A.Nos.976/2012 & 802/2013 Page 3 of 25 of Billoo.He had identified photograph of one of the persons being involved in the incident, that is, Jitender @ Billoo.On the information being provided by Jitender (juvenile), the appellants were arrested.PW3, Dr. R.P. Singh, PW4, SI Mahesh Kumar, PW16, ASI Shambhu Sah, PW19, HC Vinesh Kumar, PW20, Dr. Vijay Singh, PW21, Inspector Sunil Kumar Sharma and PW22, Inspector Brijender Singh are other important witnesses examined by the prosecution.Rest of the witnesses have provided various links in the case of prosecution.PW3, Dr. R.P. Singh had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Sandeep @ Sanjeev.He deposed that when deceased Sandeep @ Sanjeev was brought to the hospital at 12:35 am on 29.05.2009, the patient was very serious.His pulse and BP were not recordable.They provided him Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and other treatment, but he could not be revived and was declared as brought dead.He proved the same as Ex.PW4/A. The important aspect of the scaled site plan and his testimony is that he had shown one electric pole containing six halogen lamps at a distance of about ten meters from the place of incident.The position of the electric pole was not disputed in cross-examination of this witness.PW6, Vikram Singh and PW7, Shiv Raj had informed the PCR on noticing two boys lying at the spot with injuries.He deposed that on receipt of DD No.37A, Ex.PW5/A regarding stabbing, he along with Constable Surender reached the spot.On getting information that the injured have been removed to AIIMS by the PCR, he proceeded to the Crl.It was PW8's good luck that somehow the injury was not so deep so as to become dangerous.G. P. MITTAL, J.These two appeals arise out of judgment dated 27.02.2012 and order on sentence dated 14.03.2012 passed in Sessions Case No.206/2009 whereby Crl.A.Nos.976/2012 & 802/2013 Page 1 of 25 the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code(IPC) and under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of `5,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and were further sentenced to undergo RI for seven years and a fine of `5,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC.In default of payment of fine, the appellants were sentenced to undergo SI for six months on each count.A.Nos.976/2012 & 802/2013 Page 1 of 25Another appeal (being Crl.A.977/2012) was preferred by one Jitender @ Billoo against this very judgment.PW17/C whereupon the FIR Ex.PW17/B was recorded in Police Station New Friends Colony.Both the appellants were arrested from the house of Raj Kumar.On personal search of appellant Salim, one chura was recovered from his right dub.Appellant Raj Kumar Khujjar, in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by him got recovered a blood-stained T-shirt worn by him at the time of the incident from a bush near Yamuna.(The same is, however, not of much relevance as the blood group thereon could not be deciphered so as to connect the same with the incident).A.Nos.976/2012 & 802/2013 Page 3 of 25On the appellants pleading not guilty to the charge for the offence under Sections 302/307 read with Section 34 IPC, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses.Sanjay(PW8), complainant is the star and the most crucial witness produced by the prosecution.He found three injuries on the Crl.A.Nos.976/2012 & 802/2013 Page 4 of 25 person of the deceased.He opined that the death of deceased Sandeep was on account of hemorrhagic shock due to injury to the heart (injury No.3) produced by a sharp cutting/stabbing object.He stated that injury No.3 was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.A.Nos.976/2012 & 802/2013 Page 4 of 25Dr. Vijay Singh (PW20) had examined the deceased and injured Sanjay(PW8) on their removal to the casualty(AIIMS).A.Nos.976/2012 & 802/2013 Page 5 of 25 hospital.On reaching the hospital, he was informed that Sandeep @ Sanjeev had been declared brought dead at the hospital, whereas PW8, Sanjay was declared fit to make the statement.He recorded the statement of the injured and made his endorsement for getting the case registered.A.Nos.976/2012 & 802/2013 Page 5 of 25PW19, HC Vinesh Kumar, PW21, Inspector Sunil Kumar Sharma and PW22, Inspector Brijender Singh deposed about the part played by them in the investigation of the case, arrest of the two appellants and the juvenile and various recoveries.In their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellants denied the prosecution's allegation and pleaded false implication.Appellant Raj Kumar examined three defence witnesses to prove that he was present with DW1, Padam Lal at the time of the alleged incident.By the impugned judgment, while relying on the testimony of PW8 who was the star witness of the prosecution, the Trial Court rejected the contention raised on behalf of the appellants that PW-8 was unworthy of reliance or that his testimony contained improvements or contradictions.The Trial Court observed that if the testimony of a witness is recorded after one year of the incident, small contradictions with regard to the date of taking photographs at the spot or not disclosing the name of the shop wherefrom the mobile was got recharged or the exact time when he reached the spot with the police officer were not very material.The Trial Court observed that if anything is stated in answer to a question in cross- examination and not stated in the statement before the police, it will not be treated as an improvement.The Trial Court observed that the Crl.A.Nos.976/2012 & 802/2013 Page 6 of 25 testimony of the witness was consistent and convincing.Rather, the minor contradictions showed that the witness was not a tutored one and deposed in a natural way.Thus, relying on the testimony of PW-8 which was supported by the other evidence produced by the prosecution, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated earlier.A.Nos.976/2012 & 802/2013 Page 6 of 25We have heard Ms. Saahila Lamba and Ms. Rakhi Dubey, Advocates, the learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. Richa Kapoor, the learned APP for the State and have perused the record.The learned counsel for the appellants have urged that according to the prosecution version, the incident took place on the night intervening 28/29.05.2009 at about 11:30/12:00 at night; the assailants were previously not known to PW8; their description, except that one of the boy was tall, the other was short and the third one was medium in height, was not given; still the prosecution did not prefer to hold any Test Identification Parade(TIP) to pinpoint the assailant during the course of investigation.Relying on Dana Yadav alias Dahu and Others v. State of Bihar, AIR 2002 SC 3325 and a Division Bench of this court in Om Prakash v. State, (Crl.The learned counsel for the appellant Raj Kumar @ Khujjar has stated that in the disclosure statement of the juvenile, name of one Raju Nepali, as being involved in the incident also surfaced.There is every possibility Crl.A.Nos.976/2012 & 802/2013 Page 7 of 25 that the appellant Raj Kumar @ Khujjar was mistaken in place of Raju Nepali and was implicated in the case falsely.A.Nos.976/2012 & 802/2013 Page 7 of 25In the alternative, the learned counsel for the appellants have urged that even if the case of the prosecution is accepted on its face value, it cannot be stated that the two appellants shared the common intention of inflicting the stab injury by the juvenile and thus they cannot be held guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 34 IPC.The learned counsel have further canvassed that the injury on the person of PW8 was found to be simple with a sharp object.PW8 was discharged from the hospital after giving first aid.Thus, the appellants could not have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC.At the most, they could have been convicted under Section 324 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.The learned APP has argued that the incident started with an altercation between the deceased and PW8 on the one hand and, the appellants and the juvenile on the other followed by taking out of a knife by the juvenile inflicting injuries on the person of the deceased.The knife was taken by the appellant Salim, PW8 was held by appellant Raj Kumar Khujjar and an Crl.A.Nos.976/2012 & 802/2013 Page 8 of 25 injury was inflicted on PW8's face by appellant Salim.Although, the incident took place in the dead of the night, but there was sufficient light at the spot as stated by PW8 and as proved from the scaled site plan Ex.PW4/A which shows presence of an electric pole containing six halogen lamps.Relying on a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Kunjumon @ Unni v. State of Kerala, 2012 (11) SCALE 212, the learned APP has submitted that the appellants and PW8 came face to face with each other during the time of the altercation between the deceased and PW8 on the one hand and, the appellants and the juvenile on the other.There was sufficient time to notice the facial features of the culprits and thus non-holding of the TIP in the instant case will be of no import.The Crl.A.Nos.976/2012 & 802/2013 Page 9 of 25 appellants, it is urged, have been rightly convicted under Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.A.Nos.976/2012 & 802/2013 Page 8 of 25A.Nos.976/2012 & 802/2013 Page 9 of 25NON-HOLDING OF TIPThe common intention may well develop at the spot.The common intention has to be distinguished from a similar intention.All the three boys demanded the mobile Crl.A.Nos.976/2012 & 802/2013 Page 17 of 25 phone of Sandeep to make a call but Sandeep refused to hand over his mobile phone to those boys.Thereafter, one of the boy (the juvenile) attacked Sandeep with a knife.Immediately thereafter, the co-accused, that is, the juvenile attacked the deceased with a knife.What provoked the juvenile to attack the deceased with a knife cannot be deciphered.It is difficult to accept the contention raised on behalf of the State that the three accused persons wanted to rob the deceased of the mobile phone.The injury on the person of Sandeep @ Sanjeev proved fatal and he was declared brought dead in the hospital.When PW-8 tried to intervene to save his friend (the deceased) the appellant Raj Kumar @ Khujjar held him whereas appellant Salim gave him a knife blow on the right side of the temporal region.Thus, keeping in view that the juvenile (co-accused) caused two injuries on the face and one injury on the chest of the deceased which proved fatal.From the circumstances in which the injury was caused on PW-8's face it can be gathered that it was just PW-8's good luck that he escaped with simple injury.The intention and knowledge of appellant Raj Kumar @ Khujjar in holding PW-8 and appellant Salim in giving a knife blow on his face could only be that with the intention and knowledge and in the circumstances if PW-8 had died, the appellants would have been guilty of murder.Thus, the appellants' conviction Crl.In addition, he has earned remission of four months and 03 days.Similarly, a perusal of nominal roll of appellant Raj Kumar @ Khujjar as on 21.05.2013 reveals that he has already undergone a sentence of three years, eleven months and 20 days.In addition he has earned remission of four months and 05 days.Thus, as of now, the appellants have undergone actual sentence of about four years and four months and would have earned remission of a little less than five months.In the circumstances of the case, the interest of justice would be met if the appellants are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period already undergone (which is a little less than five years).The sentence of fine and the imprisonment of six months in default thereof is, however, maintained.Thus, while upholding the order of conviction under Section 307/34 of the IPC, the sentence is altered as stated above.Both the appeals are allowed in above terms.Pending applications also stand disposed of.	['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', '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.
86,239,404	Sadi also had three sons Yaqub, Mohd. Iqlakh and Shah Mohammad.Witness Tasleem is the son of Yaqub.Ishtiyak Hussain (deceased/ D-1), father of informant Minzar Hussain (P.W. 1), and Ishak Hussain (deceased/ D-2) were sibling brothers both being sons of Mohd. Iqlakh.Shah Mohammad had a son Alam and Saifulla had a son Mazeed.Injured Chhidda (P.W. 2) and eye witness Gaffar are the sons of Mazeed.In village Bhikanpur Muntha, Ishtiyak Hussain (D-1), although was continuously elected village pradhan since last fifteen years but in the last election held two years ago to the present incident, he was defeated by one Chhatar Singh Jat supported by accused respondents.On the polling day in that election a tiradic altercation had occasioned in between(A1) and(A2) and(D-1) and this had impregnated a feeling of revengeful animosity in the minds of the accused respondents.On the incident date 7.1.1990 at 2 P.M., Minzar Hussain informant (P.W.1) along with his father Ishtiyak Hussain (D-1), uncle Ishak Hussain (D-2), Gaffar, Zahid, Mohd. Alam (P.W.3) and Tasleem were proceeding towards Sunday market of Joya for purchasing cereals, vegetables and other commodities in the tractor trolley of Chhidda (injured/P.W.2) plied by (P.W.2) himself.After covering some distance from the village when the tractor trolley reached near the field of Fatte then, from the adjoining sugarcane field of Ram Pal, all the accused respondents, Irfan (A1)(armed with rifle) and rest of the accused respondents Aarif (A8), Laddan (A2), Babu (A3), Julfikar (A4) all sons of Nawab Jan, Afsar (A6), Kamrey Alam (A7) (sons of Afsar), Mohd. Islam (A5) all residents of village Bhikhanpur Muntha and accused-respondents Julfey (A10) and Rabbu (A9), both sons of Bhoore and Naushad (A11) (all the three residents of village Munda Ikiya, P.S. Didauli, Moradabad) armed with country made pistols with Laddan (A2) having a country made rifle came out firing and approached towards the trolley.They challenged to stop the tractor but Chhidda (P.W. 2) did not adhere to the challenge.On this, accused respondent Julfey (A10) fired at him, which caused a grazing gun- shot injury on the forearm of Chhidda (PW2).Sustaining injury, Chhidda (P.W. 2) stopped the tractor.All the accused then surrounded the tractor trolley.Irfan (A1) vetuparised Ishtiyak Hussain (D-1) and said that chairman will not to be left alive today as he brazen out very much and thereafter he instigated rest of his associates to annihilate him.All the accused respondents then pulled down (D-1) from the tractor trolley and dragged him to 8-10 paces in nearby field of Fatte where Rabbu(A9) and Kamrey Alam(A7) caught hold(D-1) from both of his hands and(A1) shot him dead inflicting riffle shot injury on his chest.(D-2), uncle of informant(P.W.1) in a lifesaving attempt tried to jump out from the tractor trolley but was caught hold of by accused respondents Aarif(A8) and Julfikar(A4) who both dragged him also to the same field of Fatte, near the spot where(D-1) was shot dead, and accused respondent Laddan(A3), from his CMP riffle shot him dead.All the assailants thereafter chased informant(PW1) but he sprinted and concealed himself in the sugarcane field.Other accompanying witnesses standing in the trolley jumped over from it and raced towards the village.Concealing himself,(PW1) measured a distance of 4½ KMs, came to the police station Didauli and there purchased a plain paper from an outside shop, slated incident FIR Ext. Ka-1, and lodged it at the police station Didauli same day at 3.30 P.M.Sealing both the dead bodies, it were handed over to the two constables CP 1164 Jagat Singh and CP 1102 Mahabir Singh to be carried to the mortuary.Simultaneously along with inquest memos, other relevant documents Police Form no.13, photo lash, challan lash, seal impressions, letters to C.M.O., letters to R.I. regarding both the deceased, Exhibits Ka-11 to Ka-21, were prepared.I.O. P.W.6, on his part, recorded the statements of witnesses including that of injured Chhidda(PW2) and thereafter dispatched him for being medically examined.(D-1) was adjudged to be 50 years of age and a day had lapsed since his death.He had an average built body and rigor mortis was present on his cadaver.His eyes were closed and mouth was half open.Following ante mortem injury was detected by the doctor on the dead body."Gunshot wound of entry 3 cm x 1.2 cm into the chest cavity deep on the right front side of chest, marginal to right clavicle of upper at 3 'O' clock position oval in shape margin inverted lacerated and abraded, no blackening and tattooing present direction of wound backward and downward on the left."In the stomach digested food was present.In the small and large intestines digested food gases and fecal matter were present.On internal examination doctor had also noted that fifth right rib and eighth left rib of this deceased were fractured, right pleura was cut on both the sides, right and left lungs were lacerated.A big metallic pellet was recovered from the left chest cavity; three ounce of blood was present in the stomach.Shock and hemorrhage occasioned due to sustained ante mortem injury were the cause of death for which inflicted injury caused by firearm (rifle) was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature.(D2) was 46 years of age and a day had lapsed since he had demised.Rigor mortis were present on his both the extremities.Margins inverted and abraded, no blackening or tattooing present and are 11 'o' clock position.(2) Gunshot wound of exit 1.2 cm x .7 cm x (Lt) chest cavity deep present 10 cm below the inferior angle of (Lt) scapula and 10cm left to midline.From ..on back of chest margin everted and lacerated Direction:.... (not visible) downward and toward back."(P.W.1) has categorically stated that he was a resident of village Bikhanpur Muntha and out of eleven accused , eight were his co-villagers.Rest of the three Julfey(A9), Rabbu(A10) and Naushad(A11) belonged to adjoining village Ikiya Muntha, which was six kilometers away and all them belonged to one group.Weapons carried by all the respondents accused have been specified from the very penning down of the FIR and from his evidence it is indubitable that (A1) was armed with a rifle, (A2) was holding a country-made rifle, while rest of the assailants carried country-made pistols with them.It was further evidenced by (PW1) that in the last election, which had polled two years ago, on the polling day hot exchange of words had ensued between(D-1) and accused-respondents (A1) and (A2) in the presence of police personnel who, at that time, had subsided and pacified that exchange of hot verbal duel.It is noted that(A1)&(A2) are the main shooters in the present incident.During counting of votes in Joya no untoward incident occurred and from the poll day till happening of the present incident no physical brawl had ensued between the rival factions except verbal onslaughts and both the deceased used to roam about in the village freely as they had never sensed that henceforth any incident will happen and hence the murder incident was committed all of a sudden.Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J.(Delivered by Hon'ble Vinod Prasad J.) Appellant prosecutor State has come up in this appeal against impugned judgment and order dated 4.4.1991 passed by VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad in S.T. No. 420 of 1990, State Vs.Irfan and ten others relating to P.S. Didauli, District Moradabad by which learned trial Judge has acquitted all the accused respondents herein namely Irfan (A1), Laddan (A2) Babu(A3) Julfikar (A4), Mohd. Islam (A5), Afsar (A6), KamreyAlam (A7), Aarif (A8), Rabbu (A9), Julfey (A10) and Naushad (A11) of the charged offences under sections 147, 148, 302/149, 307/149 I.P.C.Pending final outcome, three of the accused respondents expired.We therefore have to adjudicate this appeal only against surviving accused respondents(A4) to(A11) as above.Narrated briefly, prosecution allegations against respondents accused, as are deciphered from the written FIR Ext. Ka-1 and testimonies of fact witnesses, informant Minzar Hussain (P.W. 1), injured eye witness Chhidda (P.W. 2) and eye witness Mohd. Alam (P.W. 3), are that one Safi resident of village Bhikhanpur Muntha, P.S. Didauli had three sons Yaqub, Mohd. Iqlakh, Shah Mohammad.Mohd. Iqlakh had two sons Sadi and Saifulla.His eyes and mouth were closed.His left 3rd , 4th and 9th ribs were fractured, left side pleura, lung were lacerated, digested food was present in the stomach and small and large intestines contained gases and fecal matter.Cause of his death was produced shock and hemorrhage due to following ante mortem injuries:-ANTE MORTEM INJURIES (1) Gunshot wound of entry 3 cm x 2 cm x cavity deep on chest 4 cm above the (Lt) nipple.Dr. Narendra Kumar(P.W.5) had examined injured (PW.2) on the following day of the incident i.e. 8.1.90 at 9.15 a.m. and had prepared his injury report, Ext. Ka-4.Constable Tej Pal Singh had brought him to the doctor.On his person, doctor had found following injury:-"Examined Shri Chhidda S/o Shri Abdul Majeed.Aged about 35 years R/o village-Bhikanpur Munda, P/s Didauli, District-Moradabad on 8.1.90 at 9.15 AM.At P.H.C.- Joya, Moradabad.B/B- C.P. No. 999, Shri Tejpal Singh, P/s Didauli, Moradabad.N.I. : Black mole on left side of neck, 7.5 cm.below the left ear lobule.Injuries (1) Pallet like wound 0.25 cm x 0.25 cm on lower most part of medial aspect of Rt.No tattooing, No charring present.Opinion: Injury is kept under observation, Referred for 'X' Ray to District Hospital Moradabad.Duration of injury is within one day."Injured could have been inflicted with above injury on 7.1.90 at 2 p.m. Doctor(P.W.5) was unable to conclusively determine nature of the injury and the weapon by which it was caused and hence he had advised X-Ray for the same but X-Ray plate and report were never produced before(P.W.5).Nature of the injury was judged to be superficial which could have even been self-inflicted.Charge sheet, Exhibit Ka-22, resulted in registration of criminal case against the accused respondents in the committal court of C.J.M., Muzaffar Nagar, who finding the disclosed offences exclusive triable by the court of Sessions, committed case of the accused-respondents to the Sessions Court for trial where it was registered as S.T. No.420 of 90, State Vs.Irfan and others.All the charges were read out and explained to the accused, who all, after understanding the same, abjured them and pleaded not guilty and, therefore, to establish their guilt Sessions trial procedure was resorted to by the learned trial Judge for prosecuting them.During the trial, prosecution examined in all seven witnesses out of whom informant Minzar Hussain(P.W.1), injured Chhidda (P.W.2) and eye witness Mohd. Alam(P.W.3) were the fact witnesses.The doctors, who had performed both the autopsies and had examined the injured were examined as(P.W.4)&(P.W.5).Investigation Officer S.I. Subhash Chandra Garg is(P.W.6).Learned trial Judge examined Head Constable Raj Pal Singh, who had registered the crime and had prepared the chik F.I.R. and the G.D. entry as a court witness (C.W.1).Since, on the record, after reconstruction, statements of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is not available, we are not making any mention of it but since both the counsel from rival sides did not object to hearing of the appeal as they said that the defence of the accused was that of denial and their false implication therefore we had proceeded to hear the appeal.From the contents of the judgment also, accused defence seems to be that of false implication and denial, witnesses being inimical, partisan and related who had falsely deposed against them.Once the FIR version is correct, there was no occasion for the learned trial Judge to record an acquittal of accused respondents.The scrutiny of the prosecution version and testimonies of it's witnesses by the learned trial Judge is faulty perverse and it's analytical approach is also defective and therefore, conclusions arrived at by him suffers from glaring mistakes both on facts and law.Next, it was submitted that there was no reason for (PW2) to tell tale a story regarding an incident in which he himself had sustained a fire arm injury sparing real assailants.His presence at the spot cannot be doubted and since the defence has not been able to dislodge his testimonies or to bring on record any circumstance to discard his evidences therefore, the prosecution case spelt out by him as well as by the informant which are in corroboration of each other could not have been discarded and disbelieved by the learned trial Judge, who committed an ex facie error on that score.The testimonies of the two doctors unerringly confirms the prosecution allegations lending credence to it.From the Investigating Officer, defence had failed to get elicited any circumstance, which may caste a doubt on the truthfulness of the prosecution version and creditworthiness of it's witnesses.Appeal be dismissed.On being cross examined regarding last election (PW1) categorically deposed that(D-1), Chhatar Singh, Tahir and Majaheer were the candidates in that election fray and accused had supported Chhatar Singh, who had won the election, but(D-1) had not challenged it though any election petition.While admitting his presence during the election, informant testified that by losing in the election(D-1) had not harbored any animus or grouse against accused respondents.Concerning place of the incident (PW1) had disclosed that the same was surrounded by fields and the brick pathway route(khadanja) passed amidst it and during days of the incident expellers were extracting sugarcane juices.Agricultural field of Ram Pal was adjoining to the place of the incident having standing sugarcane crops of 8/9 feet high.(P.W.1) further testified that Joya is a big satellite township having a big market, which starts at 7-8A.M. and closes at sunset and it could be approached through four different routes.The first route is through village Kanakpura, Fatehpur and from this way Joya market would be 6 ½ kms and place of the incident will not fall en-route.Another way is through Sallarpur and from this way Joya will be 5- 5 ½ kms and place of incident will not fall from this way also.Third approach road is through Kharkhoda and incident place will not fall from this way also and Joya will be 8-8 ½ kms from this route.Last route, taken by the informant, the deceased and injured was from Sambhal.Joya will be at the shortest distance from this route.Sambhal-Joya route is one kilometer from the informant's village with regular bus supply.A neem tree near Palala, is the bus stand.From Palala to Asakipur is three kilometers.It is thus obvious that the route taken by the prosecution party was the shortest with traffic on it and it seemed to be the most convenient.On the ill-fated day deceased and the informant were going to Joya market to purchase household articles, grocery, clothes etc. Both the deceased used to do marketing once in week to purchase articles for the entire week.Informant too had to purchase those articles for the entire week.Informant further deposed that both the deceased had taken lunch at 10-11A.M. on the incident date.When questioned about the money,(PW1) made a categorical statement that both the deceased had no money with them.Informant has informed the attires worn by both the deceased which is corroborated by the inquest memos.Informant had refuted defence suggestion that the story of going to Joya market was false and concocted.Regarding the tractor, informant testified that the tractor belonged to the injured witness Chhidda(PW2) and on the mud-guard there was no seat.The deceased and the informant all were in the trolley and when tractor was forced to be stopped all of them had stood up in the trolley.Accused had come out from the field of Ram Pal resorted to firing to stop the tractor without causing injury to anybody and trolley was cordoned off by them disallowing anybody to escape.Fire was made at (PW2) from 5/6 paces causing him injury on his right forearm to compel him to stop the tractor.Informant further testified that some of the accused remained on the ground and some had climbed on the trolley and 2/ 3 accused had caught hold of (D-1) and had tried to drag him.Terrorized witnesses could not muster courage to stop the assailants as they were carrying firearms in one hand and were pulling(D-1) from the other.At that moment, no dragging injury was sustained by the deceased (D-1), who was trying to get himself freed.This tug of war continued only half a minute.Clothes of the deceased were not torned off.(D-1) had not fallen in the tractor trolley and after being pulled down he was dragged 8 to 10 paces in the field of Fatte where(A7) and (A9) held him by his hands and (A1) shot him dead from a very close quarter of only two and a half feet.After murdering (D-1) assailants returned to the trolley after a quick gap of 25 seconds and then dragged (D-2) to the same field where he was also shot dead by (A2) when (A4) and (A8) had held him by his hands.Thus what is apparent from such depositions are that the entire incident must not have taken more than a few minutes to be over.Informant had further deposed that the assailants had approached to annihilate him also but he jumped out of the trolley and escaped in the sugar cane field.During the incident accused were threatening the witnesses.This witness was also subjected to cross examination on relationships inter se most of which he had denied.Some enmity between the deceased and the other persons were also asked from him.Some of which he has admitted while denying the rest.Omissions in his statement to the I.O. were put to him and in reply thereof he had expressed his ignorance as to why they were not slated down.These omissions, in our opinion, are trivial and insignificant and do not corrode main substratum of the prosecution allegations, like he had not spelt out the names of the assailants who had climbed on the trolley and who had pulled down the two deceased or has not named who had dragged the deceased to the field of Fatte so on and so forth.Informant (P.W.1) further evidenced that after saving himself he did not return to the trolley and had proceeded straight for the police station where he had reached in 1 ½ hours.From a shop outside the police station, he had purchased a plain paper and on it he had scribed Ext. Ka-1 in 22 to 25 minutes.(P.W.1) further testified that he stayed in the police station for about 4/5 minutes.After he was interrogated by the I.O. and his statement was noted down that he had returned to the incident spot along with the I.O. in his jeep.He made a categorical deposition that no blood had tickled down in the trolley during the incident and by the same trolley both the corpses were sent to Moradabad after inquests were over and he had accompanied both the deceased.They had arrived at Moradabad at 8.30 P.M., where he had stayed over- night at the mortuary, which was nearby district jail.He confirmed of his being a panch witness in inquest proceedings and had signed inquest memos and had noted his opinion on it.He further stated that he had seen the injuries of the injured witness Chhidda/(PW2), which was on the outer aspect of his right wrist.According to this witness clothes of Chhidda/(PW2) were not stained with blood and he could not inform whether they had pellet marks on it or not? Informant/(PW1) emphatically denied defence suggestion that both the deceased were shot dead at a lonely place at an unknown time by unknown assailants and he was not present during the incident and (PW2) had also not sustained any injury during such an incident and his injury was got manufactured and he was got medically examined subsequently only to give colour to the incident.He also denied that his FIR was not recorded as alleged by him and subsequently in consultation with the police the same was fabricated and concocted.He also denied that he was not present at the spot and subsequently was summoned by the police and the bodies were detained at the police station to concoct a case.Chhidda (P.W. 2), the sole injured witness in the incident, corroborated informant/(PW1) on all the material and significant aspects of the incident and narrated the same version as that of the informant.On those aspects he had not erred or faltered to make the prosecution version suspect and doubtful.He rejuvenated date, time and place of the incident, presence of the informant, the deceased and the witnesses in his tractor trolley and in no uncertain terms deposed that he was plying the tractor at the time of the incident.He has repeated the names and weapons of all the accused respondents.Pertaining to the actual incident, he has corroborated (P.W.1) in full and hence , for the sake of brevity, we eschew from penning it down his depositions in extenso.(P.W.2) is clear and unambiguous that(D-1) was shot dead by (A1) whereas (A2) shot dead(D-2).Rabbu(A9), Kamrey Alam(A7), Aarif(A8) and Julfikar(A4) had caught hold of the two deceased in pairs.He has made a clear statement that Gaffar is his real brother and he had not fielded any candidate in the election.He further testified that all of them had started for Joya market 2/ 3 hours after taking lunch and both the dead bodies were transported to Moradabad in his tractor trolley.He had sustained grazing fire arm injury while he was plying the tractor and the shot was fired from western side by the shooter from a distance of 22/ 25 paces and he had sustained injury while he was sitting at the driver's seat and was facing towards south.Unlike (PW1), according to (PW2) some blood had oozed out which had stained his cloths.He had further deposed that when both the deceased were dragged to the field of Fatte at a distance of 10 paces and were done to death then all the accused had accompanied both (D-1) and (D-2) and meanwhile he (PW2) continued to sit on his driver's seat and was being threatened.Thus this witness confirmed the distance between tractor and the field of Fatte.Injured (PW-2) further deposed that 1 ½ seconds had taken place in annihilating both the deceased.He further disclosed that it was only after informant had escaped that he too had jumped down from the tractor and had raced to save his life.Regarding omissions in his earlier statements he could not state the reasons for the same.He further disclosed that when informant jumped down from the trolley and escaped then none of the culprits was near the trolley but he was chased by 3/4 murderers.He denied the defence suggestion that no such incident as alleged by him had occurred and on the date of the incident he was not going to Joya with the tractor trolley and he had not sustained any injury as alleged and he had got his injury report manufactured in connivance with the informant as he belonged to the party of the deceased Ishtiyak (D-1).Coming to the depositions of (P.W.3) he too has supported his predecessor witnesses in all broad features of the prosecution allegations without wavering and damaging statements.He disclosed that he was going to the market to purchase vegetables and boora and at that time he had a bag with him.Tractor had met him in the way.He has further confirmed informant's disclosure that Joya is a big market place with lots of shops and articles of daily consumption were available there.He also disclosed that because I.O. had not confronted him regarding the articles, which he had to purchase, therefore, he had not disclosed it to the I.O. Regarding actual incident, this witness has reiterated the same facts, which have already been testified both by (P.W.1) & (P.W.2).He had further disclosed that initially shots were fired from a distance of 20 paces and after (PW2) became injured then the tractor had stopped ahead 4/ 5 paces.From the western side Chhidda was fired upon from a distance of 5/ 6 paces.Rabbu (A9) and Kamrey Alam (A7) had pulled down Ishtiyak (D-1) when rest of the accused had cordoned off the trolley.During running of tractor torlley nobody had fired upon (D-1).(P.W.3) further disclosed that the deceased was shot dead 10/ 12 paces away from the trolley.Aarif (A8) and Julfikar (A4) had pulled down (D-2) when he was trying to jump over the trolley and he was murdered by (A2).He too had denied the defence suggestion that he was not present at the spot and had not witnessed the incident and whatever he had testified were all a fib.The formal witnesses, the two doctors and the I.O. have testified those very facts which have already been recorded herein above and hence the same are not being repeated again.We again make a note that accused statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C. could not be reconstructed but since no grievance was raised by any of the accused respondent in that respect arguendo this appeal through learned senior advocate therefore, we take it that they had no arguments to offer in that respect and 313 Cr.P.C. questionnaires were correctly put to all the accused persons and they had the only defence that the two deceased were murdered at an unknown place and time by unknown murderers and injury of the inured was manufactured and fabricated and he and informant were not present at the spot and subsequently (PW1) was summoned and FIR was concocted and accused were framed-in this fabricated version.He omitted to consider some significant aspects and evidences which had important bearing on the outcome of the case as those aspects anoints guilt of the accused convincingly.Contrary to it learned trial Judge has concentrated and deliberated on most insignificant and trivial issues having no deleterious effects on the prosecution version to discard prosecution allegations.Bahadur Singh (deceased) was prosecuted for the said murder.Thus the conclusions arrived at by the learned trial Judge respecting FIR, Ext.There is nothing on record to deduce that they also formed an unlawful assembly with a common object to commit double murder.Coming to the proven offences of theses accused Julfey (A10), Rabbu (A9), Kamrey Alam (A7), Arif (A8)and Julfikar (A4), they had formed and were members of an unlawful assembly armed with fire arms with a common object to commit double murder and in furtherance of their said common object they had committed daylight double murder and had made fire at the injured causing him simple injury, and hence they all, except Julfey (A10), are held guilty for offences u/s 148, 302/149, and 324/149 I.P.C. Julfey (A10) is held guilty for offence u/s 148,302/149 and 324 IPC.Appeal allowed in part as above.	['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
86,240,957	arrest the respondent nos.4 to 6 as an offence under sections 456, 376(2)(g) and 506-B/34 IPC has been registered against them vide crime No.97/2012 registered at Police Station Pawai, District Panna.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has also filed a representation before the Superintendent of Police, Panna but no action thereon has been taken till date.With the aforesaid observation, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of.	['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
165,707,716	In the present case there are as many as 10 accused persons namely Mukhram (appellant no.1), Bhauram (appellant no.2), Rajkumar alias Pahalwan (appellant no.3), Brijkishore (appellant no.4), Nandkishore (appellant no.5), Ram Asre (absconding) (appellant no.6), Ram Khilawan (accused no.7 who filed a separate appeal and during pendency of that appeal he had died), Kriparam and Santkumar (accused no.8 and 9) were acquitted while accused no.10 Dadi s/o.Sukhram died during the trial.In brief the case of prosecution is that on 12.8.1997 eyewitnesses Ramdas and her Bhabhi Kamla (elder brother's wife) of Village Kawarau who were accompanied by Shivram of Village Supa along with Devbati and wife of Ramavtar were going.It is said that Ramdas and Shivram boarded the bus from the bus stop of Mahoba and thereafter all these four persons in 3 Cr.A. No. 1638/01 the bus were going to Village Gahwara and alighted in Village Barha.It is said that Lala Bhai (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") was already told that he should join these persons from Barha bus stand as a result of which Lala Bhai also joined these four persons from bus stand of village Barha.Thereafter, all these five persons started their journey from Village Barha to Village Gahwara as pedestrians.On the way nearby the bandhia of Dina Chamar, accused Ram Khilawan alias Khillu (who after conviction filed separate appeal and who had died during the pendency of the appeal) having a gun in his hand came out and scolded upon the deceased.However, the deceased did not pay any heed to his alarm and further proceeded to his way as a result of which said Ram Khilawan fired the gun and the gunshot fire struck the back of the deceased.On receiving the gunshot injury the deceased fell down.Thereafter, it is said that said Ram Khilawan alias Khillu again scolded upon the deceased and told other accused persons that the deceased is running away as a result of which absconded co-accused Ram Asre and other co- accused Rajkumar and Mukhram having pharsa, Kriparam, Dadi, Santkumar alias Santu, Brijkishore and Nandkumar alias Dau by carrying Axe in their hands and Bhauram carrying a gun chased the deceased.It is said that first of all Ram Asre dealt pharsa blow upon the deceased.Thereafter, Kriparam dealt Axe blow.4 Cr.A. No. 1638/01 Subsequently, all the accused persons started causing injuries to the deceased.Further, it is the case of the prosecution that accused Bhauram was instigating the other accused persons by saying "maro sale ko, bach ke na jane paye" and started hurling abuses.On account of receiving injuries by the deceased, he had died.3 Cr.A. No. 1638/014 Cr.A. No. 1638/01(22.10.2013) Per Justice A.K. Shrivastava:Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.08.2001 passed by learned Third 2 Cr.A. No. 1638/01 Additional Sessions Judge, Chhattarpur in Sessions Trial No. 31/2000 convicting the appellants under Section 148 and sentencing them to suffer RI for two years and also under Section 302/149 IPC and thereby sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life with default stipulations as mentioned in the impugned judgment, the appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732 Cr.A. No. 1638/01The other persons who were accompanying the deceased on seeing the incident got frightened and went to their respective houses.On the next day, Ramdas Shukla lodged the written report in the concerning police station on the basis of which FIR was registered and the case was investigated.The Investigating Agency arrived at the spot; prepared the spot map; seized the dead body and sent it for postmortem; recorded the statement of the witnesses and seized the ordinary and blood stained clothes.After the Investigation was over a charge sheet was submitted in the Committal Court which committed the case to the Court of Session from where it was received for trial.The learned Trial Judge on the basis of the averments made in the charge-sheet framed charges punishable under Section 148 and 302 IPC and in the alternative, 302/149 IPC against all the appellants which they denied and requested for the trial.The prosecution thereafter examined as many as 08 witnesses and 5 Cr.A. No. 1638/01 also placed Ex. P/1 to P/14, the documents on record.The defence of the appellants is of false implication and the same defence they set-forth in their statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. The other co-accused Kriparam and Santkumar alias Santu took the plea of alibi and in support of their defence the accused persons including acquitted co-accused Kriparam and Santkumar examined as many as five witnesses, they are: Baburam (DW-1), Mahendra Singh(DW-2), Uttam (DW-3), Virendra Singh (DW-4) and Govind Prasad Tiwari (DW-5).5 Cr.A. No. 1638/01The learned Trial Judge on the basis of the evidence placed on record did not find the charges against accused Kriparam and Santkumar to be proved and eventually they have been acquitted.Accused Dadi also died during trial and the trial was abated against him.However, the charges were found to be proved against the present appellants and another co-accused Ram Khilawan and eventually they have been convicted under Section 302/149 and 148 IPC and they have been directed to serve the sentence as mentioned in the impugned judgment.Indeed, Ram Asre is absconding since beginning while Ram Khilawan who filed a separate appeal before this Court died during pendency of that appeal.We have heard Shri Manish Awasthy and Shri Rajkamal Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri 6 Cr.A. No. 1638/01 Sudesh Verma, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State and having heard them, we are of the considered view that this appeal deserves to be allowed in part.6 Cr.A. No. 1638/01In the present case there are as many as four eye witnesses to the incident, they are Ramdas Shukla (PW-1), Kamla Bai Shukla (PW-2), Shivram Shukla (PW-3) and Dev Vati Shukla (PW-4).On going through the testimony of the author of the FIR Ramdas Shukla, we find that specifically he has deposed that when he along with the deceased, Shivram, Devbati etc. were going from Village Barha to Village Gahwara, on the way accused Ram Khilawan alias Khillu fired gunshot which struck the back of the deceased as a result, he fell down and thereafter upon the insistence of the accused Ram Khilawan all the accused persons started giving blows of weapons to the deceased which they were carrying with them.It is said that appellant Mukhram was carrying a pharsa while appellants Rajkumar, Brijkishore and Nandkishore were carrying pharsa and Axe respectively.For appellant no.2 Bhauram it is said that he was carrying a gun and he simply hurled the abuses to the deceased and was exhorting the other accused persons to kill the deceased.The statement of author of FIR, Ramdas Shukla 7 Cr.A. No. 1638/01 has been corroborated by the evidence of other eye witnesses namely Kamla Bai Shukla (PW-2), Shivram Shukla (PW-3) and Dev Vati Shukla (PW-4).7 Cr.A. No. 1638/01We have examined the statement of witnesses thoroughly and we could not find that there is anything in order to disbelieve their testimony.On the contrary, we find their evidence to be clear, cogent and trustworthy.Therefore, according to us, learned Trial Court did not commit any error in convicting the appellants except appellant no.2 Bhauram under Section 302/149 IPC.However, we find that the charge under Section 148 IPC has not been proved against appellant no.2 Bhauram and other appellants because no charge under Section 147 IPC has been framed against the present appellants.It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused persons formed unlawful assembly.However, except appellant no.2 Bhauram, the act of all the accused persons since they collectively had gone upon the insistence of accused Ram Khilawan and dealt injuries by pharsa and Axe to the deceased, therefore, according to us, except appellant no.2 Bhauram, all the appellants have committed the offence punishable under Section 302/149 IPC.On scanning the evidence of the doctor as well as the postmortem report we find that apart from gunshot injury which is said to have been caused by accused Ram Khilawan, there are several incised wounds on the person of the deceased.Needless to say appellants Mukhram, Rajkumar, Brijkishore and Nandkishore were carrying pharsa and Axe and all the eye witnesses in their similar voice have deposed that they have caused injuries by the weapons which they were carrying to the deceased.Thus, according to us, learned Trial Court did not commit any error in convicting the appellants under Section 302/149 IPC except appellant no.2 Bhauram.8 Cr.A. No. 1638/01However, on scanning the testimony of author of the FIR, Ramdas Shukla (PW-1) and other eye witnesses, we find that although the role assigned to appellant no.2 Bhauram is that he is carrying a gun, but he had simply asked the other appellants to kill the deceased.Indeed when upon exhorting by accused Ram Khilawan all the accused persons rushed towards the deceased and started giving blows of weapons which they were carrying with them, this appellant Bhauram simply hurled abuses to the deceased.According to us, he cannot be convicted under Section 302/149 IPC.Had there been any common object of this 9 Cr.A. No. 1638/01 appellant along with other co-accused persons to kill the deceased since this appellant was carrying a gun with him, nobody prevented him to cause the gunshot fire but instead of causing any gunshot fire he simply scolded by saying "maro sale ko, bach ke na jane paye".That apart, seizure of gun from this appellant is also not proved.The prosecution has examined Dayaram (PW-5) who is the witness of the seizure memo of the gun, but, he has not supported the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile.The other witnesses to the seizure memo has not been examined and Sitaram Pateriya (PW-8) who is the police inspector has not deposed in his testimony that he had seized the gun from this appellant.Thus, the seizure of gun from this appellant is also highly doubtful.Hence, we hereby extend our benefit of doubt to appellant no.2 Bhauram.9 Cr.A. No. 1638/01On bare perusal of the judgment we find that charge under Section 147 has not been framed against the appellants and, therefore, according to us, in order to convict the accused under Section 148 IPC, the guilt of rioting is pre-supposed.Since the appellants have not been charged under Section 147 IPC, therefore, according to us they cannot be convicted for the charge under Section 148 IPC.Accordingly, conviction of all the appellants under Section 148 IPC is hereby set aside.10 Cr.A. No. 1638/0110 Cr.A. No. 1638/01However, appellants Mukhram, S/o.Narayan Brahman Rajkjumar, S/o.Narayan Brahman, Brijkishore, S/o.Parmeshwardeen and Nandkishore, S/o.	['Section 302 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.
165,709,010	DATE : OCTOBER 06, 2018PER COURT Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.P.P. for respondent.These applications are being decided by this common order, since they have arisen out of a common crime.The informant, namely, Rajendra Laxmikant Ghoke, H. R. Manager, Akar Auto Industries Ltd., MIDC, CIDCO, Waluj, Aurangabad, lodged First Information Report (for short 'FIR') on 10th August, ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2018 02:50:58 ::: 4 913 ba1169-18 +2018 in respect of the incident that took place on 9 th August, 2018, between 2.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. It is alleged that near about 400 to 500 unknown persons entered into the premises of his factory unauthorizedly and damaged the computers, accessories of the computers, CNC machines, furnitures, CCTV Cameras, Ambulance, a truck, Maruti car and two motor cycles and took away spanners, screwdrivers, Allen keys etc. There was loss of about Rs.1.25 to 1.5 crores caused to the factory.The informant lodged the report, on the basis of which the above-numbered crime came to be registered.::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2018 02:50:58 :::The learned counsel for the applicants submit that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this crime.They were not identified by anybody as the persons involved in the incident in question.The alleged recovery of spanner boxes and spanners from the applicants Sachin and Abasaheb is not believable.The learned counsel for the applicants produced the order dated 29th September, 2018 passed in Bail Application No. 1121 of 2018 and ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2018 02:50:58 ::: 5 913 ba1169-18 +the companion bail applications arising out of the same crime, which is the subject matter of the present applicants.All the applicants have been released on bail on certain conditions.Therefore, on the principle of parity also the applicants are claiming the relief of bail.Considerable time will be required for conclusion of the trial.The learned counsel for the applicants, therefore, pray that the applicants may be released on bail.::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2018 02:50:58 :::The learned A.P.P. strongly opposed the applications.He submits that the applicants Sachin and Govind have been identified by the watchman of the company and other witnesses.There is recovery of spanners from the applicants Sachin and Abasaheb.He submits that a huge damage has been caused to the company of the informant.Charge-sheet has not yet been filed.Considering the involvement of the applicants in the serious crime, they are not ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2018 02:50:58 ::: 6 913 ba1169-18 +entitled to get the relief of bail.::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2018 02:50:58 :::Perused the papers of investigation.There seems to be recovery of some spanners from the applicants Sachin and Abasaheb.However, that fact by itself would not be sufficient to deny them the relief of bail since it would be the matter of evidence to see whether all these articles have been seized from the exclusive and conscious possession of the applicants Sachin and Abasaheb.Identification of applicants Sachin and Govind is stated to have been done by some of the witnesses in the police station, which, prima facie, cannot be attached with any importance.No identification parade has been conducted.The applicants are similarly situated persons like the applicants in Bail Application No. 1121 of 2018 and companion applications.The investigation is almost complete.In the circumstances, I think fit to extend the relief of bail to the applicants with certain conditions.::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2018 02:50:58 :::::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2018 02:50:58 :::7 913 ba1169-18 +It is made clear that the above observations are prima facie in nature and shall not influence any other proceedings arising out of the above-numbered crime.In the result, I pass the following order:(ii) The applicants shall not indulge in any criminal activity.(C) Bail bonds shall be furnished before the Remand / Committal Court.(D) The application is accordingly disposed of [SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.]vsm/ ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2018 02:50:58 :::::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2018 02:50:58 :::	['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
165,709,093	This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 16.12.2014 passed by the Court of 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Satna in Sessions Trial No. 286/2014, whereby a charge under Section 304, in the alternative 304-A of the I.P.C. and Sections 308 and in the alternative 338 of the I.P.C. and Sections 113/149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, was framed against the petitioner.Consequently, this criminal revision deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.Needless to mention, the petitioner shall be free to take all the grounds taken by him herein on merits before the trial Court at appropriate stage.(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE sh	['Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
165,714,408	According to the prosecution case, soon after the marriage, the petitioners started harassing the complainant due to her failure of fulfilling their demand of dowry.After begetting a daughter, whenever she conceived and it was found that she had female foetus, they pressurized her and got it abort thrice.They stopped giving her money for household expenditure and when she joined service as a teacher in a school, they started making allegation that she is characterless.Once they also tried to throttle her by her own scarf.They used to beat her and have ultimately thrown her out of the house.MCRC 3972/2019 2Submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is that parents-in-law of the complainant/applicant Rajendra and Smt. Sudha are 78 & 75 years old respectively.The police has earlier registered the case under Sections 498- A, 323, 506/34 & 325 of IPC, but later on added Section 313 of the IPC to the charge-sheet filed before the Magistrate.There is no corroborative medical evidence at all to substantiate the charge under Section 313 of IPC.Charges under Sections 323, 325 & 506 of IPC are bailable.It is further urged that marriage between Anshul Singhal (petitioner No.1) and Poornima solemnised on 23/04/2000, but soon after the marriage, the matrimonial discords surfaced.Behaviour of the complainant with her husband and in-laws was cruel.She was spluttering and creating scenes of and on one issue or the other.When her behaviour crossed the limits and she started threatening to send them jail, they informed the police.Learned Senior Counsel drew my attention towards several applications filed before the police informing behaviour of the complainant, a letter of father of the complainant expressing regret due to behaviour of his daughter, exchange of few letters between them and father of the complainant making counter allegations on each other, few photographs of the complainant, where she is appearing making noose around her neck by scarf (chunni).It is submitted that she threatened the petitioners that she will hang herself and implead them in criminal case.She has made false allegation, therefore, they be granted bail.MCRC 3972/2019 3	['Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
165,717,814	Allowed md.CRM No. 5337 of 2018 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 26.7.2018 in connection with Murarai Police Station Case No. 295 of 2018 dated 15.07.2018 under Sections 379/411/414 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 21 of M.M. Act.And In Re:-Safikul Sahana ... Petitioner Mr. Mahaboob Ahmed, Advocate ..for the Petitioner Mr. S.S. Imam, Advocate Mr. S. Kundu, Advocate .. for the State Liberty is given to Advocate for the petitioner to correct the cause title and incorporate an additional section that was inadvertently left out.Such correction be incorporated in the presence of an officer of this Court.The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Murarai Police Station Case No. 295 of 2018 dated 15.07.2018 under Sections 379/411/414 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 21 of M.M. Act.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2	['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
165,723,974	sm Rejected CRM No.10653 of 2016 In the matter of an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 19.12.2016 in connection with Mekhliganj Police Station Case No.252 of 2016 dated 02.09.2016 under sections 498A/370/370A of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re:- Ejarul mallick @ Rejaul Mallick .. Petitioner.Asraf Mandal ... for the petitioner Mr.Arindam Sen ... for the State.Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties.Opposing the prayer for bail, the learned advocate for the State draws our attention to the statement of the victim-lady recorded under section 164 CrPC.Accordingly, this application for bail stands rejected.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Malay Marut Banerjee, J.) 2	['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
165,727,175	1 High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Indore Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.15944/2019 (Mukesh s/o Vishwanath Joshi Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh) Indore, Dated 29.04.2019 Mr. Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.With the aforesaid liberty, Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.15944/2019 is dismissed as withdrawn.	['Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
165,728,219	As per the prosecution case, the prosecutrix (S-1) is about 17 years old minor girl.Her friend prosecutrix (S-2) is a 15 years old girl.On 28.04.2017, petitioner Manish and co-accused Shripal kidnapped prosecutrix (S-1) and (S-2) and took them to a room near a petrol pump where petitioner Manish raped S-2 repeatedly and co-accused Shripal raped prosecutrix (S-1) repeatedly.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no allegation that petitioner Manish raped the prosecutrix (S-1); therefore, he is entitled to be released on bail.Therefore, it has been prayed that the petitioner be released on bail.Learned panel lawyer 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 Manish, is allowed.It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified Copy as per rules.(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE b	['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
89,606,662	Bail Appl.1316/2018 & 1713/2018 Page 2 of 241316/2018 & 1713/2018 Page 3 of 24 payment towards consultancy work and further, the petitioner's son was never a shareholder or Director of the said company.It is further submitted by petitioner's counsel that ECIR/07/HIU/2017 is baseless, politically motivated and an act of vendetta against petitioner and his son, because petitioner is a vocal critic and opponent of the present Central Government both inside Parliament and outside.It is also submitted that petitioner is a sitting member of Rajya Sabha.No. 286/2018 titled as Sameer M. Bhujbal Vs.Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement & Bail Appl.1316/2018 & 1713/2018 Page 6 of 24 Ors.After having heard both the sides at length and on perusal of the FIR of this case, short reply of respondent-CBI, material on record and the decisions cited, I find that from the material collected by the Investigating Agency, it prima facie appears that 3 Crores approximately has come into the account of M/s Advantage Strategic Consulting Pvt. Ltd. (ASCPL) and other concerns during the tenure of the petitioner as the Finance Minister.The table below shows the payments made from Span Fibre and Satyam Fibres to ASCPL and associated entities:-Bail Appl.1316/2018 & 1713/2018 Page 9 of 24From the investigation conducted, it appeared that ASCPL and other concerns are beneficially controlled and managed by Karti P. Chidambaram.The beneficial ownership of Shri Karti P. Chidambaram in ASCPL and associated entity becomes clear from the projected facts enumerated as under:-(a) In the year 2009-10, Shri Karti P. Chidambaram secured mandate from Vasan Healthcare to raise funds through Spark Capital from which Karti P. Chidambaram demanded money and in this connection several emails were exchanged between Karti P. Chidambaram and K. Ramamkrishnan of Spark Capital.Later on, Spark Capital received funds from three entities i.e. M/s Advantage Strategic Consulting Pvt. Ltd., Kriya FMCG and Northstar as per the details given below:Bail Appl.1316/2018 & 1713/2018 Page 10 of 24Singapore, wanted to invest in Vasan Healthcare, Karti P. Chidambaram had demanded 20 Crores in lieu of shares of ASCPL in Vasan Healthcare for smooth closure of the transaction.(c) One Shri R. Joseph Kennedy of Blue Bugs was given the task of designing the logo, stationery of M/s Castle Gordon Global Advisory Ltd., UK, development of its website, domain name registration, hosting and email facilities.An invoice of 46,175/- for the work was raised by Blue Bugs in the name of ASCPL.Shri Mike Nithavrianakis who had allegedly floated M/s Castle Gordon Global Advisory Ltd. is the Director and partner of Shri Karti P. Chidamdaram in M/s Totus Tennis Ltd.(e) Mohanan Rajesh, Director in ASCPL and a schoolmate of Karti P. Chidambaram has disclosed in his statement that on Karti's instructions ASCPL allotted 66.67% of the total share to Ausbridge Holding and Investments Pvt. Ltd., a company for purchase of shares of ASCPL was made by Mohanan Rajesh from his personal account and he was later compensated by way of payments from companies controlled by acquaintances of Shri Karti P. Chidambaram.Bail Appl.1316/2018 & 1713/2018 Page 11 of 24(f) Ms. Meena Saundarajan, a family friend of Karti P. Chidambaram, had transferred about 30 Lakhs to Ausbridge through her companies for purchase of shares of ASCPL on instructions of Karti P. Chidambaram.(g) Expenses on internet used on the telephone number 9884216000 used by Karti.P Chidambaram.(h) Expenses on travel by Karti P. Chidambaram and his associates were borne by ASCPL.Also personal expenses of Karti P. Chidambaram were borne by ASCPL viz, repair of his Patek Phillippe watch, hotel stays, meals and tickets for tennis tournaments, paintings seized during searches from the office of Karti P. Chidambaram (Chess Global Advisory Services) etc. Even expenses of Sh.Murali, PA of Karti P Chidambaram were paid by ASCPL.In response to the request, Karti P. Chidambaram had asked Manoj Mohanka to place him suitably so that he may act on behalf of Artevea, UK for raising capital and requested Manoj to allot the above shares amounting to 60 Lakhs approximately (60 Thousand Pounds).In compliance to the request M/s Artevea Digital Ltd. allotted 6 Lakhs shares without any payment and Karti P. Chidambaram failed to raise funds for Artevea but he did not return these 60 Lakhs shares or compensate any money for them.Bail Appl.1316/2018 & 1713/2018 Page 12 of 24(l)The recovery of paintings purchased by ASCPL from the premises of Karti P. Chidambaram during searches conducted on 13.01.2018, the statements of Shri S. Bhaskararaman recorded under Section 50 of PMLA, the extracts of books of accounts of ASCPL as recovered from the hard disks of Shri S. Bhaskararaman seized from the premises of Shri Karti P. Chidambaram on 1.12.2015, banks statements of ASCPL, statements of people dealing with ASCPL recorded under section 50 of PMLA, emails of Shri Karti P. Chidambaram, Shri S. Bhaskararaman etc. recovered from the aforesaid hard disks seized on 1.12.2015 all show that every aspect of the business affairs of ASCPL was controlled by Karti P. Chidamabram, every expense incurred by ASCPL no matter how small was approved by Karti P. Chidambaram, expenses of Karti P. Chidambaram were paid by ASCPL and the people making payments to Bail Appl.1316/2018 & 1713/2018 Page 13 of 24 ASCPL said that the payments were made to Karti P. Chidambaram.This shows that the ASCPL was beneficially owned by Karti P. Chidambaram.The investigation conducted reveals that ASCPL and other concerns are not conducting any genuine and bona fide business activities.The two Debit Notes raised by CBN Placement and Management Center dated 01.10.2007, 17.11.2007 and Debit Note dated 01.04.2008 of Kriya FMCG were prepared by Bhaskararaman, who had brought those Debit Notes for his signatures.He signed those Debit Notes and he had no idea about the parties mentioned in the Debit Notes.The money which was received from Span Fibre was utilised by him for purchase of shares in his name in ASCPL, Chennai and various other expenses and investments made in ASCPL on the instructions of Karti P. Chidambaram.The third Debit Note dated 1.4.2008 bears the signatures of Sh.C.B.N. Reddy, Director.The parties mentioned in the Debit Notes are not known to him.It is only now that he had come to know about the existence of these debit notes.Mr. S. Bhaskararaman, CA, had told him that Polyester Fibre was sold for M/s. Span Fibre for the reason that commission income was generated.He stated that the illegal gratification in the form of commission received from M/s SPAN Fibre India Pvt. Ltd. was split among M/s. ASCPL, M/s. Kriya FMCG and CBN Placement and Management Centre as Sh.As per Bhaskararaman, CBN Reddy was the link between the 3 entities.CBN Reddy, however, has stated that this money belonged to Karti P. Chidambaram and that he has no knowledge of the work done.Thus, he admits that money is related to Shri Karti P. Chidambaram and that money was received by three entities acting together i.e. CBN Placement and Management Centre, Kriya FMCG and ASCPL.He also stated that no separate work was done by CBN Placement and Management Centre and M/s. Kriya FMCG.The Debit Notes were raised through CBN Placement and Management Centre.These Debit Notes bear the signature of Sh.CBN Reddy.The investigation conducted further revealed that no brokerage services were actually rendered by ASCPL or associate entities (CBN Placement and Management Centre and Kriya FMCG).The investigation conducted with the buyers of PSF shows that they had never interacted with ASCPL or associate entities.This fact was also admitted by the directors of ASCPL, including Sh.It is further revealed that fake invoices were raised to the companies by ASCPL and other concerns in order to show and legitimize the payments received from those companies which were in fact the bribe money for the favours shown by the petitioner.It is also established that the money was collected by Karti P. Chidambaram through these concerns on behalf of the petitioner for the favours shown by the petitioner to the companies who had transferred money into the account of ASCPL and other concerns.The illegal gratification collected was thereafter invested in other companies /entities.The money received by ASCPL from M/s Span Fibre India Pvt. Ltd. was nothing but illegal gratification received for the approval given by the Finance Minister for FDI in INX Media Ltd. The Bank statement of ASCPL for A/c No. 0602100003711 maintained with DCB Bank shows that ASCPL received money from M/s Span Fibre India Pvt. Ltd. in 2007-08, as follows :-Thereafter the money was invested Bail Appl.1316/2018 & 1713/2018 Page 16 of 24 in shares of Vasan Health Care Ltd. Although the shares were acquired by Smt. Meera Arun for 3 Crores, she gifted the shares to her father and he immediately sold the same to ASCPL for 1.5 Crores at a price lower than the price at which they themselves bought the shares at a loss of 1.5 Crores.Even though the sale was at a price of 1.5 Crores, at the time of the sale, ASCPL paid Dwarkanathan (father of Smt. Meera Arun) a sum of 50 Lakhs and that too after one year.Bail Appl.1316/2018 & 1713/2018 Page 16 of 24It was projected by the Investigating Agencies that ASCPL received 22,50,00,600/- from Sequoia for sale of Vasan shares and this money is tainted money as it arises out of sale of shares of Vasan Healthcare that are themselves acquired from tainted funds and is property involved in money laundering.It is further projected that the remaining shares of Vasan Health Care held by ASCPL is properly involved in money laundering and thereafter, ASCPL sold further 36245 share of Vasan to Vasan Medical Hall @ 5242/- per share at a total Bail Appl.1316/2018 & 1713/2018 Page 17 of 24 value of 19 Crores.Therefore, it is projected that the amount of 19 Crores is also property involved in money laundering as it is arising from sale of shares of Vasan i.e. property involved in money laundering.Bail Appl.1316/2018 & 1713/2018 Page 17 of 24The investigation conducted further reveals as follows:-The funds of 22.5 Crores derived by ASCPL from the sale of shares of Vasan Health Care to Sequoia, funds of 19 Crores derived from the sale of shares of Vasan to Vasan Medical Hall and the profit of 18.49 Crores approx.on the sale of shares of AGS Health Care was arising out of sale of property involved in money laundering.So, the funds of 59.99 Crores are property involved in money laundering.In addition, Span Fibre (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd paid an amount of 3 Crores to ASCPL and associate companies, out of which only 50 Lakhs was used and the remaining 2.5 Crores were Proceeds of Crime in the hands of ASCPL as both Kriya FMCG and CBN Placement and Management Centre channelled the money back to ASCPL.The remaining shares of Vasan held by ASCPL are also proceeds of crime.62.68 Crores Bail Appl.1316/2018 & 1713/2018 Page 18 of 24 approximately worth properties are involved in money laundering by ASCPL as a result of criminal activity relating to a Schedule Offence.1316/2018 & 1713/2018 Page 18 of 24The remaining shares (83,755) of Vasan Health Care (1,50,000 less 30,000 less 36,245 = 83,755) held by ASCPL are also proceeds of crime as they are derived from criminal activity relating to a Scheduled Offence.In the above captioned first application [Bail Appln.1316/2018], petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in FIR No. RC220-2017-E-0011, under Section 120B read with Section 420 of IPC and Sections 8 and 13 (2) r/w Section 13(1) (d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (henceforth referred to as the 'PC Act'), whereas in the above captioned second application [Bail Appln.1713/2018], petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in ECIR/07/HIU/2017, registered under the provisions of The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (henceforth referred to as the 'PMLA').With the consent of learned counsel representing both the sides, these applications have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.It is the case of petitioner that M/s INX Media Pvt. Ltd. sought approval for FDI in a proposed TV channel upto 46.216 percent of the issued equity capital.The policy allowed investment upto 74 percent of equity.Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) Unit examined the proposal, found it to be in order and submitted the case to the Finance Minister.FIPB consisted of six secretaries to the Government of India and was chaired by the Secretary, Economic Affairs.FIPB unanimously recommended the proposal and placed it before the Finance Minister for his approval, along with several other proposals.In May, 2007, the Finance Minister (i.e. the petitioner herein) granted his approval in the normal course of official business.According to learned senior counsel for petitioner, ten years later, based on alleged 'oral source of information', Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) recorded an FIR on 15th May, 2017 against four companies, Karti P. Chidambaram (i.e. petitioner's son), unknown officers/officials of the Ministry of Finance and other unknown persons under Section 120B r/w Section 420 of IPC and Section 8 and Section 13 (1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The petitioner was not named as an accused or suspect; there is no allegation against the petitioner in the body of the FIR.Bail Appl.1316/2018 & 1713/2018 Page 3 of 24According to learned senior counsel for petitioner, based on ECIR/07/HIU/2017, registered by the CBI, Enforcement Directorate (ED) recorded an ECIR, which ED has maintained is an internal record.State of Gujarat and another (2016) 1 SCC 152; Nikesh Tarachand Shah Vs.Amit Kumar @ Bachcha Rai (2017) 13 SCC 751 and Rohit Tandon Vs.Bail Appl.1316/2018 & 1713/2018 Page 8 of 24CBN Reddy was the common link among the three entities, he was the director and major shareholder in M/s.Bail Appl.1316/2018 & 1713/2018 Page 20 of 24We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.	['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
89,616,829	On due consideration, I.A. No.8375/2017, moved on behalf of the applicants, is allowed and the documents annexed therewith are taken on record.Heard on I.A. No.8374/2017, which is an application moved on behalf of the applicants, for grant of ad-interim anticipatory bail to them till the final disposal of the bail application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. The applicants apprehend their arrests in Criminal Complaint Case No.364/2017, pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class (Smt. Archana Naidu Bode) Budhar district Shahdol.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that upon a criminal complaint filed by respondent no.2/complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the learned JMFC has registered the aforesaid criminal complaint case for their prosecution under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 474 r.w. 34 of the IPC.As per the complaint, the allegations against the applicants are that they have claimed false leave travel concessions (LTCs) from their employer, which is a Government of India undertaking.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that respondent No.2 is a private person and that he has no right to challenge that the applicants had claimed false LTCs from their employer.Thus, the learned JMFC has wrongly registered the complaint against the applicants.Upon these submissions, he prays to grant ad-interim anticipatory bail to the applicants till the final disposal of the main bail application.Learned Panel Lawyer leaves the matter at the discretion of this Court as the case is not registered upon the police report.This order shall remain in force till the final disposal of the main bail application.Certified copy as per rules.(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE	['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
896,295	The Superintendent of Police, Chengalpattu East District, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai - 600 016The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Chengalpattu Range, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018The Original Application in O.A. No.5956 of 1998 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal is the present Writ Petition.The first petitioner was appointed as Grade I Police Constable.The first respondent issued a charge memo dated 30.12.1996 in P.R. No.415/96 under Rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 for the following delinquencies:(1) Gross misconduct and dereliction of duty in having friendship and good relationship with a notorious rowdy late Veeramani S/o.Srinivasan, No.258, 4th Street, Venkataraman Nagar, Hasthinapuram who was concerned in Chittalapakkam PS Cr.No.949/95 u/s.341, 324, 326 and 307 IPC altered into Section 302 IPC.(2) Gross dereliction of duty in not reporting the case of murder of Veeramani to the Inspector, Chittalapakkam PS.though he accompanied with the deceased Veeramani at the time of occurrence on 06.12.1996 at 17.30 hours in a motor cycle.(3) Failure to take treatment at Government Hospital, Chrompet as per the police hospital, Memo No.14/Hos/C4/95 dated 06.12.1995 of Chittalapakkam PS for the injuries sustained by him at the time of murder of rowdy Veeramani and had treatment in private hospital."Based on the findings, the first respondent passed an order dated 31.03.1998 imposing the punishment of reduction in the time scale of pay by two stages for two years with cumulative effect.While so, the second respondent, the appellate authority issued a show cause notice dated 19.05.1998 proposing to modify and award the major punishment by exercising suo moto power of review under Rule 15-A of the TNPSS(D&A) Rules and directed the petitioner to submit his reply.The second respondent passed the impugned order dated 08.07.1998 imposing the punishment of dismissal from service.The first petitioner filed O.A. No.5956 of 1998 (W.P. No.33098 of 2006) to quash the order dated 08.07.1998 of the second respondent and to direct the respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner into service with all benefits.The petitioners 2 to 4 are the legal heirs of the first petitioner.The respondents filed reply affidavit refuting the allegations made in the original application.In para 3, the second respondent has given the reasons for exercising the suo moto review power.(i) the expiry of the period of limitation for an appeal, orIn this case, an enquiry was held and the reduction of pay by two stages for two years with cumulative effect was imposed.Therefore, the learned senior counsel is correct in his submission that without applying his mind, the second respondent stated that he decided to modify and impose a major penalty, while the first petitioner was imposed already a major punishment.Further, the learned senior counsel has contended that a new allegation was stated in the impugned order, which was not found place in the show cause notice or in the earlier charge memo that let to the imposition of punishment.The Tribunal, while granting interim stay, passed a detailed order giving reasons.A3/4746/96 dated 08.07.1998, issued by the second respondent, till 13.08.1998."For the afore stated reasons, the impugned order is quashed and the Writ petition is allowed.No order as to costs.	['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
89,629,612	This petition has been filed for quashing the First Information Report No. 609 of 2012 under Sections 363, 366, 328 and 504 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called ‘IPC’) registered at Police Station Hissar, (City) Haryana and for further direction to the State Authorities to register the criminal case against the petitioner’s father, mother and maternal uncle.The writ petition has been filed alleging that the petitioner was born on 2.9.1993, thus she was major and has a right to choose a person with whom she wants to settle in her life.Petitioner married one Sachin Kumar Rana, resident of Sambhal, Moradabad, (U.P.) of her free will.However, her parents and maternal uncle had registered a criminal case against her husband and they are harassing him.Thus, the petition has been filed for the aforesaid reliefs.The matter was heard at length on 24.8.2012 and Mr. Gaurav Kumar Bansal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was asked to explain as under what circumstances such a writ petition can be entertained as it suffers from following basic defects:(i) The FIR sought to be quashed has not been placed on record.(ii) The person who is to be granted protection i.e. Shri Sachin Kumar Rana is not a party as either petitioner or the respondent.(iii) The complainant-persons who are harassing the petitioner’s husband Sachin Kumar Rana, namely Ashok Bansal-father, Sunita Bansal- mother and Subhash Gupta-maternal uncle are not the parties before us.	['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
896,324	Challenging and impugning the judgment dated 24.3.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Mettur, in C.C.No.179 of 2003, this criminal revision case is focussed.Avoiding digressive discussion, pithily and precisely, I would like to portray the facts as under:(a) The police laid the police report in terms of Section 173 of Cr.P.C. as against respondents 2 to 14 herein for the offence under Sections 447, 427, 379 IPC on the ground that on 27.2.2003, at about 9.45 p.m.(night), near Kaveripuramvinayagapuram, the accused persons constituted an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons, such as crowbar, axe etc., and trespassed into the P.W.1's private pathway and cut and removed his gates worth Rs.1000/- and took them away.Inasmuch as the accused pleaded not guilty, the trial was conducted.(b) During trial, on the prosecution side P.Ws.1to 6 were examined and Exs.P1 to P5 were marked.On the accuseds' side no oral evidence was adduced, however, Exs.R1 to R3 were marked.(c) Ultimately, the trial Court acquitted the accused of the offence with which they were charged.P.Ws.1 to 6 and Exs.(i) Where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case, but has still acquitted the accused;(ii) Where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished to produce;	['Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
89,634,262	Having heard the learned counsel for parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that the FIR dated 23/5/2017 was registered in the police station, Dhamnod alleging commission of offence against the present applicant.He has also referred to the query report of Doctor to show that the injury on the forehead of Lokesh was grievous in nature which could have resulted into death if not treated on time.He has also pointed out the seizure memo by which the rad was seized from the present applicant and the opinion of the Doctor that the injury on the forehead of Lokesh could come with that rad.He has also pointed out the Section 161 statement of Tarun and Kailash who have stated that the present applicant had caused injury by means of iron rad to Lokesh.The above material which has been pointed out by learned counsel for State is sufficient for framing the charge u/S.307 of the IPC.Having regard to the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the trial court has not committed any error in passing the impugned order and framing the charge for the aforesaid offence against the applicant.Hence, no case for interference in the present revision petition is made out.The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.	['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
89,638,485	He has stated that on 25.4.1995 Nemai Ghosh brought a register and requested him to put his signature.He signed the register although there was no entry of supply of stationery articles.He 16 afterwards, found that the entries of stationery articles were made in the register and that appellant Nemai Ghosh without supplying the stationery articles, made the entries in the register.He in his cross-examination stated that he lodged complaint to the project officer that he did not get supply of stationery articles.P.W. 7 had never signed any blank register.It is not understood why he singed a blank register only one occasion.Accused Nemai Chandra Ghosh brought a register before him relating to supply of stationery articles and requested him to put his signatures.He put his signature thereon as requested although it was blank.Nemai Chandra Ghosh did not supply the stationery articles on subsequent occasion.of Rs. 19600/- issued in favour of Priya Enterprise, statement of Paritosh Chatterjee, the appellant no. 2 attested by a witnesses and statement of Durgapada Roy, Inspector, statement of Ahmed Ajijul Karim, Inspector and statement of Hemanta Kumar Bajaria, Inspector, were seized by the I.O. under the seizure list The I.O. also seized a chalan of stationery articles of Priya Enterprise 0n 20.10.95 and statement of Swati Ghosal of Priya Enterprise dated 26.6.1996 under a seizure list which was marked as ex.The petition of complaint (FIR) addressing the S.P (DEB), Bankura lodged by the Project officer has been marked ex.However, they did not examine any witness on their behalf.5) The point to be decided in this appeal is whether the judgement impugned is sustainable in law in the facts and circumstances of the case and on the basis of the evidence recorded and admitted into evidence in course of trial.6) Mr. Sudipta Maitra, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, led by Mr. Sekhar Kumar Basu, contended that the impugned judgement is 10 suffering from serious infirmities on material and relevant issues.Besides the grounds taken in the memorandum of appeal, he added to certain other points.According to the prosecution case, the supply order was signed by the Project Officer himself.The bill was passed by him for presenting in the treasury.No stationery articles was supplied.No money was paid against the bill because payment was withheld by the Project Officer himself by issuing one written direction.If so, nothing was entrusted with the appellants and nothing was misappropriated by them.Therefore, according to Mr. Maitra, learned Court erred in framing charge under Sections 409/120B of the IPC against the appellants far less to try them for commission of such an offence when the main ingredients constituting an offence under Section 409 of IPC were absent.7) Mr. Maitra submitted further that the learned Trial Court recorded the order of conviction of the appellants basing on the solitory testimony of the P.W. 15 i.e. Project Officer who lodged the FIR and some documents which were admitted into evidence and marked exhibit on behalf of the prosecution.The P.W. 15 i.e. the Project officer has made statements full of contradiction, inconsistency and misleading.The sanctioning authority i.e. the District Magistrate, Bankura, for reason best known to him, only accorded sanction to prosecute the appellant and Smt. Swati Ghosal.The learned Court was oblivious of the fact that those witnesses were suspected by the Project Officer as accomplish and therefore, their evidence ought to have been considered with due care and caution and, obviously, in corroboration with reliable evidence.That was not done.The learned Trial Court believed their statement sacrosanct without verifying with the registers-in-question.9) Mr. Maitra submitted further that the appellants were charged for committing offence under Section 477 A for falsification of accounts.The allegation was denied by the appellants in course of trial.In such a case, the handwritings whereby the alleged falsification was done ought to have been examined by an expert.That was not done.He being the head of the office was responsible to account for financial matters of the office to his superior.In doing so, no doubt, he was to depend on his staff who were assigned with specific jobs to do.He stated further that the office order no. 708 BNK SCTW dated 17.10.1995 was issued by his office bearing his signature (ex. 20/1).He verified the stock register and allowed it to present the same to the treasury on condition that the payment against the bill would be made after verification of the stock register.He put his signature on the bill and sent it to the treasury.The stock register(Ex. 9) was shown to him.He stated that he could not or did not verify the stock physically with the 13 stock register and he did not put his signature thereon.He stated further that he verified the stock register afterwards and found that no stationery article was supplied by the supplier.These statements of the P.W. 15 leave no room of doubt the suppliers M/s Priya Enterprises was entrusted with the stationery articles to be supplied against the office order no. 708 BNK SCTW dated 17.10.1995 signed by the Project Officer himself.The stationery articles were not supposed to be supplied by the appellants.So they had no direct connection with supply of the stationery articles.Therefore, the factum of entrustment was completely absent in the prosecution case as far as the appellants were concerned.The P.W. 15 stated further that he call on some of the signatories of the receipt register and asked them as to whether they got the stationery articles to which they replied in negative.She called on Inspector Durgapada Roy, Hemanta Banerjee (P.W. 6) and Ahamed Ajijul Karim (P.W. 10) and they told him that they did not get articles.They submitted the same in writing.They also stated him that they put their signatures in the register as appellants requested them to do so.P.W. 15 found many other persons put their signatures in the register and they told him that they did not get delivery of the same.The prosecution failed to place the written report of the Inspector Durgapada Roy, Hemanta Kumar Banerjee, Ahamed Ajijul Karim and other persons before the learned Judge in course of trial.The fact that all of them put their signatures on the receipts register against stationery articles was not denied.What they stated that they signed the register at 14 the request of the appellants without receiving any articles whatsoever.The learned Court accepted that fact.Hemanta Banerjee has been examined as P.W. 6 he has stated that the appellant Paritosh Chatterjee being Cashier- cum-storekeeper used to supply stationery articles.The P.W. 6 changed his that version and stated further that Paritosh Chatterjee was under bounden duty to supply the stationery articles but in his place Nemai Chandra Ghosal used to supply the stationery articles.He stated that he put his signature on the blank register (Ex. 9) as per request of Nemai Ghosal.If the P.W. 6 is to be believed, then it can be taken for granted that the appellant Paritosh Chatterjee did not request him to put his signature on the register.Although according to the P.W. 15 the P.W. 6 reported him in writing that he put his signature on the request of both the appellants without receiving any stationery articles.P.W. 6 appears to be a strange man.He did not get supply of stationery articles on subsequent occasions but put his signatures on the register and failed to say who made the entries in the register.He in his cross-examination stated that he had no knowledge for what purpose he put his signature on the blank register.12) He stated further that he was attached to the service since 36 years and he did not put his signature in blank register on any other prior occasion.He stated also in his cross-examination that although the appellants did not supply stationery articles on 10.4.1996, the appellant Nemai Chandra Ghosh brought stationery articles on 16.6.1996 but because of restrictions imposed by the Project Officer, no entry was made in the register regarding 15 receipt of those articles.He was not allowed to make entry of receipt of articles in the register by the Project Officer when the articles were brought by appellant Nemai Ghosal because the Project Officer did not allow him to make such an entry.This statement also confirms that stationery articles were actually supplied and entry was not allowed to made in the register because the Project Officer insisted his staff not to make any such entry.Obviously, he had some reason to do so which was never disclosed in course of trial.He stated further that he used to take delivery of stationery articles from appellant Nemai Ghosal.He did not receive all the articles but some articles.This statement of Ahamed Ajijul Karim, the P.W. 10 has given a complete go-bye to the prosecution case.It is not understood as to why the learned Trial Court did not take note of this statement of the P.W. 10 into consideration.Project Officer did not tell him anything when he made such complaint.According to the P.W. 15 he placed a written complaint of non-supply of stationery articles.Subsequently the Project Officer obtained from him a report in writing of non-supply of stationery articles.According to the instruction of the Project Officer, P.W. 2 had to file one written report of non-receiving of stationery articles from the appellant Nemai Chandra Ghosh.In his cross-examination he has stated that the Project Officer was the authority but he had to work under direct supervision the BDO.Accordingly, all the requisition for stationery articles 17 were being made to the BDO not to the Project Officer.He came to the office of the Project Officer at the relevant time and Project Officer asked him as to whether he received stationery articles and ask him also to report in writing as to non-supply of stationery articles by the appellants.That being the statement of the P.W. 2, it can be said safely that the P.W. 2 was under a compulsion to make a written report to the Project officer regarding non-supply of stationery articles by the appellants at the instruction of the Project Officer although he was not working under the Project Officer directly.This statement of the P.W. 2 reveals to the fact that the Project Officer had something in his mind to fix the appellants some how in this case.In course of examination in Court, the P.W. 3 found that his signatures were deleted.He stated further that his Project Officer called on him in his office and asked him whether he got supply of stationery articles from the appellants and directed him to file a statement in writing.Accordingly he did so.In his cross-examination like all the prosecution witnesses, the P.W. 3 stated that he put his signature on the blank register excepting on 25.4.1995 for the first time.What is find from the statement of the P.W. 3 that he never signed any blank register accepting on 25.4.1995 that too at the request of the appellants and that he was directed by the Project Officer to file a report of non-supply of articles.These statements of the P.W. 3 unmistakably leads 18 to the conclusion that the Project Officer had something in mind to fix the appellants in some way in such a case.In fact, this is the case of the prosecution that the Project Officer himself issued the office order, the supply order, passed the bill, put his signature after checking and verifying the register but withheld the payment on suspicion that the appellants and P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 4, P.W. 7and P.W. 10 together, in connivance with each other made some deal with the supplier M/S Priya Enterprise.The stock register, in fact, afterwards found containing entries in respect of supply of articles by the M/s Priya Enterprises.The prosecution case was that the entries were made subsequently by the appellants and thereby they falsified the account of the office.The fact that the appellants falsified the account has not been established by any direct evidence either oral or written.No witness has stated even the P.W. 15 that the appellants falsified the accounts and that register was filled in by the appellant.No one was certain of that fact.The handwriting of the appellants were not sent to any expert for examination.The witnesses never signed any blank register save and except only one occasion and had to file written report of non-supply at the instruction of the Project Officer who was their official authorities.The receipt registers in respect of stationery articles which were being maintained in each block office were not inspected by the Project Officer.Those registers were not produced in 19 course of trial for perusal of the learned Trial Court.Had those been produced before the Project Officer or in the Trial Court, the matter would have been reflected in a different way.The appellants were not supposed to supply stationery articles.It was M/s Priya Enterprise who was supposed to supply the stationery articles.All the office orders, bills, statements were signed by the Project Officer himself.The register was checked and verified by the Project Officer himself.The stationery articles, according to the prosecution were not supplied by the M/s Priya Enterprise.The payment against the bill in question was withheld.It is not understood, in such a case, how the offences under Sections 466 and 477 A IPC were committed by the appellants.All of them were suspected By the Project Officer (P.W. 10) for having connection with the alleged offences.Noneelse exepted those persons were examined as prosecution witnesses.What they stated is that they never signed any blank register excepting on one occasion.Some of them received some articles not all articles.The receipt registers of offices at the blocks wherein the witnesses attached to were not seized by the I.O. and placed before the Court.The prosecution witnesses had to file written complaint to the Project officer for non-supply of stationer articles at the instruction of the Project Officers.However, no such written complaint was seized by the I.O. and placed before the learned Trial Court.The written order of withholding the payment against the bill of M/s Priya Enterprise was not placed before the learned Trial Court and was not seized by the I.O. also.In such a case, it is really 21 doubtful whether the appellants had committed any offence under Section 409, 466 and 477A of the IPC.17) This apart some of the witnesses stated that only Nemai Chandra Ghoshan requested them to put signature.Some of the witnesses stated that Nemai Chandra Ghosal and Poritosh Chatterjee both requested them to put their signature.They put their signatures on the blank register without asking for anything.They did so for the first time in their service carrier.It is hard to accept that the witnesses signed the blank register merely on request of the appellants.The Project Officer acted in a peculiar way.In one hand he stated that he suspected Durgapada Roy, Ahmed Ajijul Karim, Hamanta Benrjee, Radhashyam Banerjee, Nemai Chandra Ghosal, Biresh Mondal and Vevekanda Sarkar, on the other hand, he asked them to file written complaint against the appellant accusing them for non-supply of stationery article knowing fully well that they put their signatures on the receipt register.To be stated precisely, in writing everything was found all right.The signatures of the right person at the right place were found.Only the some of the employees working under the Project Officer had to oblige the Project Officer being their official authority by filing written complaints 22 against the appellants as desired by him.Neither the BDO or the person responsible for receiving stationery articles at block level came forward and made in statement against the appellants.The receipt registers of block offices were not also verified.No physical verification of stock of stationery articles was done.The entire case was based on some ideas and suspicion which ultimately was found to be true by the learned Trial Court.I do not agree with the findings of the learned Trial Court.The entire story of the prosecution case appears to be unacceptable especially when the person entrusted with supply of the goods and submitted bill was found not guilty and all the registers and papers bear signatures of none but the project officer and the receipt register bear the signatures of the Inspectors in respect of receiving of stationer articles, the appellants should not have been convicted under Section 409, 477A and 466 of IPC.There are so many loose ends in the prosecution case which can not, in my estimate, be joined together.The conduct of the Project Officer appears to be peculiar also.He signed everything but kept everything for verification.Taking everything into consideration I am of the opinion that the prosecution case is overcast with Cloud of doubt and the appellants ought to have been given benefit of doubt by the learned Trial Court.18) In view of the discussion above, I find that the judgement impugned is to be interfered with in this appeal.The same is not being sustainable in law, 23 is set aside.The prosecution, in fact, failed to bring home the charges against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.They are entitled to be acquitted therefrom.The appellants are found not guilty to the charge.19) Accordingly the appeal is allowed the appellants are acquitted from the charge and be discharged from their bail-bonds.	['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
139,685,284	Heard on the question of admission.Revision is admitted for hearing.Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to issue notice to Respondent No.2 on payment of process fee within seven working days by ordinary as well as RAD mode.Notice be made returnable within two weeks.On due consideration, I.A.No.7562/2019 is hereby allowed and document taken on record.Als o heard on I.A. No.7502/2019, which is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the applicant- Jaalam Singh Yadav.The revision has been preferred under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C.,1973 by the applicant/accused against judgment dated 08.04.2019 passed by learned Second Addl.Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur (MP), passed in Criminal Appeal No.113/2017 arising out of judgment and finding dated 11/07/2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chhatarpur (MP), in Criminal Case No.655/2016 and sentenced undergo R.I. for one years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-.The applicant has falsely been implicated in this case.The final hearing of this revision will take time.If the applicant is not released on bail, purpose of filing this application will be futile.Therefore, the application filed on behalf of the applicant may be allowed and the period of his remaining jail sentence may be suspended and he may be released on bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State has opposed the application.The custodial sentence awarded to the applicant shall remain suspended during the pendency of this revision.Applicant- Jaalam Singh Yadav be released from custody subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.The applicant shall appear and mark his presence before the Trial Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR BURMAN Date: 30/07/2019 17:53:37 3 CRR-2064-2019 Court on 14.11.2019 and shall continue to do so on all such future dates, as may be given in this behalf, during pendency of the matter.List the matter after four weeks.C.C. as per rules.(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE vinay Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR BURMAN Date: 30/07/2019 17:53:37	['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
139,701	Such case is one which alleges criminal trespass into Government land and theft through illicit mining committed therein.Accused 1 and 2 are the prime offenders.The charge against the present petitioner, who is the 6th accused is that he has screened the offences committed by the A1 & A2, which itself is an offence punishable under Section 201 IPC.The preliminary enquiry had been ordered, since scrutiny of records by the Assistant Director revealed that the markings of the leased out area in the sketches had been changed and that an excess area of about 1.96 acres had been added subsequently after the lease deed with Rajalakshmi Enterprises was registered.The charge against the petitioner is only respect of an offence punishable under Section 201 IPC.The fact that the petitioner indeed had informed his higher officials of what he had discovered on 11.06.1996 stands undisputed.The petitioner, who is the sixth accused in a case pending in C.C. No. 285 of 1998 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri for offences under Sections 120(b) r/w. 447, 439 IPC and Section 21(1) r/w 4(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development Act 1957), 420, 434, 466, 468, 451, 380, 406 and 201 r/w 109 IPC seeks to quash the proceedings as against him.Learned Senior Counsel submitted that a perusal of the statement of witnesses and the additional statement of the Assistant Director informs that the report submitted by the petitioner / A6 had been received by his office under due acknowledgement on 12.06.1996 as can be seen from the endorsement made by his A-Section Assistant.I have heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) on the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.Therefore, the petitioner ought not to be harassed any further.Consequently, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C. No. 285 of 1998 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri are quashed and the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.Index:Yes/No 04.03.2010Internet:Yes/NoarToJudicial Magistrate, KrishnagiriC.T.SELVAM,J., arCrl.O.P.No. 8898 of 200704.03.2010	['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
139,701,746	PRAYER: Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, call for the entirerecords, directing the respondents to produce the body or person ofpetitioner by name Annamalai, Son of Ammavasai, aged about 38 years now lodged and confined at Central Prison, Madurai before the Court for set offthe remand period of detention during pre trial from 18.04.2005 to 29.02.2008in S.C.No.102 of 2006 on the file of the Additional District and SessionsCourt (Fast track IV) Poonamallee, Chennai and consequently direct therespondent nos.1, 2 and 3 to calculate and include those days with convictionsentence period under Section 428 of Criminal Procedure Code for consider thepetitioner for premature release.The petitioner herein is the accused in S.C.No.102 of 2006 on thefile of the Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast track IV),Poonamallee, Chennai.By the Judgment, dated 29.02.2008, the accused herein was found guilty under Section 302 IPC and he was convicted and sentenced as follows:-Convicted under Sections Sentence imposed 302 IPC To undergo imprisonment for life.It is pertinent to mention here that the Hon'ble Supreme Courtin the case of Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration, reported in AIR 1980 SC1579 has expanded the jurisdiction for entertaining the habeas corpuspetition, holding that technicalities and legal niceties are no impediment tothe Court entertaining even an informal communication as a proceeding forhabeas corpus, if the basic facts are found.Accordingly, the authorities concerned aredirected to calculate the period of incarceration for pre-mature relief, bytaking into account the period of 2 years 10 months 12 days, during which,the accused was in custody during investigation period, for calculation tofind out the eligible period for consideration for pre-mature release.8.With the above direction, this Habeas Corpus Petition is disposed of.1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home (Prison) Department, State of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, St.3.The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai District.4.The Inspector of Police, Ennore Police Station, Chennai.5.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.	['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
139,712,407	This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.885 of 2020 registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC, as against the petitioner.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in No.885 of 2020, for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC, as against the petitioner.Hence he prayed to quash the same.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.http://www.judis.nic.in 2/6 CRL.O.P.No.2391 of 2020Heard Mr.If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted."http://www.judis.nic.in 5/6 CRL.O.P.No.2391 of 2020 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.However, considering the crime is of the year 2019, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.885 of 2019 and file a final report within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.03.08.2020 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order ub To1.The Inspector of Police, Thiru.Nagar Police Station, Chennai.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.O.P.No.2391 of 2020http://www.judis.nic.in 6/6	['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
141,186,946	as (Allowed).C.R.M. 3739 of 2018 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 12.06.2018 in connection with Nabadwip P. S. Case No.210 of 2018 dated 06.06.2018 under Sections 448/323/354A/379/509/506 of the Indian Penal Code.In the matter of : Binay Roy.... Petitioner....for the Petitioner.Mr. N. P. Agarwal, Mrs. Sujata Das......for the State.This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ravi Krishan Kapur,J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)	['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
141,249,785	This Criminal Leave Petition has been filed by the State against the impugned judgment dated 19.09.2018 passed by the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I (North-West), Rohini Courts, Delhi ('ASJ'), acquitting both the respondents of the offences under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC').As per the case of the prosecution, on 17.07.2017 the respondent no.1, Damodar @ Dharamveer (A-1) brought his 7 year old daughter Tanisha (since deceased) to SGM Hospital where she CRL.L.P. No.828/2018 Page 1 of 6 was declared 'brought dead'.The post mortem was conducted by PW-7, Dr. Munish Wadhawan, CMO, SGM Hospital and he opined that the death was due to asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem manual strangulation.PW-13, ASI Baljit prepared the rukka vide DD No.32 PP and got an FIR registered as the death was homicidal in nature.Investigation was assigned to Inspector Shri Kishan (PW-15).Both the accused (A1 and A2) were arrested on 19.08.2017 after PW-11 Lala Ram, uncle of the deceased pointed a needle of suspicion on them.CRL.L.P. No.828/2018 Page 1 of 6The motive to kill the deceased as per the case of the prosecution, is recorded by the learned ASJ in para 30 of the impugned judgment, which reads as under :-As stated above, as per the case of the prosecution, the wife of accused Damodar @ Dharamveer had died in the month of June, 2017 due to jaundice and after her death, he wanted to marry Swati d/o Shishu Pal residing in the vicinity and she had reservations about marrying him due to his children and hence on the fateful day he killed his daughter Tanisha aged about 7 years by strangulation in his house with the help of his nephew Sanjay so that he could marry the said Swati."6. PW-11 had deposed in his examination-in-chief that his elder brother (A-1) was running a barber shop near their house and on the fateful day, as usual A-1 brought his daughter Tanisha, aged about 7 years, from her school at 12:30 PM and left her at the shop.Tanisha came back to the house herself after which she told PW-12 that she would be watching TV.He further deposed that he along with the accused, Sanjay (A-2) and PW-12 went upstairs to wash clothes as the water supply had resumed and while they were washing clothes, A-2 kept going downstairs intermittently and on his asking, A-2 replied that the deceased was sleeping downstairs in the room.He deposed that after washing the clothes and taking bath, he and A-2 came downstairs.There A-2 put a towel on Tanisha, who was asleep.On his asking, A-2 replied that Tanisha was wearing short clothes and that is why he had put a towel over her body.He deposed that thereafter, he went to A-1's shop where A-1 and his other nephew, Lalit were present. A-2 also followed him at the shop.He testified that at about 2:45 PM, PW-12 informed them that Tanisha was not waking up.They all rushed to home and brought her to the hospital where she was declared 'brought dead'.The prosecution examined 15 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused.CRL.L.P. No.828/2018 Page 2 of 6The prosecution had tried to establish the presence of both the accused in the house at the time of the incident through the testimony of PW-11 (Lala Ram, brother of A1) and PW-12 (Smt.Rajwati, mother of A1).However, both these witnesses were declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution.He denied the suggestion that the deceased, Tanisha was in the company of A-1 on that day at about 1 PM.He CRL.L.P. No.828/2018 Page 3 of 6 further stated in his cross-examination that A-1 never came back home in the afternoon for having lunch.He stated that A-1 used to go in the morning and return in the evening.CRL.L.P. No.828/2018 Page 3 of 6She also denied having said that the deceased was in the company of A-1 at about 1 PM on the day of the incident.Both PW-11 and PW-12 admitted that the wife of A-1 had expired on 18.06.2017, but denied the suggestion that A-1 wanted to marry Ms.They further denied the suggestion that A-1 and A-2 had hatched a conspiracy to eliminate the deceased/Tanisha.Therefore, there is no evidence to prove the alleged motive for A- 1 and A-2 to have committed the murder of the deceased.The police had seized the clothes and gauge cloth piece of the deceased which were sent to the FSL for a forensic examination.The FSL report, Ex.PX2 was admitted by the accused persons.As per this report, the DNA profile generated from the gauge cloth piece of the deceased matched with the DNA profile generated from the clothes of the deceased.The result obviously does not contain anything incriminatory against the respondents.PW-11 and PW-12 have testified that A-2 was present at their home at the time of the incident and they had seen him going downstairs time and again, while they were all washing clothes.This fact certainly raises a suspicion but mere suspicion cannot take place of cogent evidence.In the absence of CRL.L.P. No.828/2018 Page 5 of 6 a complete chain of evidence pointing only towards one inference, which is the guilt of the accused, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment acquitting the respondents.Leave to appeal is declined.Petition is accordingly dismissed.CRL.L.P. No.828/2018 Page 5 of 6	['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.
14,145,759	This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the FIR in Crime No.186/2017 registered by Police Station Kampoo, District Gwalior for offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506, 324/34 of IPC and under Section 3/4 of Madhya Pradesh Chikitsak Tatha Chikitsa Seva Se Sambaddha Vyaktiyon Ki Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2008, on the ground of compromise.It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the respondents No.2 lodged a FIR against the applicant on 9.5.2017 alleging that he is working as a Doctor and he was on his duty in Pediatric ICU.At about 8:00 PM, the relatives of the patient namely Ku.Diksha requested him that other patient who is also lying on the bed should be shifted to some other bed.The respondent No.3 was also beaten and the relatives of the patient took away the patient with them and also extended threat that today they have survived, otherwise they would kill them.This Court by order dated 31.7.2017 had directed the parties to appear before the Principal Registrar of this Court for verification of factum of compromise.After recording the statements of the witnesses, the Principal Registrar of this Court has given the following report:Raghuwanshi, No.3 Dharmendra Singh & No.4 Awadhesh Verma and Accused/Petitioner Sunil Kumar Rathore are recorded matter perused, inquired and heard as to factum of compromise.After verifying from parties present before me that they have arrived at compromise voluntarily without any fear or force.According to Sec. 320 of CRPC the offences U/s 294, 323, 506 and 3/4 e0iz0 fpfdRlk ;k fpfdRlk ls lacaf/kr O;fDr;ksa dh lqj{kk vf/kfu;e 2008 are compoundable.3 MCRC No.8116/2017	['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
14,154,054	Background facts, sans unnecessary details are that in the intervening night on 14-15 September, 2003, the complainant Chainaji was sleeping in his house situated in the field of Vijay Bohra in Village-Chak, Ujjain with his wife and son in the front- yard.His elder son was sleeping with his wife in the room adjacent to that yard.Suddenly at about 11-12 O'clock in the night they woke-up finding some miscreants having knife, axe etc. tying their hands and legs to which they screamed.The miscreants threatened them to keep quiet, otherwise they will be beheaded.They also threatened the elder son of the complainant Babu, who was sleeping in the inside room with his wife Tarabai.They cut off ears of the complainant Chainaji and his son Tufan and bashed Babu and Tarabai.By putting them in fear of death, they snatched their wrist watches, cash, silver ornaments including chains, anklets etc., Kisan torch, umbrella etc. They detained them in the room and fled away.Somehow the complainant and his family members got themselves freed of the ropes.At sunrise; they approached the Police Station Chimanganj Mandi and filed FIR.The police started hunt for miscreants.In the mean time, some miscreants were surrounded by the police of the Police Station Narwar in some other crime.On interrogation, they admitted their involvement in this crime also and on the basis of their disclosure statement, the police Narwar recovered stolen property of this case from their possession, which was later identified by the complainants.The Police also arranged Test Identification Parade, which was conducted by Naib Tehsildar.The complainant and his family members identified the offenders.It is worthy to note that this incident had happened in the jurisdiction of Police Station- Chimanganj Mandi, Ujjain while all the impleaded accused persons were arrested in some other crime registered at Police Station-Narwar.They were arrested and interrogated by the police of Police Station-Narwar.According to the prosecution, they admitted their involvement in many other crimes of similar nature.They disclosed information regarding stolen property.Thus, nothing was recovered from Sakkunath.A Machchhi Joda was recovered from the appellant Fundanath but that is not described as stolen property.No one could identify Sakkunath and Fundanath; therefore, nothing remains against both of them.(Delivered on 21/12/2017) Per : Virender Singh, J. :After completion of 3 Cr.A. No.15/2006 Ganiya Nath @ Ganpat S/o Nahar Ji vs. State of M.P.3 Cr.A. No.15/2006investigation, the police filed charge-sheet.The accused persons were charged with the offences u/s 395 r/w 397, 398, 458 of IPC.They abjured their guilt.After the trial, the learned trial Court found the charges levelled against them proved and convicted them as stated in para No.1 above.The appellants have preferred this appeal on the grounds that the judgment and order of the learned trial Court is contrary to law and facts available on record.The appellants were under custody of the police in some other case and they were falsely implicated in the present case.The witnesses could not explain as to which accused had used which fatal weapon.Contrary to the opinion of the doctor, the learned trial Court held that grievous injuries were caused to the complainant and his son.The appellants have falsely been implicated in this case, therefore, they prayed that the impugned judgment and order be set-aside and they be acquitted.Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment and order and submitted that the prosecution has successfully proved the case against the appellants and they are convicted on the basis of reliable evidence produced before the learned trial Court by the prosecution, therefore, the present appeal has no merit and deserves to be dismissed.The appellants have not challenged that on the alleged date, time and place of the incident, some tyrants attacked the family of the complainant, who were sleeping in their house and looted wrist watches, cash, silver chains, anklets and some other silver ornaments, Kisan torch etc. and at the time of committing loot, they caused grievous injuries to the complainant and his son Tufan.Broadly, the witnesses Chainaji (PW/1), Sampatbai (PW/2), Tarabai (PW/3), Tufan (PW/5) and Babusingh (PW/6) have stated that they have identified the accused persons in test identification parade and also have identified their stolen articles.In-charge Police Station-Narwar has stated that he took the accused persons in custody in relation to crime No.160/2004 of his police station and on interrogation they have disclosed many offences committed by them and on the basis of their disclosure statement, he recovered many stolen articles including the articles stolen in the incident under consideration in this case.Independent witness Ansar (PW/13) has supported his statement.These witnesses have proved memorandum statements Ex.P/13 to P/20, seizure memos Ex.P/21 to 28, arrest memos Ex.P/29 to P/36 and FIR Ex.5 Cr.A. No.15/2006Ganiya Nath @ Ganpat S/o Nahar Ji vs. State of M.P.1 0 .Sub-Inspector Amit Dani (PW/16) of Police Station - Chimanganj Mandi has stated that he formally arrested the accused persons in the present case, interrogated Suraj Nath and Sakku Nath and on their disclosure recovered black push button umbrella and red colour kisan torch from them.Independent witness Raju @ Rajesh (PW/17) has supported his statement.These witnesses have proved memorandum statements P/38 and P/39 and seizure memos Ex.1 1 .Naib Tehsildar Ekta Jaiswal (PW/9) has stated that she conducted Test Identification Parade alongwith Jailor J.L. Osari.She has proved identification memo Ex.Counsellor Shivendra Tiwari (PW/10) has stated that he had conducted identification of articles.He has proved identification memo Ex.1 2 .As statements all these witnesses are substratum of the case of prosecution, therefore, it needs close scrutiny or deep analysis and when we do this, we find many things which have great adverse impact on the credibility of the witnesses and also the documents prepared or proved by them.1 3 .He remained firm on this fact in his Court statement also.Almost similar is the statement of wife Sampatbai (PW/2), Tarabai (PW/3), sons Tufan (PW/5) and Babu Singh (PW/6).Sampatbai and Babu Singh have stated that there were 3 miscreants, while Tarabai has stated that there were 2 miscreants.Thus, at the most there were 4 miscreants.Therefore, the case of the prosecution that 8 accused persons/appellants have committed the alleged offence falls down 6 Cr.A. No.15/2006 Ganiya Nath @ Ganpat S/o Nahar Ji vs. State of M.P.6 Cr.A. No.15/2006to the floor and the charge under Section 395 read with Section 397 and 398 of IPC which requires that 5 or more persons conjointly commit robbery then they are to punish under these provisions of Indian Penal Code, fails.1 4 .Now the situation becomes delusive as to which 4 out of these 8 appellants were involved in the incident.1 6 .2 3 .2 5 .Out of the stolen property, all three watches and cash could not be recovered by the Police.The Police could recover two Silver Chains, a pair of Tops, silver Mangal Sutra and a Pair of silver Anklets.Out of these, a chain was recovered from 10 Cr.A. No.15/2006 Ganiya Nath @ Ganpat S/o Nahar Ji vs. State of M.P.10 Cr.A. No.15/2006Dharmendranath, another Chain was recovered from Bhanwarnath, a pair of Tops were recovered from Ganeshnath @ Ganiyanath, Mangal Sutra from Guddunath and Anklets from Surajnath and Padamnath.Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.Impugned judgment and order dated 29/10/2005 passed in S.T. No.310/2004 by II Add.Fine amount be returned to them.2 9 .	['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,416,015	A six year old girl belonging to village Dhavde appears to have been given in marriage by her parents in a typical child marriage ceremony about a year prior to the incident at which time silver anklets and wristlets were made for her apart from two golden ear rings.These items of jewellery were valued approximately at Rs. 2400/- which is princily amount having regard to the fact that the village itself is a little hamlet situated in a remote and relatively backward area.On the night of 3.5.1990 the girl Jijabai who was then aged about six years and who was sleeping on the ota alongwith other members of the family, disappeared and efforts made by the members of the house hold to locate her were fruitless.Around sun-rise P.W. 4 Sumanbai Patil who is a neighbour informed the girl's father that her multilated body was lying in a field close-by.On rushing there, the family members came up on a horrifying sight of Jeejabai's body minus her hands and feet both of which had been chopped off in addition to which parts of the right thigh, buttocks etc. had been eaten up by some animals.The body was brought to the house and her father P.W. 1 Dasrath Patil went to Dhondaicha Police Station and lodged a complaint.The Police immediately came to the village, sent the body for post mortem and commenced the investigations.The prosecution alleges that the name of the accused who also happens to be a labourer and resident of that village, surfaced in the course of investigation.PS I Shinde went to the house of the accused on the evening of that day and it is alleged that the accused was not traceable.A reddish coloured chaddar was seized by the police under a panchanama because it is the contention advanced by the prosecution that the brother of the deceased Jijabai P.W. 2, 12 year old Dhanraj Patil, had disclosed to his parents that the accused had lifted up Jijabai and run away with her at night and that while doing so, he had covered himself with a reddish chaddar and that he had bumped against the cot on which Dhanraj was sleeping.According to the PSI he saw the accused in the village on the evening of 6.5.1990, took him to the Police Station and arrested him under a panchanama.The arrest panchanama alleges that the dhoti of the accused appeared to be stained with blood and seemed to have been washed.It is the prosecution case that while he was in custody, the accused made a statement in the presence of panchas which was recorded in the form of a memorandum pursuant to which he led the police party and panchas to a heap of fodder in one of the fields from where he produced an axe which was attached under a panchanama, the axe being apparently blood stained.The accused further took the party to a small rivulet on the side of which he removed a stone, excavated the earth and produced all the four silver ornaments that were missing from the wrist and ankles of the deceased Jijabai.Thereafter the accused is alleged to have led the party back to his house and to have dug a small hole near the cattle shed and after removing the earth took out the golen ear rings which are alleged to have been removed from the person of the deceased Jijabai.After completing the investigation the accused was placed on trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Dhule and was charged with having committed offences, under sections 302, 392 read with 397 of Indian Penal Code.The learned Trial Judge after assessing the evidence on record acquitted the accused of all the three charges but he however held him guilty of an offence punishable under section 411 of Indian Penal Code in so far as it has emerged in the course of the trial that the prosecution had conclusively established that the ornaments of the deceased Jijabai had been recovered at the instance of the accused.He was accordingly awarded a sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine in the sum of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.Apparently, the accused did not prefer any appeal against this conviction.The State of Maharashtra however has preferred the present appeal whereby the order of acquittal on the major charges has been assailed.In view of the fact that the accused happens to be from an extremely poor strata Mr. Rajiv Patil has been appointed State counsel to appear on his behalf.Mr. Patil, the learned A.P.P. has taken us through the evidence of P.W. 1 Dasrath Patil the father of the deceased girl who on the night in question was sleeping some distance away with some other persons on the threshing floor.It is the evidence of P.W. 3 Rukhmabai who is the mother, that she woke up at about 3.00 a.m. and was alarmed by the fact that her daughter who was sleeping on the ota had disappeared.It was because of this commotion that they sent for the father P.W. 1 and they tried to locate as to where the girl could have gone.Alongwith these two witnesses, Mr. Patil has taken us through the deposition of P.W. 2 Dhanraj Patil who is the 12 year old son and brother of the deceased.He is a child witness and it is his contention that it was the accused who had covered himself with a red chaddar who lifted up Jijabai and took her away.Dhanraj alleges that in the process he had dashed against the cot on which Dhanraj was sleeping and that this was what woke him up.According to Dhanraj , he saw the accused and identified him but did not react in any manner out of fear.Mr. Patil has, apart from making his submissions with regard to the evidence of these three witnesses, pointed out to us that even though the father and mother do not, in any manner, implicate the accused, that P.W. 2 Dhanraj has wrongly been disbelived by the learned Trial Judge.Mr. Patil submits that it is nothing unusual for a 12 year old boy to have been very frightened at the sight of somebody picking up his sister and running away and this fear manifested in his reaction in not raising an alarm or doing anything else.He further contends that this is the explanation for Dhanraj being virtually togued-tied for a considerable period of time right upto about 9.00 a.m. in the morning when he is alleged to have disclosed what he had seen at night to the mother.This explains why there is no reference to the name of the accused in the first complaint or F.I.R. of P.W. 1 Dasrath and the reference to the accused in the supplementary statement recorded by the Police Officer after he and Dasrath returned to the village.The learned Trial Judge has very carefully analysed this head of evidence and has observed that the family members which necessarily include P.W. 2 Dhanraj, were obviously alarmed and gravely concerned with the disappearance of the young girl and that their immediate and most urgent reaction would have been to find where she had gone and to locate her.At that point of time, the culprit had already left the place, the mother and father were around and the learned Judge observes that there is no explanation from Dhanraj for not having disclosed to them that it was the accused who had taken the deceased Jijabai away, if at all he had seen this happening.Whereas it is his contention that he informed the parents in the morning.The mother states that he informed them at 3.00 a.m. and the learned Judge, and perhaps, rightly, observed that if this was the case, the parents would have not only rushed to the house of the accused but they would have raised a huge commotion and brought all the villagers there and gone in search of the accused if he was not traceable.The sum total of these anomolies left the learned Trial Judge with no option except to conclude that the boy Dhanraj could not have seen the incident at all.This is obviously because if one were to recreate what happened on that night even if the boy was awakened, the possibility of his being able to identify the culprit would have been quite remote but had he done so because we are unaware about the manner in which Jijabai was removed, we have no manner of doubt that even if he initially remained quite, he would have not only screamed but rushed to his mother and alerted her immediately thereafter.It is for this reason that the learned Trial Judge has discarded not only Dhanaj's evidence but also the supportive evidence relied upon by the prosecution to the effect that the seizure of the red chaddar from the residence of the accused though in his absence, is an incriminating circumstance.The prosecution has sought to bolster up this case through the evidence of P.W. 9 Reshmabai Patil who contends that on the previous night she had seen the accused hovering around the house of Dasrath wrapped in the red chaddar.Had the earlier evidence been acceptable this piece of evidence would have assisted the prosecution but in the light of the earlier evidence being extremely weak and untrustworthy, this piece of evidence would not bolster up the prosecution any further.This leaves us with the evidence relating to the recovery of ornaments.Mr. Patil the learned APP has taken us through the evidence of P.W. 8 Komalsing Giraso who is the panch as also the evidence of PSI Shinde and the memorandum and the relative panchanamas.This evidence fully and conclusively establishes that it was at the instance of the accused that the silver ornaments and the gold jewellery were recovered.This evidence has been accepted by the learned Trial Judge who, to our mind, very rightly did so.It was on the basis of this material that the accused was convicted under section 411 of Indian Penal Code and the learned Trial Judge has, while doing so, discussed the law at some considerable length on the question as to whether it would be permissible for him on the basis of this material alone to hold that it establishes the participation of the accused in the main offence of murder and robbery.We need at this juncture to record that we have meticulously scrutinised all the material before us and that the C.A. Report very clearly indicates that the dhoti of the accused and axe both of which appears to have been blood stained when the police seized them, were on analysis found to be free from any blood stain whatsoever.Again an argument was advanced that the accused was absconding from the morning on the 4th until the 6th when he was arrested as is apparent from the evidence of the PSI and this is alleged as a circumstance of guilty conduct.	['Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
141,633,714	Shri Y.K. Gupta, learned counsel for applicant.Shri A.N. Gupta, learned Panel Lawyer for the non- applicant / State.This is first application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail as he apprehends his arrest in connection with crime No. 23/2016, registered at Police Station- Nohta District- Damoh, against him for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 324, 506-B of the IPC & Section 3(i)(x).Learned counsel for the applicant wants to withdraw the applicant with liberty that the applicant shall surrender before the trial court.The application is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid.If the applicant files application after surrender, the juvenile court shall decide the same expeditiously.C.C. as per rules.(S.K. GANGELE) JUDGE MISHRA	['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
141,699,375	This Criminal Appeal has been filed to set aside the judgment dated 01.03.2012 in S.C.No.264 of 2007 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Salem.The learned Principal Session Judge taken the case on file in S.C.No.264 of 2007 and made over the case to the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Mahila Court, Salem.Before the Sessions Court, during trial, on the side of the prosecution, the respondent police examined as many as 16 witnesses viz., P.W.1 to P.W.16 and marked as many as 27 documents viz., Ex.P.1 to Ex.After completion of the evidence on the prosecution side, the accused were questioned under Section 313(1)(B) Cr.P.C. The accused denied as false.On the side of the defence, no one was examined and one document 2http://www.judis.nic.in ` Crl.A.No.201 of 2012 was marked as Ex.After hearing the arguments of both sides, and considering the records, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, found the first accused guilty for the offence under Section 366-A and 376 IPC and convicted and sentenced him to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- in default, to undergo six months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 366-A IPC; to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- in default, to undergo six months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 376 IPC; The learned Sessions Judge found the accused 3 to 6 not guilty for the offence under Section 366-A read with 109 IPC and acquitted them.During trial the second accused died, therefore, the case against him abates.4.Challenging the said judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Salem in S.C.No.264 of 2007, dated 01.03.2012, the convict has preferred the present Criminal Appeal before this Court.5.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that P.W.1 is the mother of P.W.3, victim.The complaint was given only after 11 days of the occurrence.The prosecution has not properly explained 3http://www.judis.nic.in ` Crl.A.No.201 of 2012 the delay in filing the complaint and the delay in registering the case, which creates a doubt.P.W.1 induced P.W.3 to give a complaint.The appellant is the close relative of the victim and he is none other than paternal aunty's son.With consent of the victim, the appellant married and had sexual intercourse.Since the learned Sessions Judge has not found the other accused persons guilty, the appellant should have also been acquitted from the offences under Section 366-A and 376 IPC.Admittedly, in this case, as per Ex.D1, the victim P.W.3 is aged about 16 years.As per Section 375(5) of Cr.P.C., if the girl is aged about 16 years and gave consent, it would not amount to rape.Further if the girl who is under 16 years is forcefully taken and, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, Section 366-A IPC would attract.In this case, with the consent of the victim, they married and made intercourse.Believing the words of the appellant, she went there.While going, she was forcefully taken in a bike.In the meanwhile, she had also seen her school teacher.During the cross examination, the teacher admitted that she happily wished her teacher.Subsequently, 4http://www.judis.nic.in ` Crl.A.No.201 of 2012 when she went there, she was shifted in the van.On the next day, she married the appellant and also had intercourse.She gave complaint only after 11 days.Considering the close relationship, P.W.1 wanted to marry P.W.3 with her brother's son.However, the husband's sisters son married the victim.In order to take vengeance, she induced P.W.3 and gave a complaint.Admittedly, there was no talking terms between the husband and wife.Taking advantage of the enmity with her husband and their relatives, P.W.1 induced P.W.3 and gave a false complaint against the appellant and the delay has not been properly explained.The learned Sessions Judge has failed to consider the legal as well as the factual positions and acquitted the other accused persons and convicted the appellant, which warrants interference of this Court.The learned counsel for the respondent (Crl. side) Would submit that the victim is aged about 16 years, but she has not given any complaint.The evidence of P.W.3 clearly shows that without her consent only she was kidnapped.Further, he would submit that from the date of 5http://www.judis.nic.in ` Crl.A.No.201 of 2012 the occurrence, there was a long gap for the medical examination.Therefore, non existing of the external injury in the private part of the victim is not fatal to the case of the prosecution and the sole reason to disbelieve the evidence of the prosecution.However, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and rightly established its case through the evidence of P.W.3 and Doctor and it does not warrant interference.8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) and perused the materials available on record.The case of the prosecution is that on 20.09.2006 at about 8.30 a.m. the appellant/A1 along with 5 others intercepted P.W.3 victim and forcibly kidnapped her in TVS Suzuki bearing Registration No.TN 38 Q 9822 and subsequently, shift her to Omni Van bearing Registration No.TN 27 R 1819 and the appellant, with the help of others performed marriage on 25.09.2006 between the victim and the appellant forcibly and had sexual intercourse with her.As on the date of occurrence, she has completed 16 years and further admitted during the cross examination that there is no evidence to show that she has objected, prevented or even raised alarm, when she was taken in the bike.Subsequently she was taken in a van.Even at that time, she has not raised any alarm.Even stayed overnight with the first appellant.According to P.W.3, the marriage was performed in a temple.During that time, atleast, she should have informed the poojaries in the temple or the persons who have come to the temple.From the evidence of the Doctor, who examined the victim, it is clear that there was no external injury in the private part of the victim and hymen was intact.Therefore, the only question is as to whether she has given consent or the against her consent, the appellant had sexual intercourse with her.On careful reading of the materials, it is seen that the appellant is the close relative, and P.W.1 and her husband were not in talking terms.Considering the evidence of P.W.3 and also the complaint given after 11 days of the occurrence and the age of the victim, and the evidence of P.W.3, which shows that after marriage, they 7http://www.judis.nic.in ` Crl.A.No.201 of 2012 had physical relationship, there arises a doubt whether the victim has given consent or not.At that time of having sexual relationship whether she gave a consent or not.The benefit of doubt should be extended to the appellant.On a entire reading of the cross examination, there is doubt whether the victim objected while she was taken in the bike and also subsequently in the van.Even at the time of going in bike, she has seen her school teacher/P.W.2, who has deposed that the victim has wished him.P.W.2 has not stated that she was nervous and uncomfortable at the time of going in bike and she sought some help.She was happily going.The benefit of doubt is extended to the appellant.As an appellate court this Court is final Court of fact finding it can re-appreciate the entire evidence and it can come to the 8http://www.judis.nic.in ` Crl.A.No.201 of 2012 independent conclusion.Therefore, this Court is inclined to interfere with the judgment of the Court below and set aside the judgment.In the result, this appeal is allowed by setting aside the Judgment in S.C.No.264 of 2007, dated 01.06.2012, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Salem.The appellant is acquitted from all the charges levelled against him.The trial Court is directed to return the fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-II) Salem.2.The Inspector of Police, Jalakandapuram Police Station, Salem District.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.	['Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
14,171,657	APP submits that the Petitioner may be directed to give his full address and the same would be verified.In any event, he should not be allowed to enter the area where the Complainant or her family resides and no threats can be extended considering the nature of the allegation in the complaint.The status report further clarifies that two other FIRs which are stated to be pending against the Petitioner, i.e. FIR No. 349/2020 and FIR No. 350/2020, are cross-FIRs between the Petitioner's family and another family.The same are in no way connected with the Complainant or her family.The Petitioner is stated to be a Yoga teacher who has some influence in society.Moreover, while this Court had granted interim protection, the Complainant continued to submit before this Court that regular threats are being extended to her and her family by the Petitioner.Though, after the filing of this petition, he is stated to have cooperated in the investigation, the fact that he had initially absconded and the further fact that there are repeated allegations being made against him by women, residing in the same neighbourhood, are essential to be considered.A perusal of the said two orders, relied upon the ld.Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, shows that multiple FIRs were not pending against the said petitioners, in those cases.Moreover, the complainants in those said cases, also, did not raise any allegations of threats being extended against them during the pendency of the anticipatory bail application.Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRATHIBA M SINGH BAIL APPLN.1939/2020 Page 10 of 11 Signing Date:03.11.2020 12:03 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH SINGH NAYAL Signing Date:03.11.2020 21:40:07By:PRATHIBA M SINGH BAIL APPLN.1939/2020 Page 10 of 11In light of various FIRs having been registered against the Petitioner in this case, and similar complaints having been made by other unconnected women, from the same neighbourhood, against him, along with the fact that he had initially absconded from investigation, this Court is inclined to reject the prayer for anticipatory bail.Prathiba M. Singh, J.The present petition has been filed seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 read with Section 482 of the CrPC.The case against the Petitioner arises out of FIR No.215/2020 under Sections 354-A and 509 of IPC and Section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter, 'POCSO Act') registered at PS Govind Puri.The Complainant, aged 17 years old, had alleged that on 14th May, 2020, at about 11:00 P.M while she was studying in her house, the Petitioner had clicked 4 to 5 photographs of her and made obscene gestures towards her.It was further alleged that the Petitioner had pointed towards the Complainant and abused her in filthy language.The incident was not reported immediately.However, on 14th June, 2020, the Complainant's mother and the Complainant Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRATHIBA M SINGH BAIL APPLN.1939/2020 Page 1 of 11 Signing Date:03.11.2020 12:03 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH SINGH NAYAL Signing Date:03.11.2020 21:40:07 reported the incident and an FIR was registered.By:PRATHIBA M SINGH BAIL APPLN.1939/2020 Page 1 of 11Single Judges have granted bail.Accordingly, he states that the Complainant's apprehensions no longer exist, and the Petitioner can be extended protection by this Court.By:PRATHIBA M SINGH BAIL APPLN.1939/2020 Page 2 of 11(SLP (Crl.) No. 4590/2010)Appeal No. 1141/2016)3) Anil Kumar Singh alias Anil Singh v. High Court of Judicature at Patna, through its Registrar (WP(Crl.) No. 293/2020)Mr. Manan seeks to distinguish the judgments which are cited by the Complainant on the ground that two of the cases cited which are related to the POCSO Act involve charges under Sections 4, 6 and 8 of the said Act, where the punishment would be life imprisonment.He further submits that the other case cited relates to Section 302 of the IPC, and none of the other judgments are applicable to the present fact scenario.Heard ld. counsels for the parties and perused the records.The allegations in the present case by the Complainant are that the Petitioner herein took photographs of the minor Complainant, committed indecent acts, made obscene gestures towards her and used abusive/filthy language.The Petitioner had during the course of investigation, moved an application before the Additional Sessions Judge (hereinafter, 'ASJ') seeking anticipatory bail.The same was dismissed by the ld.In the second status report, the Court has also been informed that during the course of investigation, efforts were made to arrest the Petitioner, but he has absconded and thereafter preferred the two anticipatory bail petitions before the ld. ASJ.Insofar as the other pending FIRs are concerned, the details of the same, in the status report, are as under:FIR Nos.349/2018 and 350/2018 - These are cross FIRs which relate to disputes between 2 families.The matter was settled and the FIRs have been quashed.FIR No. 280/2020 - This FIR, under sections 354-B/509 IPC, was registered on 12th June 2020 at about 12:30 PM at the instance of another lady, in the same neighbourhood, who had made allegations that while she was passing by on the street, the petitioner started abusing her in filthy language and after some time she saw the Petitioner making a video of her and making obscene gestures towards her.In this FIR, investigation has been competed, a draft chargesheet has been prepared and the final charge sheet is yet to be filed before the concerned court.Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRATHIBA M SINGH BAIL APPLN.1939/2020 Page 5 of 11 Signing Date:03.11.2020 12:03 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH SINGH NAYAL Signing Date:03.11.2020 21:40:07 FIR No. 164/2020 - This FIR, under sections 323/341/354/506/34 of the IPC, is also registered on the basis of a complaint by another lady, on 14th May 2020, who resides in the same neighbourhood.She has alleged that the Petitioner was abusive towards her and her son and had obscenely misbehaved with her.On the first date of hearing this petition, the Petitioner agreed to join the investigation.Notice was also issued to the Complainant.On 5th August 2020, after hearing the Complainant's mother, certain further conditions were imposed on the Petitioner while continuing the interim order.The Complainant was allowed to avail the services of a legal aid lawyer and was also permitted to file her objections to the petition.The Complainant then filed her reply to the Petition.Thus, there are at least three complaints against the Petitioner where women have made allegations of abusive and inappropriate conduct.The ld.Senior Counsel has vehemently argued that the Petitioner has shifted from the neighbourhood of the Complainant, and has given a new verified address where he is residing with his brother.	['Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
123,702,376	The case of the petitioners is as follows:(a) Acting on the intelligence that one M/s.The State Agricultural Department has sent a letter dated 18.01.2010 stating that the samples were found to be 'Agricultural Grade MOP (Muriate of Potash)'.Sharmi Exim Co., neither has a license for exporting Potassium Chloride (Muriate of Potash) fertilizer grade, nor have they ever imported fertilizer grade Potassium Chloride.Further, they have not produced any certificate from the statutory auditors to the Department of Fertilizers that the quantity intended to be exported has been imported in the last six months and no concession/subsidy has been claimed.Criminal revision filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C., against the order dated 28.11.2014 made in Crl.M.P.No.1551/2013 in C.C.No.5261/2013 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.Criminal revision filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C., against the order dated 28.11.2014 made in Crl.M.P.No.408/2014 in C.C.No.5261/2013 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.The present Criminal Revisions have been preferred for setting aside the impugned order dated 28.11.2014 made in Crl.M.P.Nos.1551 of 2013 and 408 of 2014 in C.C.No.5261 of 2013, wherein the discharge applications filed by A1, A2 and A3 under Section 239 Cr.P.C came to be dismissed.Sharmi Exim Co., Chennai are attempting to export fertilizer grade potassium chloride (Muriate of Potash) by misdeclaring it as 'Industrial Salt Chemical Grade (Sodium Chloride)', a consignment of export goods covered under Shipping Bill No.3440204 dated 23.07.2009 kept in export godown of CFS D.R.Logistics P Ltd., Minjur, Chennai was detained by the officers of the Docks Intelligence Unit (DIU), Customs House, Chennai on 27.07.2009 on a reasonable belief that the exported has misdeclared the description of the goods in the consignment in order to smuggle it out of the country.So, the samples of the goods were taken and sent for analysis.On analysis, the samples were found to be 'Agricultural Grade MOP (Muriate of Potash)'.Further, the FOB value was declared as Rs.8,27,421/- whereas the Market value is Rs.39,42,400/-.The Muriate of Potash (MOP) is a restricted item for export as per para 207 of the Foreign Trade policy 2009 2014 read with notification No.30 (RE-2003) / 2002-2007 dated 28.01.2004 issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade and is permitted for export only under license.Sharmi Exim Co., neither has a license for exporting Potassium Chloride (Muriate of Potash) fertilizer grade, nor have they ever imported fertilizer grade Potassium Chloride.Further, they have not produced any certificate from the statutory auditors to the Department of Fertilizers that the quantity intended to be exported has been imported in the last six months and no concession/subsidy has been claimed.Thus, it appeared that Sharmi Exim Co., have attempted smuggling of fertilizer grade Potassium Chloride (Muriate of Potash), a restricted item for export, by way of false declaration.Hence, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Prosecution Unit) has filed a complaint.The said complaint was taken on file in C.C.No.72 of 2013 and C.C.No.961 of 2013 and the same are pending.(b) On the other hand, based on source information, the CBI has registered a case in RC. 2/S/2013/CBI/SCB/Chennai on 30.01.2013 and after investigation has filed chargesheet against the petitioners herein as well as the other accused under Sections 120-B r/w 420 and 420 r/w 511 IPC in C.C.No.5261 of 2013 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.While so, the petitioners herein viz., the accused nos.1, 2 and 3 had filed discharge applications under Section 239 Cr.P.C. The Trial court after considering the submissions made by either sides, dismissed the said applications made in Crl.Challenging the impugned order, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would submit that on the basis of the source information, a case has been registered by the respondent/CBI against the petitioners herein as well as the accused A4 to A6 for an offence under Section 120-B r/w 420 and 420 r/w 511 IPC.Further more, for the very same consignment, the respondent herein had also filed the chargesheet.Thus, it appeared that Sharmi Exim Co., have attempted smuggling of fertilizer grade Potassium Chloride (Muriate of Potash), a restricted item for export, by way of false declaration, thereby liable for confiscation under Section 113(d), (h) and (i) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the proprietor of Sharmi Exim Co., Shri.Hence, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Prosecution Unit) has filed a complaint.The said complaint was taken on file in C.C.No.72 of 2013 and C.C.No.961 of 2013 and the same are pending.However, the final report has been filed by the respondent/CBI only for the offences under IPC.In the said report, it was specifically mentioned that A1 to A6 entered into a criminal conspiracy during the year 2009 at Chennai and other places, and in pursuance of the above criminal conspiracy, procured subsidized Muriate of Potash meant for agricultural purposes, which is a restricted item for export without valid license, and attempted to export 100 metric tonnes of MoP to Malaysia in the name of M/s.The Trial Court has considered the statements of L.W.1/Santhose Kumar, L.W.2/Syed Rahman, L.W.5/Harinath and L.W.6/Victor Johnson and came to the conclusion that there is a prima facie material for framing the charges against the revision petitioners/accused.Considering all the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the discharge application filed by the petitioners and the order of the Trial Court does not suffer any infirmity or illegality.Hence, I do not find any merits in these revisions.In fine, these Criminal Revisions deserved to be dismissed and they are hereby dismissed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.2.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.R.MALA,J.pgpPre-delivery order made inCriminal Revision Nos.44 and 45 of 2015Dated :	['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
123,702,382	ORAL JUDGMENT.Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Rule.Respondent No.3 is present in the Court.Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.2 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:55:30 ::: wp-2565-12::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:55:30 :::In the present petition, we are essentially concerned with the relief claimed by the petitioner to direct the respondents to conduct further investigation with respect to CR No.I-84/2012 registered with Manor Police Station, District Thane, by incorporating Section 395 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the accused persons and to transfer the investigation to an independent agency, such as State CID or any other investigating agency to carry out further investigation.The other relief claimed in the petition is to direct respondent No.5 to initiate appropriate Departmental Inquiry against the misconduct of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 with suitable action in that behalf.The grievance in this petition is about overzealous attitude shown by the Investigating Officer (I.O.) in handling the investigation in respect of the FIR No.I-84 of 2012 registered on 23.6.2012 with Manor Police Station.From the allegations contained in the petition, it is amply clear that the FIR was registered by police officer of the local police station only after direction to that effect was issued by the Superior Authority on the representation made by the petitioner in that behalf.That fact is indisputable.The FIR was eventually registered for the 3 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:55:30 ::: wp-2565-12 offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 427 and 395 of the IPC against the accused persons on the basis of complaint made by the petitioner.Notably, while the investigation was still in progress, rather it was yet to begin as recording of statements of all the witnesses was not over for the reasons best known to the Investigating Officer, he moved an application on 28.6.2012 before the Magistrate for deleting offence under Section 395 of the IPC from the FIR on the specious ground that there was no evidence to disclose commission of that offence.We fail to understand as to under which provision of law this application was filed by the I.O. before the Magistrate.That only shows the pre-determined approach of the I.O. to extricate the accused from offence under Section 395 of I.P.C. This biased approach of the I.O. is fortified by the following circumstances:-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:55:30 :::(i) I.O. preferred application before JMFC Court on 28.6.2012 for withdrawing Section 395 I.P.C. from charge-sheet and by that time the accused were not arrested though available.(ii) All the accused were arrested only thereafter on 29.6.2012 in the evening and were produced before JMFC Court on 30.6.12 with remand report, specifically asking for Magisterial Custody.Consequently, Magisterial Custody was granted by JMFC as prayed by Police.(iii) Regarding incident of 21.6.2012 complaint of main accused Deepak Mane was promptly registered by Police Naik H.N.Patil (No.2235) and investigation was given to Police Havildar R.R.Sharma (No.1030).It was the offence registered against the present petitioner and his men for 4 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:55:30 ::: wp-2565-12 rioting, causing hurt, criminal intimidation etc.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:55:30 :::(iv) As against (iii) above, complaint of the present petitioner was registered only after the directions from superiors and that also belatedly on 23.6.2012 in the evening.It was registered by Police Naik - M.A.Gaikwad (No.203) and investigation was given to present I.O. V.T.Pawar P.I.There is no other mechanism provided in the Code which empowers the Police Officer on his own to consider deletion of application of offence (under Section 395 of the IPC), which is already referred to in the FIR registered on the basis of oral or written complaint under section 154 of the I.P.C.Be that as it may, the said request was made by the I.O.presumably on the basis of statements of about twenty one witnesses examined by him.When we looked at the statements of the said witnesses, which have been produced before the concerned court along with the charge-sheet, it is amply clear that those are stereotyped statements including containing the same grammatical mistakes.The 5 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:55:30 ::: wp-2565-12 only difference is about the name and date on which the statements of the concerned witnesses have been recorded by him.Considering this aspect and keeping in mind the allegations in the petition which are supported by the affidavit of one of the witnesses examined by the I.O.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:55:30 :::Suffice it to observe that going by the affidavit of the above named witness Exh.G at page 86 which is filed in support of the stand taken by the petitioner; and more particularly, the statement of Vinodkumar Parasnath Singh at page 65 which was recorded by the I.O. on 25.6.2012, we have no manner of doubt that the I.O. has acted in excess of authority in applying for deletion of section 395 of IPC which was invoked by the complainant while registering the offence under Section 154 of the Code.The statement of Vinodkumar Parasnath leaves no manner of doubt that that offence was committed by the concerned accused on the given date and which statement is supported 6 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:55:30 ::: wp-2565-12 by the statement of the petitioner-complainant, on the basis of which the FIR has been registered.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:55:30 :::Taking over all view of the matter, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that there is serious doubt about the nature of investigation conducted by respondent No.3 (I.O.); and on the basis of so called evidence collated by him, he hastened to file charge-sheet against the accused, extricating them from offence under section 395 of the I.P.C. for the reasons best known to him.Accordingly, we deem it appropriate and in the interest of justice direct the respondent Nos.1 and 5 to forthwith hand over the investigation of the case to Crime Branch to be entrusted to the Officer not below the rank of A.C.P. who will be free to re investigate the entire case or collect further evidence and then file a comprehensive charge-The charge-sheet which has been filed by respondent No.3 will have to be treated as non-est in the eyes of law and no court shall proceed further on the basis of the said charge-sheet which for the reasons already recorded hitherto is untenable.7 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:55:30 ::: wp-2565-12::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:55:30 :::We place on record the argument of the petitioner that respondent No.3 was primarily responsible for non-registration of the FIR in the first instance and after registration of the FIR on the basis of directions issued by the Superior Authority ensured that the investigation is misdirected so as to favour the accused persons.The conduct of the I.O. is manifest from the steps taken by him, inter alia, in filing a formal application before the Magistrate on 28.6.2012 at the nascent stage of the investigation to allow him to delete the application of section 395 of the IPC referred to in the subject FIR.This is a serious matter which ought to be considered by the appropriate authority and taken to its logical end.We make it clear that the said inquiry will have to be proceeded on its own merits, in accordance with law, after giving opportunity to respondent No.3 and respondent No.4, as the case may be and on the basis of the conclusion reached in the said proceeding, take appropriate action against the erring police officer (s) as may be warranted in the fact situation of the case.We direct the State authorities to forthwith hand over the investigation of the case in respect of CR No.I-84/2012 registered with Manor Police Station, District Thane to Crime Branch to be undertaken by officer not below the rank of ACP.This be done within ten days from 8 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:55:30 ::: wp-2565-12 today and compliance report be submitted.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:55:30 :::The respondents are also directed to invite the attention of this order to the concerned Magistrate where the charge sheet has been filed by respondent No.3 so as to keep the said proceeding in abeyance till filing of fresh comprehensive charge-sheet by the newly appointed Investigating Agency.Rule made absolute on the above terms.Place this matter on 30.8.2012 for reporting compliance and further progress of the investigation.Copy of this order be forwarded to the Commissioner of Police for information and necessary action; forthwith.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:55:30 :::	['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
12,370,501	Heard on this first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant No.1 Arvind Yadav and applicant No.2 Sanju Yadav.The applicants are in jail in connection with Crime No.106/2020 registered at Police Station Bandri, District Sagar, for commission of offence punishable under Section 307, 323, 324, 147, 148, 149 of IPC.The case of the prosecution against the applicants, in short, is that, there was a land dispute between the parties.On 15.05.2020 a free fight was taken place between the parties.As alleged in FIR applicants along with co- accused armed with weapons beaten Ramgopal, Kalyan, Rajju, Radhe and Saitan Yadav.Crime No.106/2020 was registered on the basis of report lodged by Shaitan Yadav and Crime No.105/2020 was registered on the basis of report lodged by Babloo Yadav.As per the FIR Babloo assaulted Kalyan Yadav by means of axe and he received grievous injury.Learned counsel for the applicants prays for permission to withdraw the application on behalf of applicant No.2 Sanju Yadav.So far as applicant No.1 Arvind Yadav is concerned, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant No.1 Arvind Yadav was not involved in this case, he has falsely been implicated by the victim on the basis of previous rivalry, his father died and he is the only son, who is taking care of his family and performs all ceremonies after death, therefore, it has been prayed that the applicant No.1 Arvind Yadav may be released on bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State, on the other hand, opposed the application for bail.So far as applicant No.1 Arvind Yadav is concerned, considering the role attributed to the applicant No.1, so also the fact that father of applicant No.1 is no more, he is the only earning member of the family and have to perform after death ceremonies as per Hindu rites and rituals, in the opinion of this Court, it is a fit case to enlarge the applicant No.1 Arvind Yadav on bail.Consequently, this application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant No.1 Arvind Yadav stands allowed.Certified copy as per rules.(VISHNU PRATAP SINGH CHAUHAN) JUDGE ss Digitally signed by SWETA SAHU Date: 10/07/2020 14:55:27	['Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
123,705,933	Argument heard.This is first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail.The present applicant was arrested by the Police Station- Sundarsi, Distt-Shajapur, in Crime No.181/2016 under Sections 445, 354 and 354-D of IPC.According to the prosecution story, the present applicant entered into the house of the prosecutrix and tried to outrage her modesty.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is brother in law in relation, to the prosecutrix and he is falsely implicated due to some dispute regarding property.Learned counsel for the state however opposed the bail application on the ground that as per the statement of the prosecutrix on eight days prior to the incident, he tried to commit the same offence and again he attempted on the date of incident.After taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration and without commenting on merit, this application is allowed.It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty Thousand only) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard during trial.He is further directed that on being so released on bail, he would comply with the conditions enumerated under section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously.Certified copy as per rules.(ALOK VERMA)	['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,237,074	Irfan was declared dead in the hospital and post-mortem of the dead body was conducted by Dr. J.N. Soni (P.W. 2).Dr. J.N. Soni (P.W. 2) has found that in the left side of the chest of deceased, there was an incised wound which had cut the lungs and the cause of the death was the shock and haemorrhage due to the injury.JUDGMENT Awasthy, J.The appellant has preferred this appeal against judgment dated 11-5-1990 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Sessions Trial No. 32 of 1989 against his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of life imprisonment.The prosecution case is that on 28-9-1988 at about 1.35 P.M. at Kabitpura, Bhopal, deceased Irfan had scuffle with the appellant and the appellant took out the knife and gave blow on the chest of Irfan.That Irfan ran towards his house and he was chased by the accused.When the deceased reached his house the accused went away saying that he will not leave him to go to the hospital.Eye witnesses of the offence are mother of deceased Khalikulnisha (P.W. 5), her daughter-in-law Kiswar Jahan (P.W. 4) and her son Taufique (P.W. 9).Kiswar Jahan (P.W. 4) rushed to the Police Station, Shahjahanabad and First Information Report (Ex. P-7) was recorded on that very day at about 1.51 P.M. by Assistant Sub-Inspector R.N. Mishra (P.W. 8).Investigating Officer Kuber Singh Rajput (P.W. 11) took the recovery statement (Ex. P-2) of the appellant on 29-9-1988 and a knife was recovered on his instance from nearby bushes.Investigating Officer has also prepared map (Ex. P-13) of the place of incident and after recording statements of eye-witnesses Rahman Khan (P.W. 6) and Mehruddin (P.W. 10), charge-sheet was filed against the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.The accused abjured the guilt and he in his statement under Section 313, Cr.PC denied the statement of the prosecution witnesses and pleaded false implication due to enmity.The learned Sessions Judge has examined the statements of P.W. 1 to P.W. 11 and convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced as aforesaid.The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the learned Trial Court has erred in relying the oral testimony of Kiswar Jahan (P.W. 4), Khalikulnisha (P.W. 5) and Taufique (P.W. 9) and the conviction is liable to be set aside.Learned Counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and alleged that the statements of all the three eye-witnesses are unblemished and trustworthy and there is no substance in appeal.Dr. J.N. Soni (P.W. 2) has stated that on 28-9-1988, in Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal, dead body of Irfan aged 16 years was brought for the post-mortem by the police and during autopsy, it was seen that there was stab wound on the left pectoral region which was sized 4 cm x 1.5 cm.deep into the lungs.Dr. J.N. Soni (P.W. 2) opined that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the chest injury which was caused by a sharp and penetrating object.Thus, it is clear that the death of Irfan aged 16 years was caused due to stab wound and the death was homicidal in nature.Khalikulnisha (P.W. 5) has stated that deceased Irfan was her son who came running to her house and was crying for the help.Khalikulnisha (P.W. 5) has deposed that the accused came running with the knife in his hand and he was saying that Irfan will be killed.Kiswar Jahan (P.W. 4) has stated that Irfan was the younger brother of her husband and when she was in her house, then the appellant came chasing Irfan and Irfan was saying that the appellant had inflicted knife blow on him.Taufique (P.W. 9) has stated that Irfan was his brother and the appellant had inflicted a knife blow on the chest of his brother Irfan.Taufique (P.W. 9) has further stated that when Irfan was running for the rescue towards his house then the accused chased and abused him and he was saying that he would not allow Irfan to reach the hospital.There is no contradiction in the statements of the eye-witnesses Kiswar Jahan (P.W. 4), Khalikulnisha (P.W. 5) and Taufique (P.W. 9).These witnesses were cross-examined at length and there is no material contradiction or exaggeration from their previous statements made to the police.The presence of Kiswar Jahan (P.W. 4), Khalikulnisha (P.W. 5) and Taufique (P.W. 9) at the time of incident is quite natural.In the FIR (Ex. P-7) which was recorded within fifteen minutes after the incident, it was stated that these witnesses have seen the occurrence.These witnesses have no rancour or axe to grind against the accused.As such the fact that these witnesses are close relatives of deceased, is no ground to doubt their testimony which is otherwise unblemished.Kiswar Jahan (P.W. 4) has stated that she went to the police station and lodged the FIR (Ex. P-7) against the appellant.The distance of the Police Station from the place of incident is only one kilometre.FIR was recorded on 28-9-1988 at 1.51 P.M. just within fifteen minutes after the incident.From the above discussion, we conclude that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly believed the statements of the eye-witnesses and has rightly concluded that the prosecution succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was the author of the fatal injury of knife to the deceased.Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant has given a single knife blow to the deceased and as such he should not be convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.The appellant has caused only one injury.The appellant had given blow with lethal weapon on vital part.In the circumstances of the present case, we come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant is guilty of murder.This fact is proved that the appellant has committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder which is punishable under first part of Section 304 of the IPC.	['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
123,720,074	(2) The facts of the case, in short, are that complainant/respondent No.2 was preparing for his competitive examinations at his house situated at Ashok Nagar.He was an advocate by profession.Accused No.1, 2 and 3, namely, Jayesh Josh, Jehran Josh and 2 Misc.Criminal Case 3750/2013 Aashish Dhurve Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh and another Manoj Khare @ Kale were the teachers who had objection that complainant was teaching various girls.The accused persons abused him on several occasions and therefore the complainant lodged a complaint to the police against them.On 27.02.2010, the applicant and the aforesaid accused persons visited the house of the complainant and asked about him.Thereafter, the applicant abused and assaulted Smt. Lata and Ms. Chhaya i.e. mother and sister of the complainant respectively.The applicant instructed the family members of the complainant to send him to the police station.At about 10:15 am when the complainant reached his house he went to the police station along with his father.Then the applicant called the other accused persons on phone and all the accused persons assaulted the complainant and he was detained in the lock up.When father of the complainant tried to save him then he was also beaten by the accused persons.Mobile phone of the complainant was also taken.When the complainant prayed to file the complaint, then an FIR under Section 155 of Cr.P.C. was only registered.Ultimately, after getting bail, the complainant lodged a criminal complaint against all of the accused persons including the applicant.The complainant in his favour examined himself i.e. Satyendra Jain and his family members or friends, namely, Kailash Chand Jain, Hemant Kumar Jain, Smt. Lata Jain, Nitesh Jain, Sudheer Gupta and Arun Sharma under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. He also filed a copy of the complaint sent to the various officers of police.Thereafter, vide order dated 23.05.2012, the Magistrate registered a 3 Misc.Criminal Case 3750/2013 Aashish Dhurve Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh and another criminal complaint against various accused persons including the present applicant for offence under Sections 452, 504 and 323 of IPC.(3) In the present matter, notices were issued to respondent No.2 and he was represented but when the case was repeatedly listed for final hearing, respondent No.2 did not appear before the Court either in person or with the help of any advocate to argue the matter.(4) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.(5) First of all, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that he has filed the copy of the charge- sheet to show that on the FIR lodged by Jayesh Josh a case was registered for offence under Sections 294, 506B and 327 of IPC and the complainant was arrested and at the time of arrest his mobile phone was seized.Seizure was shown in the seizure memo filed in that case.Jayesh Josh had lodged the FIR that complainant was giving threat on phone demanding a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month from him.He gave the mobile phone number by which he had received 50-60 calls about that threat and therefore, during investigation that mobile phone was seized.Thereafter, the complainant cooked a story with the help of his relatives and friends and lodged a false complaint.(6) After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, it is apparent that alleged incident took place on 27.02.2010 and according to the complainant he was released on bail within 2-3 days.It is pleaded by the complainant that he was produced before the Magistrate initially, however, being an advocate he was aware of the proceedings of 4 Misc.Criminal Case 3750/2013 Aashish Dhurve Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh and another law and therefore he could have told that he was beaten by the applicant in the police station and other accused persons were also permitted to beat him but there is no copy of the order or proceeding of the Magistrate filed by the complainant to show that he made such a grievance before the concerned Magistrate.Similarly, he could have requested the Magistrate for his medico- legal examination and his medico-legal examination could have been performed on the directions given by the Magistrate.Also, when he was released on bail, injuries could have been shown by him to the doctor and thereafter such medical report prepared by the doctor could have been produced by him.It is surprising that the complainant did not take any step in time and he lodged the FIR only on the ground that he made some complaints to the SHO, Police Station Ashok Nagar and many superior police officers that he was given threat by the other accused persons.(7) However, according to the provision contained under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. if the police refuses to take any action on the complaint made by the complainant then the complainant has to send a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police concerned within reasonable time and if no action is taken by the police then the complaint can be filed.In the present matter, the complainant who was himself an advocate and knowing the provisions of law could not show any reason as to why he did not send a complaint to the Superintendent of Police within time.A copy of the complaint was filed before the Magistrate which was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Ashok Nagar (M.P.) 5 Misc.Criminal Case 3750/2013 Aashish Dhurve Vs.In these circumstances where the complainant did not request the concerned Magistrate about the assault done by the applicant and other accused persons and he did not get his medico legal examination done with the help of the concerned Magistrate, a doubt is created that the complainant cooked a story after getting bail etc and he could not file any medical evidence in his favour.The relatives and friends of the complaint should have told in his favour due to their interestedness.(8) Initially, the complainant had tried to make a case that the applicant held the hands of his mother with bad intention but there is a lot of contradiction between the evidence given by so many witnesses to that fact.Smt. Lata (PW-6) has stated about the incident.She told that the applicant had beaten her daughter and gave slaps but she did not state that the applicant had held her hands and therefore no case of Section 354 of IPC was registered by the Magistrate against the applicant.If allegations are examined that applicant slapped the witness Chhaya then no other witness had supported that fact.Even the neighbour boy Arun Sharma (PW-7) did not state that the applicant had given any slap to Ms. Chhaya.Hence, the story as mentioned in the complaint against the applicant which took place at the house of the complainant appears to be baseless.It appears that the applicant had gone to the house of the complainant for his arrest and he was not found.Hence, prima facie, no offence under Section 452 of IPC is made out against the applicant.If he had been beaten by the applicant then certainly he would have informed the Superintendent of Police, Ashok Nagar (M.P.) immediately and his own higher officers that he was beaten by the police.Under these circumstances where the complainant was an advocate and his father was a government servant, it was not possible for the applicant to behave in such a manner against them.Mainly that MLC report was not produced before the Magistrate to support the prosecution evidence.Hence, prima facie, it appears that after release on bail, the complainant cooked a case with the help of his relatives and friends.	['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
123,720,914	At the time of trial, the witnesses were examined and the materialdocuments have been marked.8.In the result, the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2,Trichy, in Crl.M.P.No.6052 of 2013 in PRC No.17 of 2013 dated 04.10.2013, is setaside and the Criminal Original Petition is allowed with a direction to thelearned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Trichy, to furnish a copy of the compact discto the petitioner/accused to enable him to cross-examine the witnesses.Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.	['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', '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.
1,237,263	Order Date :- 13.1.2010PAL/	['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
123,728,393	(Delivered on 3rd April, 2018) Per Vivek Agarwal, J.Prosecution story in short is that accused persons Firoz Khan, Ruda Khan alias Luda Khan and Lakhan Kushwah were accused of committing murder of Baijad son of Shahzad Khan in the intervening night of 21st-22 nd January, 2006 at the house of Lakhan Kushwah alongwith absconding co-accused Chaiya Khan and Shekhu alias Iqabal and further with an intention to remove the evidence, they had thrown the dead body of deceased Baijad on the plot of Kuldeep Singh Senger.They were charged under the provisions of Section 302 in the alternative under Section 302/34 in the alternative under Sections 302/149, 148, 201 of IPC and Section 25 (1) (1-B) (a) of the Arms Act.On 22.01.2006, PW16 Kuldeep Singh Senger saw a person lying in his plot boundary situated at Gol Pahadiya behind Ganesh Temple adjacent to Raja Gas Godown when he had called his neighbourers.They discovered that the body was lying in a blood pool and there were several stab wounds of a knife on the chest, stomach and region of the ear.The body was medium built, single frame having whitish colour and aged about 35 years.Body was not recognized immediately, but when trail of blood was traced, then it was traced upto the 3 Cri.No.285/2007 & 478/2007 house of Lakhan Kushwah.Lakhan Kushwah was not found at his residence, but his room was open and blood stains were found in his room.On the basis of such exploration, Kuldeep Singh Senger (PW16) alongwith his neighbourer Prem Singh Parmar had lodged a report at 08.45 A.M. at Police Station Janakganj, which is Ex.Station House Officer, Janakganj, Ravi Garg (PW17) started investigation on the same day and at about 10.40 AM prepared spot map (Ex.P/2) in front of Kuldeep Singh Senger (PW16) and Prem Singh Parmar (PW1).Blood spots were traced, blood stain soil and knitting rope of the Cot containing blood stains were sealed and seizure memo (Ex.P/5) was prepared.Another spot map, where the dead body was lying, was prepared as Ex.Naksha Panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P/4 in front of Kuldeep Singh Singer (PW16) and his neighbourers.Fourteen wounds were found on the dead body in the stomach and chest region caused by sharp cutting weapon.On the basis of examination of the body because of circumcision of the private part, it was reported to be that of a Muslim gentleman.Statements of mother of the deceased Anisa Begum (PW2), brother Rinku (PW3), brother-in-law Ishaq Khan (PW14) were recorded, which reveal that on 21.01.2006 at about 5.00 PM, Firoz Khan, Ruda Khan and Chaiya Khan had taken the deceased with them and thereafter on 23.01.2006, the dead body of the deceased was found.PW2 Anisa Begum revealed in her police case diary statement that her son had informed her about his dispute with the accused party.FIR (Ex.P/13) was recorded against unknown persons at the instance of Kuldeep Singh Senger (PW16) who is a Primary 8 Cri.No.285/2007 & 478/2007 School Teacher and has mentioned in his statement that when he noticed a body on his plot, he had given intimation to the neighbourers, and several people had collected at the place, he had telephoned the Police, the Police had come on the scene of occurrence, then at the insistence of the Police, he had gone to the Police Station alongwith his uncle Prem Singh and FIR (Ex.P/13) was recorded.This witness was declared hostile and he clearly deposed that he did not know Lakhan Kushwah.He denied his case diary statement.He submitted that he had not seen the person whose dead body was lying on the vacant plot.He denied that they had seen any trail of blood from the place where the body was lying to nobody's house.He also 9 Cri.On the same day at about 11.00 AM, there was verbal duel between Baijad and Chaiya.Then she submitted that on the same day at about 4.00 PM on Saturday, first Ruda visited her house, then Firoz came to call Baijad and they had informed Baijad that Chaiya is calling him.Then Baijad had gone with them.He had returned back about 6.00 PM and had again left saying that his friends are sitting at Chungi and he is going to his maternal uncle Munna's place.He did not return in the night and she was waiting for him.She thought that since Baijad had gone to her maternal uncle's place, therefore, he must have stayed there and he will come back.He further admitted that when his brother-in-law had read news about death of his brother, then only he had come to know that since when his brother was missing from the house.He further admitted that he had seen his brother going alongwith the accused persons from Chungi because he works at Chungi.On the contrary, he has mentioned in his examination-in-chief that three persons had taken his brother Baijad in a taxi from his residence.He has further denied that he had not given this intimation to the Police that last he had seen his brother going alongwith the accused from Chungi.Thus, this story of PW3 Rinku that he had seen his brother going in a taxi with the accused persons at Chungi from his own shop is an improvisation from the statement recorded in Ex.He has admitted in his cross-examination that when he had gone alongwith Janakganj Police to see the dead body, he had not informed the Police that his brother was, for the last time, taken by the accused persons.He has admitted that newspaper publication was made in relation to an unknown body.He had recorded thereafter statements of Devendra Kumar, Mukesh Kumar Son of Laxmi Narayan, Smt. Sadhna Singh Parmar, Jugal Kishore, Vinod Kumar, Smt. Ganga Bai Batham and Kuldeep Singh Senger as they were given to the Police.He admitted that he gathered information about Ruda 14 Cri.No.285/2007 & 478/2007 from an informant whose name is not known to him and in regard to whom he had not prepared any Panchnama.Learned Sessions Court has dealt with different aspects of circumstantial evidence and has recorded a finding that the statements of PW2 Anisa Begum, PW3 Rinku and PW14 Ishaq Khan though have contradictions, but looking to their job profile and the fact that they belong to lower strata of the society, such contradictions cannot be ignored.In fact, all the 12 aspects to connect the accused persons with the crime on the basis of circumstantial evidence, namely, accused persons having taken Baijad on 21.01.2006, dispute of Baijad with them, recovery of blood soaked body from the plot of Kuldeep Singh Senger, blood trail from the house of Lakhan Kushwah to that of plot of Kuldeep Singh Senger, availability of blood stains in the room of Lakhan and on the Cot of Lakhan and the corroboration of blood group of the deceased with the blood stains found in the house of Lakhan and in the Cot found in the house of Lakhan, absconding act of Firoz, matching of blood group of the blood stains found on the body of the deceased and one recovered from the room and Cot in the room of Lakhan and recovery of weapons from Ruda, Firoz and Lakhan on their identification, at the most points out guilt of Lakhan against whom the appeal has already been withdrawn.The fact of the matter is that PW2 Anisa Begum has categorically mentioned that her son was taken by Firoz and Ruda and thereafter he had returned back home and thereafter had left the home on his own at 6.00 PM to visit his maternal uncle Munna.Learned Sessions Judge has also not taken into consideration any fact of the blood stains on the weapons 15 Cri.These criminal appeals have been filed by the appellants under the provisions of Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') after being convicted by the Court of Additional Judge to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Gwalior, in Sessions Case No.104/2006 vide judgment dated 14.03.2007 convicting the appellants under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and sentencing them for life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-.They have also been convicted under Section 201 of IPC and sentenced for 07 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-; in default of payment of fine for each of the offences separately, they were to undergo two years rigorous 2 Cri.No.285/2007 & 478/2007 imprisonment.On 24.03.2018, when both these appeals have been heard, another connected Criminal Appeal No.299/2007 filed on behalf of accused Lakhan Kushwah Son of Balkishan Kushwah has been withdrawn by his counsel and the same has been dismissed by recording separate ordersheet as withdrawn.Therefore, this order deals with only two criminal appeals respectively filed by Ruda Khan alias Luda Khan son of Shri Nanhe Khan and Firoz Khan son of Shri Ahmed Khan.Body was sent for post-mortem to identify the person, whose body was found, photograph (Ex.P/9) was taken and was published in the newspaper.On 23.01.2006, the dead body was identified by the paternal uncle of deceased Sher Khan as that of Baijad Khan son of Shahzad Khan, aged about 25 years.Post-mortem report (Ex.P/33) was obtained, which disclosed 19 ante-mortem wounds on the body and attributed shock and excessive loss of 4 Cri.No.285/2007 & 478/2007 blood as the cause of death, which was termed to be homicidal.Arms, namely, katar and knife were recovered on their identification vide Ex.P/23 and Ex.P/24 respectively and similarly on 02.02.2006, accused Lakhan Kushwah was arrested and on his identification, a knife in the shape of Katar was recovered vide seizure memo (Ex.P/22).After making such recovery, reports (Exs.P/31 and 32) were obtained from Regional Forensic Science Laboratory.As per Ex.P/31, no poison was found in the viscera of the deceased.As per report (Ex.P/32), human blood was found on the shoes and clothes of the deceased from E-1 to E-6 grouping of which was AB.Similarly, blood group of the stains found on the rope of the Cot and blood stains soil recovered from the house of Lakhan Kushwah was also found to be of blood group AB.It was also reported that except Article-B soil, blood stains were found on the clothes and weapons of Firoz and Ruda so also on Lakhan, but such marks were disintegrated and blood was insufficient on the clothes of Firoz and Ruda so that grouping could not be done.After investigation, chargesheet was filed.It has been further held that as far as recovery of clothes and weapon is concerned, the report of FSL did not show matching of the blood group on the clothes of the accused and the weapon so recovered from the accused with that of the deceased and the evidence of blood group is not conclusive to connect the blood stains with the deceased.In absence of such evidence, this could not be a circumstance, on the basis of which any inference can be drawn.In his cross-examination, he has categorically mentioned that around 200-250 people had accumulated at the scene of crime; when the Police had arrived, the Police had obtained signatures on several blank papers and the Police had not read over anything to him and had written words on their own.Nearly after half an hour, the Police had come when the Police had sent him to the Police Station for lodging of FIR.No.285/2007 & 478/2007 admitted that certain blank papers were signed in the Police Station.PW2 Smt. Anisa Begum deposed that she had 05 children, out of which one was Baijad Khan, who has been murdered.She deposed that at about 6.00 AM, Chaiya and Firoz had visited her house to call Baijad.She further identified Firoz and Ruda alias Luda and deposed that they had hurled abuses at her residence and threatened that if money is demanded, then they shall kill Baijad.She had visited the house of Firoz on 2-3 occasions, but his mother informed her that Firoz was out to Dabra.Then she read about dead body in the newspaper and had gone to see the dead body, where she identified the dead body.She further submitted that her son Baijad has been murdered by Chaiya, Firoz and Shekhu because they had threatened him.She admitted that the news was published in the newspaper after his murder that he was involved in many cases of burglary at Jaipur and Gwalior, but submitted that this news was published by Shekhu and Chaiya.She admitted her relationship with Ruda 10 Cri.No.285/2007 & 478/2007 that he is maternal nephew of her brother-in-law Sher Khan.She admitted that her son had come back in the evening at 6.00 PM.She further admitted that her son was sentenced for 10 years' imprisonment in a case under Section 307 of IPC.Rinku (PW3), brother of Baijad, deposed that in the evening Firoz, Ruda and Chaiya had taken Baijad in a taxi and thereafter his brother never returned back.This is contradictory to the statements given by PW2 Anisa Begum, the mother of Baijad.He has admitted that Luda is maternal nephew of his paternal uncle Sher Khan (PW12).There was no dispute with Luda.In fact, the dispute was with Chaiya.He has also admitted in his cross-examination that there was no enmity with Firoz and he was visiting their house regularly.No.285/2007 & 478/2007PW10 and PW15 namely, Guddu alias Dinesh and Devendra Pachori are witnesses of the seizure.PW10 Guddu has been declared hostile and did not recognize the accused persons Firoz and Luda.He denied that he had signed on Ex.P/15 and Ex.P/16 at the instance of the Police and he had no information as to what is written in it.He further admitted that his signatures were obtained close to Gas Godown by the Police.He had not visited the Police Station.He denied giving any information by accused Luda Khan that Luda, Firoz, Chaiya, Lakhan Kushwah and another accomplice had killed Baijad inside the house of Lakhan Kushwah.He has specifically denied that no such information was given to the Police by Luda Khan.He further denied that no seizure was made of the Katar from Jinnaton-ki-Pahadia at the instance of Luda Khan.Similarly, he denied that Firoz Khan had given any statement that alongwith Chaiya, Lakhan Kushwah and Luda, they had murdered Baijad Khan and had thrown the dead body on a vacant plot.Similarly, PW15 Devendra Pachori has though admitted that Ex.P/15 and Ex.P/16 were recorded in front of him, but in cross-examination, he admitted that accused persons were tortured and beaten when such statements were given.He further denied to visit Jinnaton-Ki-Pahadia for the purpose of seizure.He admitted that he is a milkman who often visits the Police Station and the localities adjacent to the Police Station to distribute milk.He further admitted that he had never read this Panchnama and was not mindful of the fact that on which papers his signatures were obtained.No.285/2007 & 478/2007PW18 Dr. J.N. Soni, Professor of Forensic Medicine Department, G.R. Medical College, Gwalior had conducted post- mortem on 23.01.2006 at 12.10 Noon.He had found as many as 19 injuries on the body of the deceased and the cause of death was excessive bleeding and shock.He further admitted that he was not shown any of the weapons recovered to corroborate the nature of the injuries and whether such injuries could have been caused by such weapon or not.PW17 Ravi Garg is the Investigating Officer of the matter and he was posted as SHO on the relevant date.He admitted to have prepared memo Ex.P/21 and Ex.P/21 is the memorandum of Lakhan Kushwah and 13 Cri.No.285/2007 & 478/2007 Ex.Similarly, Ex.P/15 is the memorandum under Section 27 of Firoz Khan and Ex.P/16 is the memorandum under Section 27 of accused Ruda Khan alias Luda Khan.He admitted that he had not taken help of Dog Squad or the Sniffing Dog to ascertain identity of the accused and to trace the blood trail.He further admitted that the place from where knife was recovered is an open place.He also admitted that in Ex.He has further admitted that PW3 Rinku while giving his case-diary statement (Ex.P/2) had not informed him that he had gathered information from the newspaper about recovery of blood stains from the house of Lakhan.He had also not informed about threat from the accused demanding money, failing which they will commit murder of Baijad Khan.He further admitted that PW3 Rinku in his case-diary statement (Ex.D/2) neither informed about any threat nor his spotting Baijad with Chaiya and Firoz at 6.00 PM.PW3 Rinku had also not given statement that he had last seen Baijad with the accused persons or had seen Baijad going with the accused in a taxi towards Bahodapur.He admitted that even PW3 Rinku had not given statement that when the accused had taken his brother.On that day, Firoz and Chaiya had visited their house and had threatened on the issue of demand of money.This statement contradicts the testimony of PW3 Rinku.He also admitted that the place, from where knife was recovered at the instance of Firoz, was an open space and he has not mentioned in his seizure memo as to how he had sealed and wrapped the knife.Similar facts have been admitted in relation to accused Ruda.No.285/2007 & 478/2007 recovered from Ruda Khan vide seizure memo Ex.P/23 and Firoz Khan vide seizure memo Ex.These recoveries were made in presence of PW14 Ishaq Khan and PW12 Sher Khan, who are respectively brother-in-law and paternal uncle of the deceased and cannot be termed as independent witnesses.This recovery was made from an open space at Jinnaton-ki-Pahadia, Bahodapur and these weapons were not sealed properly as has been admitted by PW17 Ravi Garg, Investigation Officer of the case.FSL reports Exs.P/31 and P/32 reveal that blood stains on Article-K Katar seized from Ruda and Article-I knife seized from Firoz contained some rust like brown material, but such spots on the recovered arms were disintegrated and were not sufficient to form any opinion and, therefore, no information was given as to whether they contained the blood group of the deceased or not.One of the witnesses to the seizure PW12 Sher Khan was declared hostile.He denied seizure of any knife from accused Firoz Khan or from Ruda Khan.He further admitted that the Police had obtained his signatures on the blank papers.The fundamental principle of Criminal Jurisprudence is that the onus of proof is entirely on the prosecution and a man must be presumed to be innocent until he is proved to be legally guilty beyond doubt and if there is any doubt at all he must be given benefit of doubt and acquitted although greatest suspicion may exist against him.The first circumstance, which has been pointed out by the learned Sessions Court that accused Firoz, Ruda alias Luda had taken Baijad on 21.01.2006, is not solely reliable inasmuch as, as per the evidence of PW2 Anisa Begum, he had returned back 16 Cri.No.285/2007 & 478/2007 home at about 6.00 PM, after being taken.There is no independent evidence to corroborate the statement of PW2 Anisa Begum that there was past dispute between the accused persons.In fact, she has admitted that there was no dispute with Ruda Khan and Firoz Khan and the dispute was only with Chaiya Khan.Therefore, this circumstance as is evident from the evidence of PW2 Anisa Begum, appears to have been overlooked.It is true that the dead body of Baijad was found on the plot of Kuldeep Singh Senger on 22.01.2006 and there was a trail of blood spots from the plot of Kuldeep Singh Senger to the house of Lakhan Kushwah and the house of Lakhan was open and the blood stains were found on the Cot, but that does not point out the guilt of the present appellants, namely, Ruda Khan alias Luda Khan and Firoz Khan.Merely because Firoz and Lakhan were absconding cannot by implication be permitted to indict Firoz and Ruda because there was neither any blood trial nor there was matching of blood group on the clothes recovered from Firoz an Ruda and so also from the knife and Katar recovered from Firoz and Ruda alias Luda Khan.Merely presence of blood stains on the Cot can at best be used as evidence against Lakhan and not against Firoz and Ruda.As per FSL report, if blood group AB was found on the clothes and shoes of the deceased so also from the room and Cot lying in the house of Lakhan that itself is not sufficient to indict the present appellants inasmuch as the blood group was disintegrated and the weapons namely knife and Katar, recovered from an open area, were not properly sealed and in view of the statement given by PW12 Sher Khan, such recovery 17 Cri.No.285/2007 & 478/2007 from the open space also becomes doubtful and further no finger print matching was carried out and the theory of last seen has to be discarded in view of the evidence given by PW2 Anisa Begum and PW17 Ravi Garg, IO, contradicting the statement given by PW3 Rinku in regard to last seen.Therefore, the totality of the evidence available in the matter is not sufficient to hold that there was a group rivalry between the deceased and Ruda Khan and Firoz Khan.No motive has been attached to Ruda and Firoz in regard to whom PW2 Anisa Begum has deposed to have had normal relationship and rivalry being only with absconding accused Chaiya.	['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
123,763,861	i) Criminal Bail Application No. 2558 of 2019 is allowed;ii) The applicant is directed to be released on bail in connection with C.R. No.109 of 2019 registered with Hadapsar Police Station, District Pune.on furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount;::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2019 21:14:19 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2019 21:14:19 :::iv) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence.v) Bail Application stands disposed of accordingly.(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2019 21:14:19 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2019 21:14:19 :::	['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
123,766,055	The contemnor has been heard in person at length.This criminal contempt application was registered on receiving a letter dated 20.04.2012 from District Judge, Budaun, addressed to Registrar General of this Court and enclosing therewith reference letter dated 16.4.2012 of Sri Akhilesh Kumar, Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Budaun.So the Contempt Proceedings, if were require should be imitated against SRI AMAR PAL, son of Late CHANDRA PAL, the Deceased Judgment Debtor, who filed his own Affidavit and the Application, through Counsel/ Advocate i.e. the Applicant / (Alleged) Guilty Person/Contemner being his Attorney / Advocate in the aforesaid Court and as such the Contempt Proceedings launched, only against the Applicant / (Alleged) Guilty Person/ Contemner are certainly under Malice, while abusing the Powers, being the Presiding Officer of the Court concerned, with an intention to take all the Lawyers in his GRIP / SUPERVENESS."Thus, whatever has been said and alleged against the Court and Presiding Officer, is ex facie admitted by contemnor but his stand is that he represented his client, and, on his instructions, said all those things, therefore, contempt proceedings should be initiated against his client.He has also said that the same having been initiated only against contemnor, is malicious and amounts to abuse of power.Shri Akhilesh Kumar said Judge issued a notice with the false allegations and charges from his chamber on 23-4-2011 with malafide intention.The deponent did not moved application personally, it was moved by the Amar Pal Singh through counsel in his own language and signed him also and did speak any word to scandalize the said judge allegations in notice are totally false.The two other advocates are the eye witness of the occurrence, they can give their statements.12-That the another false allegation was mentioned in the Notice that was under :-esjs foJke d{k esa vkdj ;g Hkh dgk fd vki U;k;k/kh'k gSa] vki viuh Mªsl mrkjdj ckgj vk,] rks ge vkidks ns[k ysaxs] ;g Hkh dgk fd vkidh vkSj esjh ;ksX;rk ,d gh gS cl vUrj ;g gS fd vki ;gkWa cSBs gS] vki dksbZ fo'ks"k O;fDr ugha gSA Reality is that on calling by the complainant, I went with two other advocates named Shri Omkar Singh Yadav and Shri Laxman Prasad Advocates, in the Chamber of complainant and I did not say anything as alleged and mentioned in the notice.I talked everything with due respect of the court the complainant pressurized me to not press the application 146 -C I did not be agree to do so without consent of my client, then the complainant judge misbehaved to me and threatened to issue a contempt notice of such type with false allegations.Two other Advocates are eye witnesses of the alleged occurrence.That the said notice was issued from the chamber in violation of Section 7 of the contempt of Court Act 1971 and called for explanation from the deponent within ten days.The deponent alleged contemnor requested with respect towards the presiding Judge by an application No.153C dated 2-5-2011 for explaining the ambiguous position of contempt notice only for the purpose of giving a suitable plantation of the notice.The explanation from the Judge did not demand as of right, it was only good faith and in the interest of justice that may be given by the respectable Judge in the interest of justice, nothing is restrained and prohibited to do in good faith.For the end of justice.If the respective Judge was faultless, he must give permission to the deponent to make complainant against himself on the demand of deponent, but he did not dare to do so.Due to waiting for answer of application No. 153-C dated 2-5-2011 the deponent could not give explanation of the said notice.There is no fault on the Part of deponent/alleged guilty person.That the respectable Judge did give any answer for the question mentioned, in deponent's application dated 2-5-2011 and feeling fault himself, proposed the president and secretary of District Bar Association Budaun to inform and suggest the deponent for stopping the matter with compromise.The revision was dismissed against such order on the ground of being an interlocutory order at the stage of admission.Hence the deponent is not guilty for contempt as well as no action can be taken to punish for contempt of court."Having gone through the reply and affidavit of contemnor, this Court found that there was no reason to drop the proceedings.Again basic facts stated in his earlier affidavit were reiterated.However, he added some further reply to the charge.The copy of application 44 D is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.1 to this affidavit.That when deponent was present in court in the above mentioned ex case No. 10 of 2009, Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) Badaun openly declared sitting in court that he is going to pass an order in this case and your another ex case No.34/98, Ganga Devi Versus Chandra Pal is fixed on 22.04.2011, I shall pass an order against your party because I promised the decree holders of these two cases to pass the orders quickly in their favour.Deponent moved an application No. 47 C on the same time on 16.04.2011, but the respected Judge did not rebut any thing for saying wrong allegations and admitted silently.A copy of application 145-D is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.3 to this affidavit.That the dated 22.04.2011 was not fixed to pass an order for taking Dakhal on the disputed land and for the disposal of application 143-C and 144-C as well as no objection was filed against the application no. 143-C and 144-C in connection with Order 21 Rule 29 C.P.C. None was present to press the applications above on behalf of J.D.s.The main and important facts are that J.D. Chandra Pal Singh has died in 2002 and his heirs have been substituted in 2003, his counsel had also died in 2009, while both were shown present in the court and heard on 22.04.2011 and the applications 143-C and 144-C were disposed off alongwith a imaginary objection 104-C against such applications.The presiding Judge, Shri Akhilesh Kumar passed an arbitrary order on 22.04.2011 as he declared previously on date 16.04.2011 and knowingly mentioned a wrong provision of Order 21 Rule 29 C.P.c.for rejecting the applications.That the Judge appeared to be prejudice and effected with the illegal pressure of decree holder as he had declared on 16.4.2011 order to be passed on 22.4.2011 because the latches and faults apparent on the record of order dated 22.04.2011 could not be presumed as the bonafide mistakes, but these defects can be said great blunders deliberately, made for giving illegal benefit to the decree holder.The order sheet of dated 18.12.2010 to 05.04.2011, annexed herewith, are relevant to see and copies of the applications no.143-C and 144-C are also annexed herewith for perusal and kind consideration as Annexure No. 4 and 5 to this affidavit.That when Shri Amar Pal Singh, the son of dead J.D. Chandra Pal Singh perused the said order dated 22.04.2011 and discussed about the illegalities made by Judge knowingly, he lost his temper and directed deponent (his advocate) to write an application for making formal order of the said order to file revision, in his language, so that the learned Judge ought to make his mind for taking note his faults and understanding the blunders made by him prejudicially.There was no mens-ria and no intention to lower down the dignity of Court.The copies of application No.146-C and order dated 22.04.2011 are being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.6 and 7 to this affidavit.That the said Judge called for me in his chamber.Deponent went there with two other advocates namely Shri Omkar Singh Yadav Advocate and Shri Laxman Prasad, Advocate.The same learned Judge became annoyed and threatened for returning the application 146-C, since deponent forbade, the presided Judge told his Orderly to take out from chamber by pushing and issued a notice against me for contempt from the chamber on same date, 23.04.2011 for giving explanation within 10 days.That on 10.05.2011 the President and Secretary of District Bar Association, Badaun suggested me, the alleged contemnor, to subside the matter according to the proposal of Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Badaun, deponent became agree and gave an application dated 10.02.2012 and no action was taken against the alleged contemnor in consequence of notice.A copy of application dated 10.05.2011 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.8 to this affidavit.That the alleged contemnor gave another application on 10.04.2012 by disclosing the real facts, regarding the relevant conduct of learned Judge and illegalities in other alongwith confirming subsequently a forged Dakhalnama, that was connected with the Dakhal on 7 plots while the decree was passed only for two plots and the sale deed was executed regarding plot no. 371, only one plot.This application was concerned only the prayer to conclude the manner with true facts against the same.That the first charge is- a publication in writing as the court was drunken in bribe.Rebuttal- The application is made through counsel, in the language and direction with signature of client.There was no mens-ria for lowering down the dignity of court.The alleged contemnor, wrote the application no. 146-C in good faith and innocently without any mens-ria, only this application is the base of notice dated 23.04.2011 as well as the charges.That the second charge is - The deponent sent Bar President and Secretary to subside the matter and they gave application No.153(g).There are, broadly three questions :On 16.04.2011, contemnor moved an application seeking adjournment.The Court, however, passed order for execution of decree and did not accept adjournment.The contemnor then filed application no.47-C on 16.4.2011 making allegations of predetermined mind on the part of Presiding Officer and also that he is proceeding in the matter for his personal interest and illegal reasons.This application was opposed by decree holder.On the record, contemnor has also placed an application no.143C filed on 11.09.2009 in Execution No.34 of 2009 (Ganga Devi Vs.Chandra Pal) stating that judgment debtor has filed subsequently original suit no.309 of 2009 for declaring sale deeds void and during pendency of the aforesaid suit, execution proceedings should be deferred.Application No.146C was filed on 23.4.2011 stating that Presiding Officer of the Court passed order without hearing counsel for judgment debtor, who did not appear due to strike of advocates.The allegations made in the application dated 23.4.2011, paper no.146C, reads as under :A report has been sought therein from you.You have colluded with the decree holder and as such you are not supposed to deliver justice.Even the direction of the District Judge seeking a report thereon was placed before your good-self at 12.30 pm in the presence of the applicant but you sent the same to the office.You were so much infatuated with the bribe that even without perusing the records you issued a possession warrant in the favour of the decree holder.You got it scribed in the order that no direction seeking a report was received till 2 pm.It was so scribed that both the parties were heard despite the fact that the counsel for the applicant had left after submitting the application.You have got it wrongly scribed that the debtor Chandra Pal had put in appearance in the court alongwith the counsel.As a matter of fact, Chandra Pal had not come over to the court.You had on 22.04.2011 itself, while passing an order in Execution Suit No. 10/2009 titled as Sunita Devi Vs.Surendra Sharma, told the counsel for the applicant: "I'll issue a possession warrant in Execution Suit No. 34/98 titled as Ganga Devi Vs.Chandra Pal because I have made a promise to the decree holder".The counsel for the applicant had on that very day moved an application to this very effect in the Execution Suit No. 10/2009 but even in the said case you, after taking bribe, even without hearing anybody, issued a possession warrant on that day despite there being strike, getting it scribed on the record that both the parties were heard.I have heard of it.The applicant is aggrieved by your order and seeks revision.A bail application was filed before the Magistrate, which was rejected.	['Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,237,709	The revolver belonging to the deceased was kept on the teapoy near by.After some talk, the deceased fired the first bullet from his revolver which caused two holes in the Safari Coat worn by the petitioner Laxman.1. Rule.By consent, rule made returnable forthwith.Heard both sides.We have admitted the appeal of the petitioner on 11th February, 1997 when we had granted him liberty to file a separate application for bail.Criminal Application No. 529 of 1997 for bail was granted by us on 17th February, 1997 in the peculiar facts and circumstances which may briefly be indicated as under.The learned Sessions Judge, Alibag by his judgment and order dated 6th February, 1997 held the petitioner guilty of offence punishable under Section 304, Part I of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer R.I. for one year.The order of sentence proceeds on the assumption that minimum sentence would be imprisonment for a period of ten years.The facts held proved by the trial Court prima facie suggest that the petitioner had entered the house of the Chief Officer, Khopoli Municipal Council, unarmed where the Chief Engineer of Khopoli Municipal Council deceased Yeshwant Patil - was sitting with the Chief Officer.The second bullet fired by the deceased, caused injury in the stomach of Tukaram, son of the petitioner.Undoubtedly, the third Bullet which has caused death of the deceased was Fired by the petitioner.The short question is about the right of private defence, if any, and it being exceeded.On 20th February, 1997, an application was made by a Councillor of the Khopoli Municipal Council viz. Kisan Ganpat Shelar against the petitioner praying for petitioner's disqualification under section 44 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Township Act, 1965 (for short the Municipal Councils Act).It appears that the petitioner belongs to the Denotified Wadar Tribe and in December, 1996 in view of the amended provisions, he has been elected as President of the Municipal Council in his capacity as a Municipal Councillor belonging to the Denotified Tribe.In the application made by Kisan Shelar for disqualification of the petitioner, Collector, Raigad had passed an order on 1st April, 1997 allowing the application and holding that the petitioner is disqualified to hold his office of the Councillor from Ward No. 17 in view of provisions of subsection (3) of Section 44 of the Municipal Panchayats Act. The Collector has passed a further order under sub-section (8) of Section 51 of the said Act declaring the office of the President of Khopoli Municipal Council vacant and directing that the said vacancy be filled in as per the election programme to be specified by a written order.Against the said order, dated 1st April, 1997 passed by the Collector, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the State Government on 3rd April, 1997 which is pending.Our attention has been invited to three decisions on the point.The State of T.N. approached the Apex Court.	['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
123,772,405	::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::The complainant namely Vilas Anantrao Randive, his wife namely Kanchan and their minor son namely Harshad, who were residing at Aurangabad, were holding agricultural lands situate within the local limits of village Shankarpurwadi coming within Sajja Golegaon.The name of Harshad was recorded to the land block No.20 to the extent of 2 Hectares 60 Ares.The complainant wanted to sell that land.Therefore, he wanted to record his name as the guardian of his minor son Harshad in the record of rights of the said land.He, therefore, approached the appellant in the second week of August, 1996 alongwith one Prabhakar Kashinath Gore, residents of Ghodegaon and Abbas Habib, resident of Shankarpurwadi and handed over the 7/12 extract of the land block No.20, the birth certificate of Harshad and other papers to the appellant, for the purpose of recording his name as the guardian of Harshad.At that time, the appellant demanded bribe of Rs.2000/- for taking necessary ::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 ::: 3 criapl114-2002mutation entry in the record of rights.Despite the requests made by the appellant to reduce that amount, the appellant did not reduce it.Therefore, left with no alternative, the complainant paid him Rs.500/-.He went to one Manikrao Trimbak Jadhav, resident of Ghodegaon alongwith Abbas Habib and borrowed Rs.1500/- from him.He handed over that amount of Rs.1500/- to Abbas Habib for being paid to the appellant.He came to know on the next day that Abbas Habib paid that amount to the appellant.::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::Then prior to about 20 to 21 days of the day on which the complaint was lodged, the complainant went to the office of the appellant and again requested him to take necessary entry in the 7/12 extract of the land block No.20 showing him as the guardian of his minor son Harshad.At that time also, the appellant demanded Rs.500/- from him.When the appellant told him that he had already paid Rs.2000/- to him, the appellant replied that he wanted Rs.500/- for being paid to his superior officers.The complainant asked the appellant for 7/12 extracts of the lands block Nos.18, 20 and 22 for the last three years whereon the appellant demanded Rs.1000/- more for that purpose.When the complainant ::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 ::: 4 criapl114-2002expressed that the amount demanded was excessive, the appellant scaled down his composite demand of Rs.1500/- (Rs.500/- + Rs.1000/-) to Rs.1000/-.The complainant assured the appellant that he would pay the said amount lateron.The appellant asked him to pay the amount of Rs.1000/- without fail.Thereafter, the appellant prepared a 7/12 extract of the land block No.20 showing the name of the complainant as the guardian of his minor son Harshad and informed the complainant that it was a kachha (unauthentic) 7/12 extract of which the entires have not been taken in the record of rights and asked the complainant not to use it for alienation of the said land.::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::Then on 26th September, 1996 at abut 2.30 p.m., when the complainant was at his house at Aurangabad, one Karbhari Shamrao Dale, resident of Shankarpurwadi and Karbhari Manikrao Jadhav, resident of Ghodegaon came to him in connection with alienation of the agricultural land.After some time, the appellant also reached there.The appellant demanded Rs.1000/- from the complainant.However, the complainant expressed that the said amount was not available with him.At that time, the appellant asked him to pay minimum Rs.100/- ::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::time, the appellant received Rs.250/- from Karbhari Shamrao Dale and Rs.500/- from Karbhari Manikrao Jadhav also in connection with mutation entry in respect of the agricultural land and asked them to pay the balance amount as well.On 27th September, 1996 at about 6.30 a.m., the complainant went to the house of the appellant at Khultabad and demanded authentic 7/12 extract in respect of the land of his son Harshad.The appellant told him that he was going to attend a Gramsabha at village Golegaon and after attending the Gramsabha, he would come to the house of the complainant himself alongwith the entire record and would do the required work.The appellant asked the complainant to inform Karbhari Manikrao Jadhav as well, with whom the appellant had proposed to go to the house of the complainant.At that time also, the appellant took Rs.100/- from the complainant for filling petrol in the motorcycle.The complainant went to Ghodegaon and informed Karbhari Manikrao Jadhav that the appellant had proposed to visit his house at Aurangabad on that day at ::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 ::: 6 criapl114-2002about 12.00 noon to 1.00 p.m. and that he should accompany the appellant.::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::Since the complainant was not inclined to pay bribe to the appellant, he went to the office of Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) at Aurangabad and filed complaint against the appellant in respect of his demand for bribe.S.P. (ACB), Aurangabad namely H.P. Kulkarni got typed the complaint of the complainant as per his say.He decided to lay trap against the appellant.He summoned two witnesses from the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, Aurangabad.Accordingly, one Dadarao Tangade and Subhash Tondgire, the employees of the said office appeared in the office of ACB and gave consent to act as panch witnesses in the proposed trap.They were introduced to the complainant.The contents of the complaint were verified through the complainant in their presence.7 criapl114-2002The tainted currency notes were kept in the left side chest pocket of the shirt of the complainant with the instructions that he should take out those currency notes by his right hand, only on being demanded by the appellant and hand them over to the appellant.He was further instructed to remove his specs by his left hand and give signal of having handed over the bribe amount to the appellant.The panch namely Dadarao Tangade was instructed to be with the complainant and to watch the activities and hear conversation between the complainant and the appellant at the time of the trap.Necessary instructions were given to the another panch and other members of the raiding party.Accordingly, the raiding party went to the house of the complainant and sat in ambush as instructed by Dy.S.P. Kulkarni.However, on that day, the appellant did not visit the house of the complainant.Therefore, the trap was postponed.The shirt of the complainant alongwith the tainted currency notes was removed and kept in a sealed condition in the office of the ACB.Trap was arranged on 28th September, 1996 also as the appellant had informed the complainant to visit his house, however, it was postponed as the appellant ::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 ::: 8 criapl114-2002did not visit the house of the complainant on that day because of his personal difficulties.The appellant had informed the complainant through one Shankar Anna Jadhav, who was the friend of the appellant, that he would visit the house of the complainant in any case on 30th September, 1996 in the evening.The complainant went to the office of ACB and informed that fact to Dy.S.P. Kulkarni.::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::On 29th September, 1996 at about 6.00 p.m., the appellant went to the house of the complainant alongwith a policeman, who was in civil dress.He asked the complainant whether he had received the message that was given to him.The complainant answered in the affirmative.The appellant demanded Rs.1000/- from the complainant, but the complainant expressed his inability to fulfil that demand for want of money.The appellant then asked him to pay at least Rs.100/- for filling petrol.The complainant unwillingly paid Rs.100/- to the appellant.Ultimately, on 30th September, 1996, the complainant received a message from the appellant through one Shankar Anna Jadhav that he would be ::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 ::: 9 criapl114-2002visiting the house of the complainant on 30 th September, 1996 after noon.Accordingly, the complainant approached the Dy.S.P. (ACB) Kulkarni and informed that fact.The complainant and the panch Dadarao Tangade were sitting in the living room on the ground floor of the house of the complainant.One Uttam Rambhaji Jadhav and Shankar Anna Jadhav came to the house of the complainant at about 5.30 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. The appellant and one more Talathi having surname Patekar followed them.The appellant and the another Talathi sat in the living room.The complainant asked the appellant whether he was keeping fast whereon the appellant answered in the affirmative.The complainant then paid Rs.50/- to Shankar Anna Jadhav and asked him to bring some eatables and sweets for the appellant.Accordingly, Shankar Jadhav and Uttam Jadhav went away to bring eatables.The appellant asked the complainant as to who ::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 ::: 10 criapl114-2002was the other person (i.e. panch Dadarao Tangade).The complainant replied that he was the maternal uncle of his son Harshad.The appellant then asked the panch Tangade as to where he was residing, whereon the panch Tangade replied that he was residing at Pune.On being asked by the panch Tangade, the appellant replied that he was working as Talathi, Sajja Golegaon.The appellant then asked the complainant to produce the birth certificate of Harshad on the say that it was required to show it to his superior officer and that he would return it within 2 to 3 days.The complainant brought the birth certificate and handed it over to the appellant.The appellant kept it in his bag.The complainant took those 7/12 extracts and kept them in the left side pocket of his pant.The appellant asked the complainant by signs to accompany him for going out of the house.Accordingly, the complainant went alongwith the appellant outside the house.The panch Tangade also went outside the house.The appellant told the complainant that all of his agricultural lands were recorded as Gairan lands whereon the complainant told him that he had old record showing that they were ::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 ::: 11 criapl114-2002agricultural lands.The appellant then told that it was the problem of the complainant and he should deal with that.Thereafter, all of them came back inside the house.The appellant with his right thumb and index finger gave a signal demanding money.The complainant told him that he had kept ready the amount of Rs.1000/-.Thereafter, the appellant and the complainant went towards the bedroom at the instance of the appellant.The panch Tangade followed them.The appellant asked the complainant to pay the cash amount by making signs with his right thumb and index finger.The complainant took out the tainted currency notes from his shirt pocket and held them before the appellant.The appellant took those currency notes by his right hand and kept them into his right side pocket of the pant.The appellant asked the complainant as to how-much that amount was, whereon the complainant replied that it was Rs.1000/- as demanded by him.The appellant then uttered that it was his amount and asked the complainant to pay Rs.700/- to Rs.800/- more for being paid to Mr. Kapadne and Mr. Jadhav, the staff members of Tahsil office.The complainant told him that he was not having any more money with him.The appellant asked the complainant to get that amount from his wife or his ::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 ::: 12 criapl114-2002relative i.e. the panch Tangade.On being asked by the complainant for money, the panch Tangade replied that he had no money.The wife of the complainant also told that she had no money.Thereafter, the complainant, the appellant and the panch Tangade occupied their seats.Then the complainant gave the predetermined signal by removing his specs.The other members of the raiding party immediately reached there and caught hold of both the hands of the appellant.The tainted currency notes of Rs.1000/- were recovered from the right side pocket of the pant of the appellant.All the necessary formalities were completed.The panchanama in respect of the tainted currency notes and about the events those took place at the time of trap came to be prepared.The house of the appellant was searched by ::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 ::: 13 criapl114-2002Dy.S.P. Kulkarni in the presence of the panchas.Two applications in the names of the complainant and his wife, addressed to the Tahsildar, Khultabad, came to be seized therefrom under a panchanama.The school leaving certificate of Harshad, Nationality Certificate, a panchanama made by the Talathi showing that the complainant was the guardian of Harshad and birth certificate of Harshad were seized therefrom under the panchanama.The prosecution has not examined any witness before whom those demands were made and fulfilled.Now it will have to be seen whether the amount of Rs.100/- accepted by the appellant at the time of the trap was preceded by any demand.The complainant deposes at Exh-20 that on 30 th September, 1996, at about 5.30 p.m. to 6.00 p.m., one Uttam Rambhaji Jadhav and Shankar Anna Jadhav came to his house and Shankar Jadhav informed that the appellant also had come.Then the appellant and Patekar (DW1), who was then working as Talathi of Sajja Bhatji, entered into the house of the complainant.Since the appellant ::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 ::: 20 criapl114-2002was keeping fast, the complainant gave Rs.50/- to Shankar Jadhav and asked him to bring eatables for the appellant.Then Shankar Jadhav and Uttam Jadhav went away for brining eatables.The panch Tangade (PW4) was with the complainant in the living room of the house.The appellant enquired about Tangade (PW4) whereon the complainant told that he was the maternal uncle of his son Harshad.The complainant deposes that the appellant asked him to produce the birth certificate of his son Harshad on the say that it was required to be shown to his superior officer.Accordingly, the complainant brought the birth certificate and handed it over to the appellant, which was kept by the appellant in his bag.The appellant then told the complainant that he had brought 7/12 extracts of the lands block Nos.18, 20 and 22 and took out the same from his bag.The complainant received those 7/12 extracts and kept them in the left side pocket of his pant.Then the appellant gave signal so as to make the complainant to go out of the house with the appellant.21 criapl114-2002The appellant then demanded money by making sign with his right thumb and index finger.The complainant told him that he had kept ready the amount of Rs.1000/-.He had no axe to grind against the appellant.There was no reason for him to speak false against the appellant.The appellant has questioned the legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated 24th January, 2002, passed by the learned Special Judge, Aurangabad in Special Case No. 6 of 1997, convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with Sections 13 (1)(d)(ii) and 13 (1)(a) ::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 ::: 2 criapl114-2002of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ("the Act", for short) and also under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC", for short).The complainant produced ten currency notes of Rs.100/- each for being paid to the appellant.They were smeared with anthracene powder, after giving demonstration before the panchas and the complainant about the characteristics and use of anthracene powder.::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::All the preparations for trap were made, necessary instructions were given to the complainant, panchas and other members of the raiding party.::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::Copy thereof was given to the appellant.::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::S.P. Kulkarni then went to the office of ACB and drafted first information report (FIR).It was sent to Jawaharnagar Police Station.Crime No.II-44/1996 came to be registered against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act.Thereafter, the office of the appellant at village Golegaon was searched from where a photocopy of the sale deed of land block no.20, blank forms of Village Form No.4, containing signatures of the wife of the complainant, were seized under a panchanama.::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::The statement of witnesses were recorded.After completion of investigation, all the papers of investigation were sent to the Sanctioning Authority through the Superintendent of Police (ACB), Aurangabad for grant of sanction to prosecute the appellant.After receiving the sanction order, the appellant came to be chargesheeted for the above-mentioned offences.The learned Special Judge framed charges against the appellant vide Exh-12 for the above- ::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::14 criapl114-2002mentioned offences and explained the contents thereof to him in vernacular.The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.His defence is that of total denial and false implication.He admitted receipt of the amount of Rs.1000/- from the complainant.He, however, explained that the complainant had given that amount to him for being paid to Maink Trimbak Jadhav.The prosecution examined six witnesses to prove the charges levelled against the appellant.The appellant examined two witnesses in defence.After evaluating the evidence on record, the learned Special Judge held that the prosecution failed to establish that the appellant committed the offence of criminal misconduct by obtaining for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means, made punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13 (1)(d)(i) of the Act. However, the learned Special Judge found sufficient and dependable evidence to prove beyond doubt that the appellant committed the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)(d)(i) and 13 (1)(a) of the Act and also under Section 465 of the IPC.The learned Special Judge, therefore, sentenced the ::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 ::: 15 criapl114-2002appellant for the offence under Section 7 of the Act - with rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.2000/-, for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d)(ii) - with rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.5000/-, for the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::(a) of the Act - with rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.2000/- and for the offence under Section 465 of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/-.The substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.The appellant deposited the fine amount of Rs.10,000/- in the Trial Court.In view of this admitted fact, it is not necessary to re-appreciate the evidence in respect of the events recorded in pre-trap panchanama (Exh-38).Once it is established that the ::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 ::: 16 criapl114-2002appellant accepted the money from the complainant other than legal remuneration, in view of Section 20 of the Act, it has to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the appellant accepted that amount as a motive or reward, such as is mentioned in Section 7 i.e. forbearing or forgoing to do any official act, etc.::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::The complainant specifically deposes that the appellant demanded Rs.2000/- from him for recording his name as the guardian of his minor son Harshad in the record of rights of the land Block No.20, which amount was already paid by him to the appellant on the day on which it was demanded to the extent of Rs.500/- and on the next day to the extent of Rs.1500/-.He then deposes that prior to 15 to 20 days after the first demand, he again approached the appellant and asked for the corrected 7/12 extracts of the lands Block No.18, 20 and 22 for the last three years whereon the appellant demanded Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/- on these two counts respectively and ultimately agreed to receive Rs.1000/-.According to the prosecution this amount of Rs.1000/-, as demanded by the appellant was handed over by the complainant to the appellant on 30th September, 1996 which was accepted by the appellant and the fact of ::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 ::: 17 criapl114-2002acceptance of that amount has been admitted by the appellant.The only defence of the appellant is that the complainant had given that amount for being paid to one Mr.Manik Trimbak Jadhav.::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::The learned counsel for the appellant submits that mere recovery of money from the accused is not culpable in the absence of any evidence to show that there was demand of bribe from the side of the accused.Consequently, the benefit of doubt was given to the accused.In the present case, the complainant has come with a specific case that the appellant demanded bribe ::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 ::: 18 criapl114-2002from him on two counts, firstly for recording his name as the guardian of his minor son Harshad in the record of rights of land Block No.20 and also for issuance of 7/12 extracts of the lands Block Nos.18, 20 and 22 for a period of three years.The documents seized from the possession of the complainant i.e. six 7/12 extracts of the lands Block Nos.18, 20 and 22 for the years 1989-90 to 1994-95, which according to him, were received by him from the appellant at the time of trap, the documents seized from the house of the appellant vide panchanama (Exh-44) i.e. the applications of the complainant and his wife addressed to the Tahsildar for recording their names as guardian of their minor son Harshad, a panchanama dated 30th September, 1996, the blank papers bearing signature of Harshad, a copy of school leaving certificate of Harshad and copy of the birth certificate of Harshad and the documents seized from the office of the appellant vide panchanama (Exh-::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::45) i.e. copy of the sale deed dated 9 th September, 1996 executed by the wife of the complainant in favour of one Vimalbai Karbhari Dale in respect of the land admeasuring 1 Hector 1 Are out of Block No.20 and two blank Village Forms No.4, clearly show that the appellant being the Talathi of Sajja Golegaon was ::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 ::: 19 criapl114-2002dealing with the proposal of the complainant and his wife for recording their names as the guardians of their minor son Harshad in the record of rights of the land Block No.20 and that he had issued the 7/12 extracts of the lands block Nos.18, 20 and 22 as demanded by the complainant.::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::The complainant as well as Tangade (PW4) went out of the house alongwith the appellant.After having talks about the agricultural lands of the complainant, which according to the appellant were shown as Gairan lands, they came back into the living room.::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::Then the complainant and the appellant went towards bedroom at the instance of the appellant.Tangade (PW4) followed them.The appellant demanded money by making sign with his right thumb and index finger.The appellant then took out the tainted currency notes from his shirt pocket and held them before the appellant.The appellant took those tainted currency notes and kept them in the right side pocket of his pant.Tangade (PW4) (Exh-37) supports the version of the complainant in respect of the above mentioned demand of Rs.1000/- made by the appellant and acceptance of that amount in response to that demand in all material particulars.The evidence of the complainant and Tangade (PW4) is quite consistent in respect of the demand of bribe and acceptance thereof by the appellant.It is further consistent in respect of the further demand of the appellant of Rs.700/- to Rs.800/- in the name of his staff members.Both these witnesses state that the appellant told the complainant that the amount of Rs.1000/- that was received by him from the ::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 ::: 22 criapl114-2002complainant, was his amount and that the amount of Rs.700/- to Rs.800/- would be required to be paid to the staff members of the circle office.Both of them state that the appellant asked the complainant to pay that amount and when the complainant expressed his inability to pay that amount, the appellant suggested the complainant to get that amount either from his wife or from Tangade (PW4), who was introduced to the appellant as his relative.This further conversion fortifies the earlier demand of bribe of Rs.1000/- made by the appellant.::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of the complainant and Tangade (PW4) which would create any doubt about the versions of these witnesses in respect of demand of bribe made by the appellant prior to acceptance of the bribe amount of Rs.1000/- from the complainant.The prosecution has proved beyond doubt the said demand of bribe by the appellant as a reward for issuing corrected 7/12 extract and the 7/12 extracts in respect of the lands block Nos. 18, 20 and 22 for three years, in the capacity of the Talathi, a public servant, who was obliged in the discharge of his official act to provide such documents.::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::23 criapl114-2002It was not a legal remuneration to which the appellant was entitled to receive from the complainant.In view of these facts of the present case, the judgment in the case of P. Satyanarayana Murthy (supra), wherein the demand of bribe itself could not be proved for want of evidence of the complainant and the acquittal of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act was not under challenge, would not be helpful to the appellant to brush aside the case of the prosecution.Though independent evidence has not been produced by the prosecution to corroborate the evidence of the complainant in respect of the initial demand made by the appellant, the contents of the complaint (Exh-21) and subsequent conduct of the appellant fully corroborate the version of the complainant in respect of the initial demands.The demand of bribe of Rs.1000/- at the time of trap made by the appellant certainly finds genesis into those initial demands.The learned counsel for the appellant submits that though it has come in the evidence of the complainant that the demand of bribe was made by the ::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 ::: 24 criapl114-2002appellant in the presence of one Prabhakar Gore, Abbas Habib, Karbhari Shamrao Dale and Karbhari Manikrao Jadhav, none of them has been examined by the prosecution.According to him, non-examination of these material witnesses would create strong doubt about the case of the prosecution in respect of demand of bribe made by the appellant.Therefore, mere recovery of the tainted currency notes from the appellant would not be sufficient to hold him guilty.In support of his contention, he relied on the judgments in the cases of Trimbak Lilaji Binnar Vs.State of Maharashtra 2002 (2) Mh.L.J.293 and State of Maharashtra Vs.Gunwant patiram Dhumbhare 2013 (1) Bom.He further submits that Patekar (DW1) (Exh-61), who was present in the living room of the house of the complainant at the time of the trap, does not state that the appellant had demanded money from the complainant on any count.He then submits that the evidence of Gorakhnath (PW2) (Exh-::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::32), who allegedly visted the house of the complainant alongwith the appellant on 29th September, 1996, also does not state about any demand allegedly made by the appellant for money from the complainant.According to him, the evidence of the complainant about the so called demand of bribe of the appellant is thus suspicious and ::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 ::: 25 criapl114-2002unbelievable.::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::The extent and nature of corroboration that may be needed in a case may vary having regard to the facts and circumstances.::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::27 criapl114-2002Whether corroboration is necessary and if so to what extent and what should be its nature depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.In a case of bribe, the person who pays the bribe and those who act as intermediaries are the only persons who can ordinarily be expected to give evidence about the bribe and it is not possible to get absolutely independent evidence about the payment of bribe.However, it is cautioned that the evidence of a bribe- giver has to be scrutinised very carefully and ::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 ::: 28 criapl114-2002 it is for the court to consider and appreciate the evidence in a proper manner and decide the question whether a conviction can be based upon or not in those given circumstances."::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::As stated above, there is independent corroboration to the evidence of the complainant in respect of the demand and acceptance of bribe amount of Rs.1000/- on the day on which the trap was laid.He had no malice prompting him to falsely implicate the appellant in the offence of demanding and accepting bribe.The evidence of Tangade (PW4) fully corroborates the evidence of the complainant about the demand of bribe of Rs.1000/- made by the appellant and acceptance of that amount by him, it creates great confidence.The evidence of the complainant supported by the evidence of Tangade (PW4) clearly proves that the appellant accepted Rs.1000/- as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration.Therefore the presumption laid down in Section 20 of the Act would come into play and the appellant shall be presumed, unless the contrary ::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 ::: 29 criapl114-2002is proved that he accepted that gratification as motive or reward such as mentioned in Section 7 of the Act.::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::The appellant has come with a case that the complainant had paid him the amount of Rs.1000/- at the time of the trap for being paid to Manik Trymbak Jadhav.In support of his defence, he examined Patekar (DW1), who was working as Talathi of Sajja Bhatji at the relevant time.He deposes that he was suffering from chest pains and wanted to go to Aurangabad to consult Dr. Pargaonkar.He went to the appellant at about 3.00 p.m. to 3.30 p.m. and requested him to accompany him to Aurangabad for going to Dr. Pargaonkar.Then the appellant and himself left Golegaon on a motorcycle.On the way, they halted at the house of the complainant.The appellant asked the owner of that house to produce the original documents.The owner gave those documents.Then he went inside the house and gave some amount to the appellant saying that it should be paid to some other person.The appellant accepted it and kept it in the pocket of his pant.All that happened in the living room of that house.Thereafter, ACB personnel caught hold of the appellant.In his cross-examination, he admits that he is in friendly terms with the appellant.::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::30 criapl114-2002He states that the appellant was not carrying any bag with him on that day.A handbag was found with the appellant in which two registers of 7/12 in respect of block Nos.1 to 28 of village Shankarpurwadi were found.The said articles were seized at the time of the trap.Patekar (DW1) does not state the name of the person to whom the amount was to be paid, though he claims to be the eye witness to the transaction of handing over the currency notes by the complainant to the appellant.Indisputably, Karbhari Manik Jadhav is the son of Manik Trimbak Jadhav.The said Karbhari Manik Jadhav was very much in contact with the complainant as well as the appellant as seen from the evidence of the complainant.If the complainant wanted to pay any amount to Manik Trimbak Jadhav, he would have handed over that amount to Karbhari Manik Jadhav and not to any third person much less to the appellant who was working as a Talathi and not as a postman.There was absolutely no reason for ::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 ::: 31 criapl114-2002the complainant to handover the amount of Rs.1000/- for being paid to Manik Trimbak Jadhav, resident of village Golegaon, more particularly when the appellant was going to Aurangabad with Patekar (DW1).The evidence shows that the appellant kept the amount received from the complainant in the pocket of his pant without counting the notes.Patekar (DW1) states that the appellant did not ask the complainant as to quantum of the amount, nor the complainant told him as to how-much amount that was.This fact also rules out the possibility of receiving the amount by the appellant from the complainant for being paid to Manik Trimbak Jadhav.In the natural course, the complainant would have informed the appellant that it was a particular amount and the appellant certainly would have counted it prior to keeping it in the pocket of his pant, if the said amount was to be paid to some other person.Nothing of that sort had happened.On the contrary, there is consistent evidence of the complainant and that of Tangade (PW4) that the appellant claimed that it was his amount and demanded Rs.700/- to Rs.800/- more for being paid to the staff members of Circle Office.The learned Special Judge has rightly disbelieved the said defence by giving ::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 ::: 32 criapl114-2002appropriate reasons.I subscribe to those reasons.::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::The appellant has examined the then Circle Inspector Sathe (DW2) (Exh-73) to show that the complainant had cut down 62 fruit bearing trees from his agricultural lands without permission from the land block No. 22 of Shankarpurwadi.The appellant had prepared the panchanama of those trees and made a report to the Tahsildar for taking necessary action and seeking permission to sell out the wood of the trees by public auction.Therefore, according to the appellant, the complainant had grudge against him and consequently, he was falsely implicated by the complainant.This defence also has been rightly disbelieved by the learned Trial Judge giving quite acceptable reasons.There is a letter (Exh-76) dated 16th January, 2002 addressed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Vaijapur to the Public Prosecutor attached to the District and Sessions Court, Aurangabad, whereby it was informed that no file was sent by the Tahsildar, Khultabad to him in respect of cutting of trees without permission from the land block No.22 of village Shankarpurwadi.This fact itself creates doubt about genuineness of the ::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 ::: 33 criapl114-2002proceedings initiated in respect of unauthorised cutting of trees from the land of the complainant.Sathe (DW2) admits that the fruit bearing trees are invariably mentioned in the other rights column of the 7/12 extract.He admits that there is no mention of the trees in other rights column thereof.One Yashodabai is the co-owner of the said land.Two mango trees are shown to be standing in that land.Therefore, it was not clear as to whether 62 trees were actually standing in that land and the said trees were belonging to the complainant.Sathe (DW2) admits that he did not issue notice either to the complainant or Yashodabai prior to the drawing the panchanama of the trees which were cut without permission.It is further clear from his evidence that no action has been taken against the complainant till the date his evidence was recorded before the Trial Court.He states that usually within one month, an action has to be taken against the person who cuts the trees unauthorisedly.All these facts and ::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 ::: 34 criapl114-2002circumstances show that there was no reason for taking action against the complainant for the alleged cutting of trees.Moreover, had there been a room for the complainant for having grudge against the appellant just prior to the day of the trap, the appellant himself would not have gone to the house of the complainant and the complainant also would not have entertained him.In such circumstances, there was absolutely no possibility of handing over the amount of Rs.1000/- by the complainant to the appellant for being paid to a third person.::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::As stated above, the prosecution has proved beyond doubt that the appellant demanded Rs.1000/- for issuing fresh 7/12 extract in respect of the land standing in the name of the minor son of the complainant namely Harshad and for issuing 7/12 extracts in respect of the lands block nos.18, 20 and 22 for three years prior to 30th September, 1996 and also on 30th September, 1996 when the trap was laid.He accepted an amount of ::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 ::: 35 criapl114-2002Rs.1000/- from the complainant as illegal gratification for discharging his duty as a Talathi in respect of issuing the documents demanded by the complainant.As such, the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1)::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::(d) (ii) of the Act. However, for want of corroboration to the evidence of the complainant, in respect of the earlier acceptance of bribe of Rs.2000/- and Rs.100/- for three times by the appellant prior to the day of the trap being not corroborated by any evidence, benefit of doubt will have to be given to the appellant.The prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellant for the offence of habitually accepting bribe, made punishable under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (a) of the Act.The appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 465 of the IPC on the allegation that he made false entry in the 7/12 extract of the land block No.20 showing the name of the complainant as the guardian of his minor son Harshad.As per Section 463 of the IPC, whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record of part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause ::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 ::: 36 criapl114-2002damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.In the present case, it is not even the case of the complainant that the appellant prepared any false document with the above mentioned intentions.There is no original 7/12 extract on record, allegedly prepared by the appellant.There is nothing on record to show that the appellant made any false entry with intent to cause damage or commit fraud.There is absolutely no evidence coming from the complainant to prove the ingredients of the offence of forgery defined in Section 463 of the IPC.The appellant has been wrongly convicted by the learned Special judge for the said offence.The conviction and sentence of the appellant for the said offence is not at all sustainable.::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::The learned counsel for the appellant has challenged conviction and sentence of the appellant on the ground that the sanction for prosecution of the appellant was not valid.He submits that Shinde (PW3) (Exh-33), who was working as the Sub-Divisional Officer ::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 ::: 37 criapl114-2002at Vaijapur, was not a competent authority to accord sanction for prosecution of the appellant.According to the learned counsel of the appellant, the prosecution has failed to prove as to what material was produced before Shinde (PW3) while seeking sanction for prosecution of the appellant.He submits that the challenge as to validity of the sanction order can be raised before the Appellate Court.According to him, there is no valid sanction accorded by the competent authority.The appellant has suffered substantial injustice.In support of his challenge as to validity of sanction, he cited certain judgments which would be referred to a little later.::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. submits that Shinde (PW3) was the appointing authority of the appellant being the Sub-Divisional Officer, Vaijapur.He was empowered to remove the appellant from service.The competency of Shinde (PW3) was never challenged by the appellant.He submits that the sanction order (Exh-36) and the evidence of Shinde (PW3) clearly show that ::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 ::: 38 criapl114-2002sanction was accorded by Shinde (PW3) after perusing all the papers of investigation and after being satisfied that sanction for prosecution of the appellant was required to be given.Relying on the judgment in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.Virendra Kumar Tripathi 2009 (15) SCC 533, he submits that in the absence of any plea that the appellant suffered prejudice for want of valid sanction, the challenge as to validity of the sanction order cannot be entertained by the Appellate Court in view of sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::S.P. Kulkarni (PW6) deposes that after completion of the investigation, he collected the required documents regarding the appointment of the appellant.He then sent the file and papers of investigation to the Superintendent of Police (ACB), Aurangabad with a request to obtain necessary sanction for prosecution of the appellant.This evidence has not been challenged in the cross-examination of Dy.S.P. Kulkarni (PW6).Shinde (PW3) deposes that he received a letter ::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 ::: 39 criapl114-2002dated 20th January, 1997 from the office of ACB, Aurangabad which was accompanied by a sealed envelope and a file containing papers regarding the trap laid on the appellant.The said file was containing panchanama, etc. He perused all the papers and after being satisfied that sanction for prosecution of the appellant was required to be given, accorded sanction (Exh-36).::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::The sanction order (Exh-36) shows that the record of investigation in Crime No.II-44/1996 of Jawaharnagar Police Station, Aurangabad was read by Shinde (PW3).The detailed allegations made against the appellant are reproduced in the sanction order alongwith the Sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in respect of the offences allegedly committed by the appellant.It would be necessary to reproduce here paragraph Nos.6 and 7 of the sanction order to indicate that after considering the record produced before Shinde (PW3), he was satisfied and then opined that it was necessary to grant sanction for prosecution of the appellant.AND WHEREAS, upon reading the papers of investigation in Jawaharnagar Police Station, ::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 ::: 40 criapl114-2002 Aurangabad C.R.No.II-44/96 under Section 7, 13 (2) read with 13(1)(d), prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) I am satisifed and is of the opinion that the said Shri Raosaheb Shrimantrao Gite should be prosecuted for the offences constituted by the acts and punishable as stated hereinabove.::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::This positive statement brought on record ::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 ::: 41 criapl114-2002in the cross-examination of Shinde (PW3) also indicates that he applied mind to the facts of the case and then accorded sanction.Only because he deposes that a draft sanction order was sent and he prepared the sanction order as per the draft, it can not be said that there was no application of mind to the facts of the case on the part of Shinde (PW3).It is, thus, clear that the sanction order (Exh-36) was passed by Shinde (PW3) after considering all the material placed before him, after applying his mind thereto and after being satisfied that sanction was required to be granted.::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::In the present case, as stated above, all the papers of investigation were placed before Shinde (PW3).::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::43 criapl114-2002He states that he perused the papers of investigation and after being satisfied, accorded sanction for prosecution of the appellant.It is not even challenged on behalf of the appellant that Shinde (PW3) was not the appointing authority of the appellant and was not competent to remove the appellant from service.The impugned judgment also does not disclose that even at the time of final arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant challenged validity of sanction on any ground much less on the ground that Shinde (PW3) was not the competent authority to accord sanction for prosecution of the appellant.Thus, the evidence of ::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 ::: 44 criapl114-2002Shinde (PW3) in respect of the contents of paragraph No.7 of the sanction order (Exh-36) has remained totally unchallenged.::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::The appellant could have produced his appointment order to establish contrary to what Shinde (PW3) claimed.The appellant did not produce such order.As per Illustration (e) under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Court may presume that judicial and official acts have been regularly performed.It may be noted that the validity of sanction order (Exh-36) as well as the competency of Shinde (PW3) to accord sanction has not been challenged even in the appeal memo.It is not even the case of the appellant that he was appointed by some other authority, who was superior to Shinde (PW3) and therefore, Shinde (PW3) was ::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 ::: 45 criapl114-2002not competent to accord sanction for his prosecution.The contents of sanction order (Exh-36), coupled with the evidence of Shinde (PW3), make it clear that the said order has been passed by Shinde (PW3) after perusing all the papers of investigation and after applying his mind to the facts of the case.Thus, the sanction order (Exh-36) cannot be said to be invalid.::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::No grievance has been made against the sanction order in the appeal memo as well.The learned counsel for the appellant for the first time raised the question of validity of sanction order at the time of arguments.The sanction order was challenged after framing of the charge.Therefore, this ruling would be of no help to the appellant.The learned counsel for the appellant cited the judgments in the following four cases to show that ::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 ::: 48 criapl114-2002sanction order granted by the Sub-Divisional Officer for prosecution of Talathi is not valid.::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::In the first case, the accused Talathi was admittedly appointed by the Collector.In the second case, the accused, during the cross-examination of the sanctioning authority, all along tried to suggest that he was not the appointing authority and was not empowered to pass sanction order for prosecution.The tenor of the letters issued by the Collector clearly indicated that it was the Collector of Aurangabad who had appointed the accused Talathi as trainee Talathi.Thus, the Sub-Divisional Officer was not found to be the appointing authority of the accused Talathi.In the third case, the accused Talathi was appointed by the ::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 ::: 49 criapl114-2002Assistant Collector, while the sanction order was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer.In the fourth case, the accused Talathi was actually appointed by the Collector while sanction for his prosecution was accorded by the Sub-Divisional officer.In the circumstances, the above cited four cases would be of no assistance to the appellant.::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::It is well settled that sanction before initiation of prosecution of a public servant is a safeguard provided to him so as to save him from unnecessary harassment of unwarranted prosecution.If the merits of the case clearly indicate that the public servant was involved in demanding and accepting illegal gratification, he is not entitled to seek protection of ::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 ::: 50 criapl114-2002this safeguard before the Appellate Court in appeal against his conviction.In such a situation, the provisions of Sub-section (3) (a) of Section 19 of the Act certainly would be applicable, which read as under:-::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, -In the circumstances, the prosecution launched against the appellant would not suffer on the ground of any infirmity in the sanction.::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::51 criapl114-2002Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I concur with the findings of the learned Special Judge to the extent holding the appellant guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of the Act. The impugned judgment is supported by evidence on record and is quite legal, proper and correct to that extent.The said findings do not call for any interference.So far as the offences under Section 13(1)(a) of the Act and under Section 465 of the IPC are concerned, as stated above, the prosecution has failed to produce sufficient and dependable evidence to establish guilt of the appellant.The learned Special Judge did not appreciate the evidence properly and correctly in respect of these offences and wrongly convicted the appellant of the said offences.The conviction and sentence passed against the appellant in respect of these two offences are liable to be quashed and set aside.As such, the appeal is liable to be allowed partly.The conviction recorded against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act is liable to be maintained as it is.The maximum sentence of imprisonment inflicted against the appellant ::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 ::: 52 criapl114-2002by the learned Special Judge is rigorous imprisonment for two years.The learned Special Judge has already shown sufficient leniency to the appellant in the matter of inflicting punishment.The appellant does not deserve for any more leniency considering the serious nature of the offences established against him.In the result, I pass the following order:-::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::O R D E R (A) The Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.(B) The appellant is acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.(C ) The conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are maintained as they are.(D) Fine amount of Rs. 3000/- be refunded to the appellant.::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::by appearing before the trial Court within a period of two weeks from today for suffering the sentence.(G) In case the appellant fails to surrender before the trial Court within the period of two weeks from today, the trial Court shall issue coercive process against him for securing his presence.(H) Inform the trial Court accordingly.(I) The appeal is accordingly disposed of.[SANGITRAO S. PATIL] JUDGE npj/criapl114-2002 ::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 02:22:12 :::	['Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
12,377,371	Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicants is taken on record.Heard learned counsel for the applicants, the learned AGA for the State and perused the record.The instant application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash the proceeding pursuant to the charge sheet dated 10.10.2017 in S.T. No. 69 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 1244 of 2017 (State of U.P. Vs.Suhail Ahmad) under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC & 3(1) (Da) (Dha) of S.C./S.T Act at Police Station Dudhara, District Sant Kabir Nagar pending in the court of District and Sessions Judge, Sant Kabir Nagar.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the opposite party no. 2 has lodged the First Information Report against the applicants under Section 354A, 323, 504 IPC and Section 3(1) (Da) (Dha) S.C./S.T Act after investigation no offence under Section 354A IPC was found and hence, the charge sheet has been submitted against the applicants under Section 323, 504 and 506 IPC and 3(1) (Da) (Dha) of S.C/S.T Act whereupon the court below has taken cognizance.The applicants are maliciously being prosecuted as opposite party no. 1 has now filed a compromise application dated 19.3.2019 (which has been appended as annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit) and in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties the opposite part no 2 is not will to prosecute the applicants.Hence the entire proceeding is liable to be quashed.Per contra, the learned AGA has contended that from the allegations made in the FIR prima facie offence is made out against the applicants.The innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at the pre trial stage.	['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
123,779,490	Appeal No.661/2001 Page1 of 13 vide DD No.15A at 8.45 P.M. that one lady by the name of Rita had been admitted in the GTB hospital in an unconscious condition.The present appeal has been filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. against judgment and order on sentence dated 06.09.2001 whereby the appellants have been found guilty and convicted for an offence punishable under Section 304B IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years each.The said DD was marked to SI Sher Singh who proceeded to the hospital along with Const.Naresh at 12 in the night, intimation regarding the death of said Rita was given vide DD No.20A. On 02.09.1995, the SDM visited the hospital and conducted the inquest proceedings.The post mortem was conducted on the body of deceased Rita where the doctor opined that the cause of death was consumption of organo phosphorous poison.After completion of investigation, challan was filed and later the M.M. committed the case to the court of sessions.Vide order 06.09.1996, charge under Sections 406/34 IPC, 498A/34 IPC and 304B/34 IPC was framed against all the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.In support of its case, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses in all.PW-1 SI Daulat Ram, PW-2 Sheela Devi, PW-3 Ramakant, Crl.Appeal No.661/2001 Page2 of 13 PW-4 Dr.Anil Kohli, PW-5 HC Satpal Singh, PW-6 Const.Rajni, PW-7 Const.Mahesh, PW-8 ASI Subedar Singh, PW-9 SI Sher Singh, PW-10 J.Ramana Reddy, Junior Scientific Officer, PW-11 Sh.K.K.Dahiya, PW-12 HC Ravinder Kumar, P-13 Const.Rajender Singh, PW-14 Dr.T.S.Daral, PW-15 SI Devi Charan, PW-16 HC Abhay Singh and PW-17 Const.In support of their case, the accused examined eight witnesses.After conclusion of recording of evidence, statement of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.9. Vide the impugned judgment and order on sentence dated 06.09.2001, all the accused except Smt.Sushila, who was acquitted of the charged offence, were convicted under Section 304B IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for ten years.Hence the present appeal.In support of the appeal, the appellants/accused have taken the grounds that there is no legal evidence against the appellants justifying their conviction, that there has been inordinate and unexplained delay of three days in lodging the FIR which made the entire prosecution case suspicious; that the evidence rendered by the related witnesses of the deceased was self-contradictory and unreliable; that the medical evidence does not support the prosecution case as the 'organo phosphorous compound' which was found in the Crl.Appeal No.661/2001 Page3 of 13 viscera of the deceased, is commonly found in the insecticide which is normally used in the household for keeping away pests, grain insects etc.; that the investigation has not been fair to invoke confidence and the document Ex.PW11/B, which is in the handwriting of the S.D.M., records that "her parents have alleged foul play in her death".This document is dated 02.09.1995 on the contrary PW-1 to PW-3 have in clear terms stated that they never met the S.D.M before 04.09.1995, that the co-appellant Arvind, husband of the deceased, had himself removed his wife Rita (deceased) to the hospital which shows that the deceased was well looked after in her matrimonial house; that there is no independent corroboration to the testimony of PW-1 to PW-3 and that the judgment of the Trial Court is otherwise based on conjecture and surmises.On the contrary, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellants and submitted that the judgment of conviction and order on sentence as passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge do not suffer from any irregularity or illegalities and is passed with a reasoned order, therefore, the same is not liable to be interfered with.Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant Crl.Appeal No.661/2001 Page4 of 13 as well as learned APP for the State were heard.PW-1 Daulat Ram is the father of the deceased.He has deposed that Mr.Hompal, father in law of the deceased, told them at the time of marriage that saptapadi would not be performed unless colour TV and scooter were given to them.A quarrel took place on this issue and further marriage ceremonies were stopped.However, later with the intervention of the baratis and people from the side of girl, marriage and bidai ceremony were performed.He further deposed that after marriage, his daughter came to his house on the occasion of Rakhi where he found the physical condition of his daughter had deteriorated and he enquired from her whether she was happy in her matrimonial home, to which his daughter told him that there used to be quarrels all the time on the issue of colour TV and scooter and everybody used to harass her for this demand.He also deposed that on the occasion of Rakhi, when his daughter came to her parental house, she was told to bring Rs.31,000/- in cash, otherwise she should not come back to the matrimonial house.He also deposed that in his absence a call was received by his son that nobody from the parental house of the deceased should visit the accused and if anybody does that, their legs shall be broken.On 01.09.1995 at about 10 PM, a telephone call was received at the house of his son's friend Crl.Appeal No.661/2001 Page5 of 13 informing that his daughter was in a critical condition and that they were being called.When they reached at the gate of house of the accused, they were told by Usha, wife of Ashwini, brother in law of the deceased, that the condition of the deceased was critical.While they were on the way to the hospital, they came to know that their daughter had expired.14. PW-2 Smt.Sheela Devi is the mother of the deceased.She also deposed on the same lines as her husband (PW-1) with respect to the demand of dowry from her deceased daughter.PW-4 is Dr.Anil Kohli.He deposed that he had conducted post mortem on the dead body of the deceased and opined that the cause of death of the deceased was poisoning with organo phosphorous poison.He deposed that the ante mortem injuries found on the person of deceased could be caused during administering medicine to her while trying to restrain her.From the testimony of PW1 to PW3, it is amply clear that the deceased was being harassed by the appellants for or in Crl.Appeal No.661/2001 Page6 of 13 connection with demand of dowry.In their testimony, these witnesses have deposed that after the marriage of the deceased with the appellant Arvind Kumar, she was harassed and beaten up by the appellants for or in connection with demand of dowry.They have stated that the appellants used to demand scooter, TV and cash from the deceased and for the same, they used to harass her and also gave beatings to her.It is also stated by the witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 that the appellants had demanded cash of Rs.31,000/- from them which they were unable to give.Thus, from the testimony of above witnesses, there is enough evidence on record from which it has been established that the deceased was being harassed by the appellants for or in connection with demand of dowry.Therefore, the conviction of the appellants deserves to be upheld under Section 498A/34 IPC.So far as the conviction of the appellants under Section 304B IPC for causing the dowry death of the deceased is concerned, in the case of Devi Lal vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 2008 SC 332, Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the Crl.Appeal No.661/2001 Page7 of 13 ingredients of provisions of section 304 B IPC are (1) that the death of the woman was caused by any burns or bodily injury or in some circumstances which were not normal; (2) such death occurs within 7 years from the date of her marriage; (3) that the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; (4) such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with the demand of dowry; and (5) it is established that such cruelty and harassment was made soon before her death.It was further observed that before an accused is found guilty for commission of an offence, the Court must arrive at a finding that the ingredients thereof have been established.It was held that statement of a witness for the said purpose must be read in its entirety.It is not necessary for a witness to make a statement in consonance with the wording of the section of a statute.What is needed is to find out whether the evidences brought on record satisfy the ingredients thereof.Necessary ingredients of dowry death as provided under Section 304B of IPC are :Appeal No.661/2001 Page8 of 13(i)Deceased was the subject matter of cruelty on account of dowry and culminates into guilt of accused under Section 498A IPC;(iii)Such death was the subject matter of cruelty soon before death.As far as death of the deceased Rita is concerned, it is not in dispute that she died due to consumption of poison which shows that the death of the deceased was not under normal circumstances which fulfils the first ingredient for the commission of offence under Section 304B IPC.The second ingredient that death of the deceased had taken place within seven years of her marriage with the appellant Arvind Kumar is established from the evidence, as marriage had taken place on 02.07.1995 and her death took place on 01.09.1995 i.e. within a year of her marriage.Appeal No.661/2001 Page9 of 13The next and the most important ingredient required to be proved from the evidence is that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of demand of dowry by her husband or any relative of her husband and that was done soon before death.The prosecution has produced PW1 to PW3 to prove this ingredient.PW1 happened to be the father of the deceased, PW2 happened to be the mother of the deceased and PW3 happened to be the brother of the deceased.The detailed discussion of their testimony has already been made.The last ingredient is based upon the commission of offence under Section 498A IPC and while committing the offence under Section 498A IPC, if it connects with the death, then it would be an offence punishable under Section 304B IPC.The prosecution has failed miserably to establish beyond reasonable doubt that any cruelty or harassment was meted out to the deceased for or in connection with demand of dowry by any of the appellants soon before her death.The ingredient of harassing or beating the deceased for or in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death is missing from the Crl.Appeal No.661/2001 Page10 of 13 testimony of above mentioned prosecution witnesses.Though from their testimony, it has duly been established that the deceased was subjected to harassment and cruelty for or in connection with demand of dowry, but no incident or occasion had been brought on record to connect any of the appellants with the said harassment or cruelty meted out to the deceased "soon before her death".The argument advanced by the learned APP for the State is that Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act leads to the presumption of the guilt of the appellants.Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act reads as under :"113B. Presumption as to dowry death.--When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death."Appeal No.661/2001 Page11 of 13The presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act can be drawn only where the ingredients of Section 304B IPC are fulfilled.The prosecution has failed to establish the necessary ingredient of dowry death i.e. cruelty or harassment meted out to the deceased by the appellant "soon before her death".As mentioned above, the prosecution has failed to prove the chain of necessary ingredients to raise the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act.From no stretch of imagination, the evidence led by the prosecution in the present case could culminate into conviction of the appellants under Section 304-B read with 34 IPC.It has been brought on record that all the appellants remained behind the bars before suspending their sentence by this Court as evident from their nominal roll.In view of the above discussion and the evidence discussed, this Court upholds the judgment of conviction and order on sentence awarded to the appellants under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the IPC.Appeal No.661/2001 Page12 of 13However, the judgment of conviction and order on sentence awarded to the appellants under Section 304B read with Section 34 IPC is set aside.Apparently, the death of the deceased had taken place on 01.09.1995; the charge was framed on 06.09.1996; judgment of conviction and order on sentence was passed on 06.09.2001; the appellants have faced the protracted trial for about 22 years and since there is no minimum sentence provided under Section 498A IPC, the interest of justice would be met if the sentence of the appellants is modified to undergo RI for a period of two years.The appellants are already on bail.Their bail bonds and surety bonds are discharged.The appeal is disposed of accordingly.Pending application, if any, is also disposed of.	['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
123,781,386	Shri Dilip Singh Parihar, learned counsel for complainant/objector Sharad Chand Pandey (PW-1).Heard on admission of the appeal.After perusing the impugned judgment, petition of the appeal and record of the trial court, I find this appeal is arguable.Hence, it is admitted for final hearing.Learned Panel Lawyer has taken notice of admission of the appeal on behalf of the respondent-State.Hence, no further notice is required to be sent to it.Learned counsel for the complainant/objector has also taken notice of admission of the appeal.On due consideration, written-objections, moved on behalf of the complainant/objector, marked as I.A. No.4428/2016, is taken on record.Also Heard on I.A. No.11909/2016, which the first application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of the appellant for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to him during the pendency of this appeal.Vide the impugned judgment dated 13.04.2016 passed by the Sessions Judge Singrauli in Special Case No.164/2010 titled State of M.P. through Police Station Bedan, district Singrauli vs. Laxman Prasad Pandey and others, appellant Laxman Prasad Pandey stands convicted under Section 304(II), 325 and 323 (two counts) of the IPC and sentenced thereunder to suffer on first count RI for seven years with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, second count RI for one year with a fine of Rs.2,000/- and third count for each of the two counts RI for three months, with default stipulations.The substantive jail sentences in the aforesaid Sections are directed to run concurrently.Be it noted that vide the impugned judgment accused Rajendra is also convicted under Section 323 of the IPC and sentenced thereunder to suffer RI for three months.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant remained under trial prisoner for a period between 14.01.2008 and 11.04.2008 and thereafter he was released on bail.However, he has been undergoing the jail sentence since 13.04.2016, the date of impugned judgment.As such, the appellant has so far been in prison in the case near about 10 months.He submits that the appellant had already deposited the fine amount as imposed.He submits that this appeal is of the year 2016, hence, there is no likelihood of this appeal being heard on merits in recent future.He has taken this court through the prosecution evidence.Thereafter, he submits that at the relevant time the appellant was a Sarpanch of village Dehki and at the time of incident he was giving lay-out for construction of a public road qua the Sarpanch of the village.Complainant/objector Sharad Chand Pandey (PW-1), his father Shiv Prasad (PW-2) and Bua Gulab Kunwar (since deceased), took an objection regarding the construction of the road.Thereupon, an altercation broke out between them and other acquitted accused persons who are three in numbers resulting into the commission of offences.Thus, the incident occurred on the spur of moment.He submits that Dr. G.S. Soni (PW-8), who had performed postmortem on the person of the deceased, has stated in his evidence that the deceased sustained only one injury on her head and because of her old age, the sufferer of malnutrition and anemia, she succumbed to injury, otherwise the injury was not such that would cause her death in the ordinary course of nature.In view of the above evidence, he submits that the act of the appellant at the most falls under Section 325 of the IPC.Hence, the conviction of the appellant under Section 304(II) of the IPC is prima facie erroneous.Upon these submissions, he prays to allow the I.A.Learned Panel Lawyer and learned counsel for the complainant/objector have vehemently opposed the prayer.Having taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions raised raised on behalf of the parties by their counsel and having gone through the evidence on record and the written-objections, but without making any comment on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that a case is made out for grant of post conviction bail to the appellant.On being released on bail, the appellant shall appear before the Registry of this court to mark his presence first time on 21.03.2017 and thereafter on all such other dates as may be fixed by it in this regard until further orders of this court.Learned counsel for the parties are requested to let the Registry know whether accused Rajendra has also filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence? If so, then the Registry shall connect Rajendra's appeal with this appeal and list them for analogous final hearing in due course.Certified copy as per rules.(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE ac/-	['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
123,788,685	Shri N. Jain, learned counsel for the Objector.This is first bail application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. The applicant apprehends his arrest for an offence under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 294, 506B of IPC in connection with Crime No.19/2015 registered at Police Station Magron District Damoh.After arguing for sometime, learned counsel for the applicant seeks withdrawal of the bail petition with a direction to surrender the applicant before the Trial Court and the Court may be directed to consider the bail application on the same date.Prayer for surrender has not been opposed by the other side.Considering the aforesaid, the bail petition stands dismissed as withdrawn with a direction to the applicant to surrender before the Trial Court and apply for regular bail, which shall be decided as expeditiously as possible.Certified copy as per rules.(J.K. MAHESHWARI) JUDGE	['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,237,903	ORDER Maithli Sharan, J.This criminal revision petition under Sections 397/401, Cr.P.C. arises out of the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ambah, District-Morena, dated 24.3.1995 in Cr.Case No. 1183/86, convicting the appellant/petitioner for the offence under Section 494, I.P.C. and sentencing him to two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and the judgment dated 10.2.1998 passed by the learned Third Addl.Session Judge, Morena, in Cr.Appeal No. 28/95, confirming the order of conviction and sentence of the Trial Court.Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus : The respondent No. 2 - Smt. Pushpa Devi, alleging herself to be the wife of the petitioner Ram Sanehi, filed a complaint in the Trial Court that she was the legally married wife of the petitioner, who used to beat her off and on and used to demand dowry from her parents.It was further alleged that the petitioner had turned her out of the house and later on performed second marriage with one lady Sona, daughter of Ayodhya Singh, of village-Mirjapur, District - Jalon (U.P.).On this basis the respondent No. 2, Smt. Pushpa Devi, alleged in the complaint that the petitioner Ram Sanehi had committed the offence of Bigamy under Section 494, I.P.C. and he should be convicted and sentenced for the same.She examined herself and her witnesses in support of the allegations made in the complaint.The learned Trial Court after carefully perusing the evidence adduced by the prosecution came to the conclusion that the offence of Bigamy had been committed by the petitioner.It, therefore, convicted the petitioner for the same and sentenced as aforesaid.The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge but it was also dismissed as referred to above.Now the petitioner has moved this criminal revision against the impugned orders passed by the Courts below.I have heard the learned Counsel on both the sides and have carefully gone through the record of the case.The main contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the offence of Bigamy has to be strictly proved and unless that is done, no conclusion could be arrived at regarding the performance of the second marriage.In this connection, learned Counsel for the petitioner drew my attention mainly to the statement of complainant Smt. Pushpa Devi (P.W. 1) and her father Lakhan Singh (P.W. 2).The inference as to the performance of the ceremonies could not be drawn either.In view of the above legal position, since there is lack of strict proof of Bigamy alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, I am afraid he could not be implicated with the crime in question.	['Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,237,908	The Police Constables Nos. 1331, 2118 and 2119 are said to have been making attempts to have illicit intimacy with that Rukmani.In these circumstances on 8-2-1958 a complaint by one Manjani was registered by the Crime Section as Crime No. 122 of 1958 under Sections 457 and 380, I. P. C. in J-3 Kodambakkam Station.The deceased Arumugham was suspected in that case.He seems to have been out of view and could not be apprehended immediately.The deceased has fallen down on account of fits and died".On 11-2-1958 at about 5-30 hours near Kodarn-bakkam railway Station Jayaraman was arrested by the Kodamhakkam Police under Sections 54 and 550, Criminal Procedure Code, and taken to the Kodambakkam Police Station.At the Police Station P. G. Jagannathan and two other Police Constables made him lie down, tied his hands and legs with a rope and beat him on his legs with lathis.Rajangam who was then the Detective Sub Inspector attached to Kodambakkam Police Station came at 7 A. M. and he also beat Jayaraman on all parts of his body indiscriminately with a lathi.Two other Police Constables beat him with lathis on his back and his buttocks.The said Jayaraman has sustained injuries on his left shoulder, hand, legs, back, buttocks and other parts of his body.On 4-3-1958 an ex-ray was taken at the General Hospital which revealed a fracture of the collar bone and on 17-3-1958 he was also examined by a Doctor.JUDGMENT Ramaswami, J.There are two connected Writ Petitions arising in connection with the death of one Arumugham in Police custody and filed by two Sub-Inspectors Natarajan and Rajangam and four Constables P. C. Nos. 113, 1331, 2118 and 2119 and from the alleged torture in Police custody of one Jayaraman filed by Sub-Inspector Rajangam and the aforesaid four Police constables.The facts leading to the institution of these Writ petitions are as follows: Sub-Inspector Natarajan at the material time was the Law and Order Sub-Inspector attached to J-3 Police Station.Sub-Inspector Rajangam was the Detective Sub-Inspector of Police, attached to the same Station.The four Police Constables were attached to the Crime Section of J-3 Station.The deceased Arumugliam aged about 23 was living at No. 51, Chinnaraju Pillai Thottam, Kodam-bakkam, within the limits of the J-3 Police Station, With his mother Challammal, his mother's paramour Vedachalam, that Vedachalam's wife Kamala and her four children.This Arumugham was for some time living with that Rukmani in a house separately.Therefore, on 17-2-1958, Chellammal, the mother of Arumugham, Kamala and her four children were taken to the J-3 Station and kept there with a view to put pressure on Arumugham to surrender himself.This is a time-honoured practice euphemistically described as keeping under surveillance in the South and as having their presence in the north.is a practice severely sought to be put down by higher Police Officers but still persisting albeit illegally.But this step succeeded in this case in that that day at about 8-30 P. M. Vedachalam accompanied by four other residents of the locality surrendered Arumugham to the Sub-Inspector Rajangam.Cheilammal was sent away under the instruction of Rajangam.Vedachalam returned home at about 10 P. M. and after that he did not see this Arumugham alive.On 20-2-1958 at about 11-45 P. M. Rajangam telephoned the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime (South) that Arumugham had died of fits while being examined in J-3 Police Station.Thereupon the Assistant Commissioner went to the Kodambakkam Police Station and after an informal enquiry sought to contact the Chief Presidency Magistrate and finally located the Sixth Presidency Magistrate, Saidapet, whose turn it was to hold an inquest--the Presidency Magistrates seem to arrange themselves in rota for doing this unpleasant task by turns to hold an inquest over the dead body of Arumugham in the interest of justice.The Sixth Presidency Magistrate came to the Police Station and held the inquest.The Pancha-yatdars returned an open verdici that "the deceased appears to have died on account of epileptic fits while being interrogated by the Police.The dead body of Arumugham was sent through P. C. 947 Murugiah to the Professor of Forensic Medicine, General Hospital, for post-mortem examination.On 22-2-1958 Vedachalam and Chellammal presented a petition before the Commissioner of Police (typed as document No. 2 in the file of typed papers supplied to us) alleging that the death of Arumu-gham was caused while he was in the custody of the Police at the Kodambakkam Police Station and that it was not a natural death and that they were keeping the dead body handed over to them by the Medical authorities and praying for necessary enquiry into the cause of death.The Commissioner of Police then, as directed by P. S. O. 157, the machinery prescribed for the Police Officers and embodying the executive directions forwarded the petition to the Chief Presidency Magistrate for necessary action.The Chief Presidency Magistrate ordered the removal of the dead body of Arumugham again to the General Hospital for a second post-mortem examination by Dr. Asirvadham.Dr. Asirvadham conducted a second post mortem examination.He held that "bruising of tissues was seen over the right buttock, i. e., fatty layer as well as muscles and the deceased died of pulmonary fat embolism the fat having come from the injured fatty layer of the buttock, the fat globules entering the circulatory system and blocking the blood vessels of the lungs, producing acute respiratory failure resulting in sudden asphyxial death."On 14-4-1958 Jayaraman was examined as a witness in the enquiry conducted uncler Section 176 Criminal Procedure Code, read with P. S. O. 157 by the learned Fifth Presidency Magistrate into the death of Arunmugham in Police custody at Kodam-bakkam Police Station.In that enquiry apart from giving evidence about the Police torturing Arunmu-gham which resulted in his death, the said Jaya-rarnan deposed that he himself was beaten with hands and lathies indiscriminately at Kodambakkam Police Station and that he sustained severe injuries.The Fifth Presidency Magistrate brought this to the notice of he Chief Presidency Magistrate who ordered the Fourth Presidency Magistrate to hold an enquiry under Section 176, Criminal Procedure Code, read with P. S. O. 157 and submit a report with a view to eventually action being taken by him, if necessary.The Fourth Presidency Magistrate held the enquiry and he submitted a report holding that Sub Inspector Rajangam and the tour Police Constables appear to have committed offences punishable under Sections 330, 331 read with Section 34 I, P. C.He was convicted by the Sixth Presidency Magistrate on his pleading guilty to the charges and sentenced to Rule I, for six months in each case.Deputy Secretary to Government.	['Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,237,939	Public Witness 1, her husband Manak Chand Khanna (P.W.14) and other members of their family including their daughter Madhu Khanna (deceased) lived in a portion of house No. 1401, which had been taken on rent.The family of the deceased consisted of her parents, brother Arun Kumar Khanna (P.W.9) and five other sisters including Suman Khanna (P.W.2) ; one of them, who is married, has been living in Etawa.The deceased and members of her family used to come to house No. 619, one lane away from house No. 1401 (the distance is said to be fifty two yards only), to use one of the two latrines there as well as to dry clothes on the roof of that house.(3) The appellant, aged 22, was employed as a Signaller in the Railways.The deceased, 19 years old, was studying in B.A. class in a local college.It is alleged that the appellant used to tease the deceased and pass indecent remarks against her.When the deceased complained to her mother about it both Public Witness s. 1 and 14 tried to make the appellant understand and that the should behave properly ; he did not however desist from behaving improperly.At about 6 p.m. on 18-5-72 P. Ws. 1 and 14 went to the house of the appellant and asked him to vacate the house; half an hour thereafter he came to where they resided and threatened ; "Agar Aiynada Makan Khali Karne Ko Kahoge To Achha Nahin Hoga" (if you ask me to vacate the house in future it will not be good for you).(4) On 19-5-1972 at about 12 noon the deceased and Public Witness 1 went to the house bearing No. 619 for drying the clothes ; Public Witness 1 had gone to the roof for this purpose; the deceased went to the latrine, on the ground floor, when the former heard the voice of the deceased reprimanding the appellant : "Agar Turn Esi Harkate Phir Karoge To Tumhe Chappal Se Maroongi" (if you behave in this way for a second time I would beat you with Chappals).Immediately thereafter Public Witness 1 came to the ground where the deceased was present.The appellant, on seeing Public Witness 1, went inside his room and brought a pistol declaring that he "would not leave them".Meanwhile Suman Khanna (P.W.2), the elder sister of the deceased also came to the spot.The appellant fired on the chest of the deceased.They over-powered the appellant and snatched the pistol from his hand.A telephonic report was given by Public Witness 7 to the Police control room; the record of that report, which was received at the Police control room at 12.20 p.m., is Ex, Public Witness 15/A and was to the effect that a person had tired a shot (at some one) near the 'Delhi Rolling Steel', Loni Road, Ram Nagar.A report was made by Public Witness I to the S.I. Police, Shri Hardev Singh (P.W.16), which was dispatched at 1.30 p.m. P.W. 2 telephonically informed her father, who was working in a bank at Connaught Place ; he went to the Shagun Engineering Works at Darya Ganj to fetch his son Arun Kumar and reached the scene at about 1.30 p.m. and learnt about the incident.(5) The deceased, who was shot at the chest, fell down and died.Her clothes became blood-stained and were found to contain human blood on serological examination.(6) There can be no doubt on the medical evidence that she had died of the injury caused by a pistol.The Assistant Director Physics, CFSL.C.B.I, cum Asst.Chemical Examiner (P.W. 23) found that the soft tissues and skin, which were taken from the person of the deceased, contained lead on the inner peripheri of the hole in the skin.The Balliatics Expert Dr. O.P. Chugh (P.W. 25) found that the pellets, about 75, which were taken from inside the body of the decease, could have been fired by the pistol, an unlicensed one, which is said to have been recovered from the accused.The wad pieces and lead pellets were the outcome of a cartridge which was fired from the pistol.The 12 bore firing cartridge (Ex. P. 16) had been fired from the country made pistol (Ex. P.9).P.WS7 and 8 were among the witnesses for the prosecution who turned hostile.WHENShri Hari Dev (P.W. 20) was hosted at the Police Station Shahdara he received a report (Ex. P. W.I I/A) on 19-5-1972, concerning this incident and he went to the scene of occurrence in a police vehicle along with three Constables including Public Witness 6 (Balwant Singh).JUDGMENT S. Rangarajan, J.(1) This is a reference made by the Addl, Sessions Judge (Shri N. L. Kakkar) to confirm the sentence of death imposed on the appellant (Chandrika Prasad) who was the first accused for committing the murder of Madhu Khanna.An appeal has also been preferred against the conviction and sentence.The second accused (Naginder Kumar Rastogi), who was charged with having abetted the said offence of murder, was acquitted ; there is no appeal against the said acquittal.He saw Madhu Khanna (deceased) lying in a pool of blood in the courtyard near the staircase and P. Ws. 1 and 2 weaping by her aide The appellant was having the pistol (Ex. P.9), Public Witness s 7 and 8 having been said to have caught hold of the appellant.The bushirt and pant (Exs.P.IO and 11) which the appellant was wearing then were seized.The appellant received minor injuries while he was apprehended and he struggled to escape.He was sen' for medical examination the next day.(7) When the appellant was questioned under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code .he admitted that he was a tenant in respect of a room in house No. 619 and that the said house belonged to Smt. Shakuntala Devi (P.W. 1).The fact of Public Witness I issuing rent receipts to him was admitted by the appellant.The appellant, however, denied that Public Witness 1 and other members of her family used to visit house No. 619; he also denied having passed any indecent remarks against the deceased or having ever teased her.He claimed to have been in love with the deceased.Public Witness s. 1 and 14 did not go to him for evicting him from the house ; it was not true to say that he had gone to their house to tell them that if they wanted him to vacate it would not be good for them.He denied the presence of Public Witness I but he said that the deceased was at his house.He did not fire the pistol on the chest of the deceased.It was the deceased's brother Arun Kumar (P.W. 9) who fired with the pistol produced in the case but the deceased came between him and Public Witness 9 and was hit by the fire-arm in this manner.Public Witness 2 was not present either.It was not true that Public Witness s. 1 and 2 raised an alarm.He did not try to escape with the pistol, Public Witness s 7 and/or 8 did not apprehend him or catch him with the pistol or snatch the pistol from him.The innumerable love letters which had been exchanged between him and the deceased had been destroyed by the police after this incident, when he was sitting in his room on 19-5-1972 the deceased, who was depressed, came to his room at about 11-15 a.m. The incident took place only in the manner mentioned by him; he had been falsely implicated.(8) It was vehemently contended by Shri B. B. Lal, learned counsel for the appellant, that by reason of the appellant having been acquitted by the same learned Additional Sessions Judge in sessions trial (No. 48 of 1974) on 19-11-1974 (the impugned Judgment was delivered on 14-2-1975) of a charge under section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, the prosecution cannot again seek to prove, in this case, that the appellant was in possession of the said fire-arm by reason of issue estoppel.It seems a pity that in spite of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court (to which one of us, S.Rangarajan, J.. was a party) in Jai Chand v. State, 1974 (1) I.L.R. Delhi 494(1), decided on 20-9-1973), no effort is being to club the challan for the main offence (of murder) with the evidence under the Arms Act in order to avoid the inconvenience and difficulties to which detailed reference was made in the said judgment.Ramsay gave evidence at the second trial also.He was acquitted by the trial Judge of the offence of robbery and convicted for the offence of murder.The High Court in appeal against the order of conviction relied upon the evidence which was material to both the charges of robbery and murder, a corroboration of the guilt of the accused for the offence of murder.P.WS.1 and 2 were not examined in the Arms Act case.In these circumstances as the observations of Ramaswami, J. in Piara Singh, referred to above, will show there can be no legal impediment to acting on the evidence of Public Witness s. 1 and 2 which is to the effect that it was the appellant who shot the deceased with the pistol (Ex. P. 9).Regarding the question whether it was likely that the deceased and Public Witness I would have still gone to house No. 619 the day following the accused's threat on the previous day it is necessary to appreciate the kind of facilities that the deceased and her family had in house No. 1401 and those available in house No. 619 Public Witness 14 swore that house No. 619, owned by his wife (P.W. 1) was in their occupation except one room which alone was in occupation of the appellant as a tenant.The evidence of Public Witness 1 is not very clear whether the appellant was the only tenant in the house at that time, but it was elicited in cross-examination as follows :"THEdoors of other occupants of the house were closed at that time" (p. 22).But how many were there has unfortunately not been made clear.It appears that Public Witness s. 7 and 8 had also been tenants in house No. 619 previously, but they were admittedly not there at the time of the occurrence.It has also been brought out in the examination of Public Witness 14 that though there are two latrines in house No. 1401 one of them was out of use; the other latrine has to serve a number of other tenants.There is also a small length of wire outside the door of Public Witness 14's house in house No. 1401 for drying up the clothes.No question was directed to Public Witness 1 regarding how she found it necessary to go to house No. 619 to dry washed clothes.In the absence of further questioning on this aspect no comment seems legitimate or even possible.There is nothing improbable in both the mother and daughter having gone to house No. 619, the former for drying the clothes on the roof of the house and the latter to use the latrine therein.(19) Public Witness 2 stated that she was returning from the mills nearby after having gone there to telephone her father in connection with the wire which had been received from her sister who was married and was living in Etawah stating that no one may be sent to Etawah to bring Public Witness 2's sister.She had no doubt referred to having heard an alarm from house No. 619 but could not say who was raising the alarm.The alarm, she thought, was a mixed one, with many voices; she could not be sure whether it consisted of male voices or female voices.From these statements an inference was sought to be drawn that Public Witness 2 should have arrived there much later, after some persons had gathered there.That is not her evidence before the court.She did claim to be an eye witness to the shooting.When she reached the house she saw the appellant holding a pistol in his hand and aiming it at the deceased; the shot he fired hit her chest and she fell down.But it was elicited from her, in cross-examination, that she had not seen her mother coming from the roof nor the accused coming from the room with the pistol; she was confronted with the statement made by her under section 161 Criminal Procedure Code .(Ex. D.A.) to the following effect :"AFTERa short while I also came to his house on hearing the noise and my mother also came down stairs on hearing the voice of Madhu Khanna.Chandrika Prasad went into his room and brought a pistol and fired a shot on the chest of Madhu."SHEdenied having made such a statement.It does not seem to us that if she had really seen her mother also coming down from the stairs and the appellant going to the room she should be withholding that part of her evidence falsely; we are unable to appreciate what she or the prosecution would gain by her suppressing that part of the testimony, if she had really made such a statement.The incident was a quick moving one.This is a circumstance which does not suggest that she came later ; on the contrary, these are the hall marks of truthful witnesses.Being an educated lady the above is consistent with her endeavor to describe faithfully what she saw and heard, rather than to repeat, parrotlike, what she had been told to say.(21) The absence of blood stains on their clothes, indicating that they did not rush to the help of the deceased after she was shot, is explainable in the context of the accused still having the pistol with him and his earlier threat that he would not leave them.(22) We are also impressed by this circumstance, namely, that the statement of the mother of the deceased (P.W. 1), which was recorded by Shri Hari Dev (P.W. 20), is full of details which are significant like hereself and Public Witness 2 having raised the alarm together and, even more important, that the appellant set his pistol near the chest of the deceased when it was shot.The head of the deceased has been shown in the site plan as lying near the staircase, her face was upwards and the toes nearer the latrines than the room of the appellant in which he lived.The entire vacant space was just sufficient for two cots being put there.The fire-arm must in the very nature of things have been fired from a close distance ; in the murder of the deceased according to Public Witness 1's statement (Ruqqa), the pistol was held very near the chest of the deceased.But Public Witness 2 has sufficiently explained the reason why she happened to pass along ; it was due to the receipt of a telegram from her sister from Etawah, about which she wanted to telephone from the Mills to her father, who was working in a bank in Connaught Place.Her father (P.W. 14) has also spoken about the fact that he had received the telephonic information from Public Witness 2 about the receipt of the telegram at 11.40 a.m. that day; later Public Witness 2 again telephoned P.W. 14 at about 12 noon concerning the deceased having been shot at by the appellant.After receiving the second telephonic message Public Witness 14 picked up his son (P.W. 9) from Darya Ganj.They reached the scene together.	['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
67,504,242	The State produces the case diary and it does not appear that the victim suffered any serious injury.However, it is evident that the victim stays at her paternal home.It would be necessary for the victim to be provided some amount on account of maintenance.The petitioners may be afforded anticipatory bail only if the petitioner no.1/husband pays a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month on account of maintenance to the wife.The sum will be adjusted if any direction for payment of maintenance or the like is made in 1 2 favour of the wife.Such payment has to be made by the petitioner no.1 from August, 2018 by the fifteenth of each month; failing which the de-facto complainant will have a right to seek cancellation of the anticipatory bail.In addition, the petitioner 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.(Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J.) 2	['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
675,074	According to him a report aboutthe commission of dacoity on 8/9-7-1996 was received and Jasidih PS CaseNo.The team of three sub-inspectors and localpolice officials visited the house of respondent no.2 on 11.7.19992 for thepurpose of search and to arrest Ratnesh, if necessary.Elder son ofRespondent no. 2 told the police officials that Ratnesh had gone to Delhiand was not present.Though search was conducted no material of anysubstance was seized.Alleging that the search was motivated and was forthe purpose of humiliating and harassing, as the concerned officials didnot have a search warrant, the respondent no.2 and his son Chhotu,complaint was filed on 26.11.1996 in the Court of Chief JudicialMagistrate, Patna.Leave granted.Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learnedSingle judge of the Patna High Court dismissing the petition filed by theappellant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (inshort the `Code') seeking quashing of the order of cognizance taken bylearned Judicial Magistrate, Patna, on a complaint filed by Ramesh KumarDubey (Respondent No. 2 in this Appeal).By order dated 11.1.2000 learnedJudicial Magistrate took cognizance of offences punishable under Sections342, 389, 469, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the`IPC').103 of 1997 was registered in respect of commission of offencepunishable under Section 395 of the IPC.Supervision of the case was being done by theappellant.On the basis of such information the appellant gave spotinstruction to arrest the suspects and conduct search.Three Sub-Inspectors weredeputed for the purpose and the investigating officer of the case wasdirected to continue investigation on other lines.On 11.7.1996 the teamconstituted for the purpose of search requested the police officials ofShastri Nagar Police Station in Patna for cooperation.A requisition slipfor the purpose was given.Subsequently, as noted above, the appellant filed theapplication under Section 482 of the Code which came to be dismissed by theimpugned judgment.	['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
67,509,851	In pursuance of the directions issued by the Apex Court and guidelines issued by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the wake of COVID-19 outbreak, the matter was taken up through video conferencing while adhering to the norms of social distancing prescribed by the Government.Heard, learned counsel for the parties.Case diary perused.At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that amendment application (I.A. No.2832/2020) was allowed vide order dated 20/3/2020 but the amendment could not be carried out owing to lockdown.However, he undertakes and is permitted to carry out the amendment within 72 hours as soon as regular Court starts functioning.Prosecution story, in short, is that on 20/10/2018 in pursuance of a dispute that had ensued between family members of the applicant and their neighbours, applicant along with co-accused Jaichand Sharma, Shashikant Sharma and Ravikant Sharma entered into the house of complainant and started abusing filthily.On being objected to, co-accused Ravikant and Shashikant assaulted the complainant with Lathis, while co-accused Jayendra Sharma assaulted by means of a Khurpi (Trowel) on his finger.When complainant's daughter-in-law came forwarded to his rescue, the present applicant and co-accused Jayendra beat her with Danda, kicks and fists.On the aforesaid basis, crime has been registered.Learned counsel for the applicant, who is a woman aged about 45 years, has been falsely implicated in the case.The dispute was amongst neighbours.A cross-case has also been registered against the complainant party.Although, during investigation, offence under section 325, IPC has been enhanced, yet the same is not in respect of the present applicant but is attributable to co-accused Ravikant and Shashikant.However, it would not be desirable to enter into the rival contentions at this juncture.It is well settled that the considerations governing grant of anticipatory bail are altogether different from those relevant to a prayer made for regular bail.The application, accordingly, stands dismissed.(S.A.Dharmadhikari) Judge (and) ANAND SHRIVASTA VA 2020.06.22 17:30:03 +05'30'	['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
67,516,658	This petition has been filed to quash the summon issued in C.C.No.975 of 2015 on the file of the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.He had earlier served as the District Judge in the Tamil Nadu State Judiciary.During his tenure in Tamil Nadu State Information Commission in the discharge his official responsibility, the Chief Information Commissioner constituted a Bench along with the petitioner as State Information Commission to hear and dispose of statutory second appeals filed by the claimants.On 07.01.2015, at the time of hearing of the appeal in case No.34239/2014, the second respondent willfully and deliberately abstained from aiding the commission in the disposal of the case all the while staying back in the enquiry hall-unmoving and immovable.In the effect to that, he prevented the Commissioner to dispose of other case as well as he refused to leave the enquiry hall, even after his case was adjourned for passing orders.The Secretary of the Commissioner was informed and in charge of his responsibility, who appear to have preferred a complaint to the police.In that complaint, investigation completed and charge sheet laid in C.C.No.975 of 2013 and prosecution witnesses over and in fact, the questioning under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. also over.The said case is posted for defence evidence.While being so, the second respondent filed a petition seeking permission to examine the petitioner as a defence witness.He further pointed out that the Information Commission is a quasi judicial forum, when the Commissioner adjudicates the right of an individual asking information from the public authorities.As such, the Presiding Officer cannot be called upon to appear as a witness and to speak as a defence witness, in regard tohttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 what transpired in the course of quasi judicial enquiry, that too, all the orders passed by the authority is self explanatory.Further the learned counsel submitted that the learned Magistrate without considering the provision of Section 243(2) of Cr.P.C., issued summons to the petitioner.The proviso under Section 243(2) of Cr.P.C., clearly stipulates that if the accused after he has entered upon his defence, applies to the Magistrate to issue any process for compelling the attendance of any witnesses for the purpose of examination or cross examination or the production of any witness for the propose of examination or cross examination or the production of any documents or other thing, no Magistrate shall issue such process unless he considers that such application may be refused on that ground.It is clear that any witness shall not be compelled to witness for the purpose of vexation or delay, unless the Magistrate is satisfied that it is necessary for ends of justice.He further submitted that in the impugned order passed in C.M.P.No.1666 of 2016, nowhere dealt with the said provision or proviso and the fact on it.He further submitted that the commissioner has passed an order disposing of the second appeal filed by the second respondent under the Right To Information Act and it reached its finality.MC.No.2638 of 2008 in the case of P.I.Devasia and another Vs.Unnikrishnan and another.While being so, the second respondent preferred a second appeal before the Commission and the said second appeal was taken up for disposal.At the time of hearing, on false allegationshttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 that the second respondent abstain the Commissioner in the disposal of the cases and also refused to leave from the enquiry hall.Therefore, the false case has been foisted as against the second respondent for the offences under Sections 294(b), 353 and 506(i) IPC.Therefore, the petitioner was being an Information Commissioner of Tamil Nadu State, is the person who has seen the alleged occurrence and he is the main witness to the occurrence.In support of his side, the second respondent wanted to examine the petitioner.He further submitted that being an Information Commissioner, the petitioner cannot be summoned to appear before the Magistrate Court.Therefore, he sought for necessary orders to be passed in this quash petition.Heard Mr.The second respondent also scolded with filthy language all the members.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.19.03.2019 Internet:Yes Index :Yes Speaking order rtshttp://www.judis.nic.in 9The XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, ChennaiThe Inspector of Police, E-3, Teynampet Police Station, (Law & Order) Chennai.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.http://www.judis.nic.in 10 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.rts CRL.O.P.No.4645 of 2017 and Crl.3507 of 2017 & 14053 of 2018	['Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
67,518,020	No.13173 of 2011 Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for therecords relating to the case registered in Crime No.101of 2011 on the file ofthe respondent police and quash the FIR.K.C.Palanisamy ... Petitioner in Crl.O.P.[MD] No.12992 of 20111.State Rep. By The Inspector of Police, Mayanur Police Station, Karur District.[Crime No.226 of 2011]Neelamegam, Village Administrative Officer, Mayanur Village, Krishnarayapuram Taluk, Karur District.... Respondents in Crl.O.P.[MD] No.12992 of 2011 Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for therecords relating to the case registered in Crime No.226 of 2011 on the file ofthe 1st respondent police and quash the FIR.T.Ashok Kumar ... Petitioner in Crl.O.P.[MD] No.14409 of 20111.State Rep. By The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Dindigul.[Crime No.40 of 2011]2.The Assistant Director [Mines], Department of Geology and Mines, Collectorate, Dindigul.... Respondents in Crl.O.P.[MD] No.14409 of 2011 Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for therecords relating to the case registered in Crime No.40 of 2011 on the file ofthe 1st respondent police and quash the FIR.!For Petitioners inCrl.O.P.No. 13173 of 2011 ... Mr.V.K.SaravananFor Petitioner inCrl.Seeking to quash the saidFIR, the petitioners have come up with the said original petition.The petitioner, in Crl.(v) In the State of Tamil Nadu, so long as the notification issued underG.O.Ms.With these answers, we return the case papers to the Registry with adirection to the Registry to list the cases before the Hon'ble single Judge fordisposal.kmk/kkToThe Inspector of Police, R.S.Mangalam Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.The Inspector of Police, Mayanur Police Station, Karur District.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Dindigul.The Assistant Director [Mines], Department of Geology and Mines, Collectorate, Dindigul.O.P. No.12992 of 2011 ... Mr.R.Shanmugasundaram, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.RaviFor Petitioner inCrl.O.P. No.14409 of 2011 ... Mr.	['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
67,523,242	No.79 akd [PARTLY ALLOWED] C. R. M. 3468 of 2018 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 06.06.2018 in connection with Tufanganj Police Station Case No. 312 of 2013 dated 06.12.2013 under Sections 448/376/511/354B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the accused/petitioner no. 1 namely, Kanak Roy is rejected.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)	['Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 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.
67,523,379	C.R.M. 10778 of 2018 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 29/11/2018 in connection with Gazole P.S. Case No. 266 of 2018 dated 30/05/2018 under Sections 341/325/307/379/34 of the Indian gd Penal Code.And In the matter of: Rajib Khan & Ors.....petitioners.Mr. Niladri Sekhar Ghosh Mr. Sakhawat Khandakar ...for the petitioners.Mr. Sandip Chakraborty ...for the State.The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Gazole P.S. Case No. 266 of 2018 dated 30/05/2018 under Sections 341/325/307/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code.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, till the investigation is completed.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed on the conditions indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Sanjib Banerjee, J.) (Suvra Ghosh, J.) 2	['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
6,752,866	necessary to decide the present appeal can briefly be stated as under:-Between 9.00 to 9.30p.m.the complainant Arun Chandran (P.W.3) along with his friend Amit Mishra (P.W.4) were proceeding towards Vasai (East) on their scooter.On the bridge, they saw one person was assaulting by stick to the victim.Complainant Arun Chandran (P.W.3) and his friend Amit (P.W.4) stopped their vehicle and rushed towards the person (victim) who was being assaulted.As soon as Arun and Amit rushed towards the person who was assaulting the victim by stick, he ran away.(ii) Arun (P.W.3) and Amit (P.W.4) thereafter took the injured from an auto rickshaw to the hospital.From the diary which was found from the injured person they came to know the name of the injured as Faim Ibrahim Khan.Arun (P.W.3) intimated the family members of Faim Khan.Thakare (PW-22) of LCB, Thane (Rural).JUDGMENT : (Per A.S. Gadkari, J.) :The appellants have questioned the correctness of the judgment and order dated 10.7.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vasai, District Thane in Sessions Case No.329 of ::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:03 ::: Nalawade A.S. 3/18 Cri.Appeal No.1009/12 & ors.::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:03 :::2007.. By the said judgment and order dated 10.7.2012 the appellant- original accused No.2-Haresh Patil has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment of one year.The appellant -original accused No.1 Kamlesh @Babla @ Bablya Shankar Malpedi, accused No.2 Haresh Patil and accused No.3-Faim @ Lala Ibrahim Khan have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year each.The Trial Court has thus convicted the original accused No.1 Kamlesh @ Babla @ Bablya Malpedi and accused No.3 Faim Lala Ibrahim Khan for the offence punishable under Section-120B of the Indian Penal Code.By the same impugned judgment and order the Trial Court was pleased to acquit the original accused No.4-Durgeshkumar @ Durga Ramshankar Pande from all the charges levelled against him.For the sake of brevity the appellants named herein above will be referred to with their original accused numbers as they were before the Trial Court.The facts which are enumerated from the record and ::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:03 ::: Nalawade A.S. 4/18 Cri.Appeal No.1009/12 & ors.::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:03 :::Arun also lodged FIR (Exh.71) with Manikpur Police Station.On the basis of the said First Information Report bearing CR NO.I-125/2007 came to be registered.The investigation was initially carried out by PSI Naikwade of Manikpur Police Station.Mr. Naikwade drew the spot panchanama, Inquest panchanama and the seizure panchanama.He also recorded the statements of some of the witnesses.The said investigation was subsequently transferred to PSI Nitin ::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:03 ::: Nalawade A.S. 5/18 Cri.Appeal No.1009/12 & ors.::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:03 :::He arrested the accused persons.He also discovered the sticks at the instance of accused No.1 Kamlesh under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. PSI Nitin Thakare collected the call detail record pertaining to the mobile phones of the appellants.He also gathered the post mortem notes and Chemical Analysis report during the course of investigation.After completion of the investigation PSI Nitin Thakare submitted the charge sheet in the court of J.M.F.C. Vasai at Vasai under Section 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.(iii) As the offence under Section-302 of the I.P.C. was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned J.M.F.C.committed the said case to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge Vasai, At Vasai.After committal of the case, the learned Trial Court framed the charge below Exh.18.The said charge was read over and explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.The prosecution in support of its case and to prove the guilt against the accused persons examined in all 22 witnesses.The learned Trial Court after recording the evidence and after hearing the parties to the said case was pleased to convict the appellants as stated herein above.3 The present case is based on ocular evidence of Arun Chandran (P.W.3), Amit Mishra (P.W.4) and Siddesh Kadam (P.W.21), ::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:03 ::: Nalawade A.S. 6/18 Cri.Appeal No.1009/12 & ors.::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:03 :::P.W.3 Arun Chandran in his testimony has deposed that on 2.4.2007 he along with his friend Amit Mishra (P.W.4) were going towards Vasai (East) by a scooter.On the bridge they saw one person assaulting by stick to the victim.He therefore, stopped his vehicle and went to see what was happened.In the mean while, the person who was assaulting the other person (deceased) threw the stick there and ran away.P.W.3 Arun thereafter took the injured person by auto rickshaw to the hospital.He also found a diary near the injured person.The name of the injured person was Faim Khan.The said injured was admitted to Kanekar hospital.P.W.3-Arun Chandran gave intimation about the incident to the family members of Faim Khan.He handed over the said diary to the police.In the night he received a phone call from the police that the said injured expired.He had seen the person who had assaulted the deceased.He was called for identification parade wherein he identified the said person.He was Haresh Patil (Accused No.2).In the cross examination this witness had admitted that Amit (P.W.4) was driving scooter.From the other side of the road he saw the accused assaulting.That, when he carried the injured (Munna) to the hospital, he was unable to talk.He further admitted that when he reached on the bridge it was about 9.00 to 9.30 p.m. He had seen the assailant assaulting the victim from the distance of about 10 to 15 ft. and the scooter on which he was pillion rider was at a speed of about 30 K.M. per hour.That, they reached near the injured within 30 ::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:03 ::: Nalawade A.S. 7/18 Cri.Appeal No.1009/12 & ors.::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:03 :::In the cross examination P.W.4 Amit has admitted that victim was also having scooter.On the date of incident P.W.4 was riding the scooter at the speed of 30 K.M. per hour.That, he stopped his scooter 50ft. ahead from the place where victim was lying.That, within 15 to 20 seconds they reached towards the injured.P.W.21 Siddesh Kadam has deposed that on 2.4.2007 at about 7.30p.m.he along with his friends decided to go to Vasai (West) and they started proceeding on their motorcycle.They stopped on the flyover connecting Vasai East and West.At that time, he saw one person assaulting the said 'uncle' with something in his hand.As a result of which the said person on the scooter fell down on the road.Thereafter said two persons left the place and ran away.P.W.21 thereafter left the said spot.In the cross examination this witness has admitted that he reached to the flyover at about 9.00p.m.That his statement was recorded by police after about 5 days from the date of incident.He did not remember whether there was light on the flyover or not.He saw the said incident from the distance of about 200ft.6 P.W.12 Avinash Koshti was serving as Resident Naib ::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:03 ::: Nalawade A.S. 8/18 Cri.Appeal No.1009/12 & ors.::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:03 :::Tahsildar, at Vasai.P.W.12 has conducted the Indemnification parade.In his deposition he has stated that witness Arun Chandran (P.W.1) has identified the accused No.3 Harish.P.W.12 has also stated that another witness has also identified Haresh.P.W.12 is silent about the fact whether P.W.21 Siddesh Kadam has identified the accused No.2 Harish or not.At this stage we must note here that the evidence of P.W.12 Avinash Koshti is as vague as possible and is of no help to the persecution.The minute scrutiny of his deposition leads us to conclude that he was very casual while deposing in the court.That, the appellant No.2 Haresh was arrested on 22.5.2007 and the identification parade was conducted by the police on 4.8.2007.There is substantial delay caused at the instance of the investigating agency in conducting the said identification parade.He therefore, submitted that reasonable doubt arises about the bonafide of the test identification parade.In support of his ::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:03 ::: Nalawade A.S. 9/18 Cri.Appeal No.1009/12 & ors.::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:03 :::At this stage, we may also observe that after taking into consideration the evidence of P.W. 3 and 4 in observing accused No.2 in such a short span of 30 seconds precisely and then identifying him after a lapse of more than about four months appears to be very doubtful.As far as P.W.21 is concerned, though he claims himself to be an eye witness he has not identified accused No.12 Harish as the assailant.It further appears that P.W.21, Siddesh is a chance witness and claims that he had seen the incident from a distance of about 200ft.In view of the fact that sufficient delay in conducting the test identification parade by the investigating agency, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Hari Nath and Another (supra) is applicable to the present case and we hold that identification by P.W.3 and 4 of accused No.2 Haresh is doubtful and the benefit of doubt goes in favour of accused No.2 Haresh Patil.8 It is further to be noted here that P.W.3 in his testimony has categorically deposed that the person who was ::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:03 ::: Nalawade A.S. 10/18 Cri.Appeal No.1009/12 & ors.::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:03 :::assaulting the victim had thrown the stick on the spot and ran away.However, surprisingly the police have discovered two wooden logs by effecting a panchanama dated 28.5.2011 (Exh.145) from accused No.1 Kamlesh.The said discovery panchanama has been proved by P.W.22-Nitin Thakare, the Investigating Officer.The scene of offence panchanama which is at Exh. 58 discloses one wooden log was found at the spot of incident itself.The prosecution case rests on the theory that only Accused-2 i.e. Haresh assaulted the deceased with a wooden log and in that view discovery of 2 more wooden logs from accused no.1 Kamlesh creates doubt in the mind of this Court.After taking into consideration the direct contradictions about the wooden log used in the crime and its place of discovery, it creates strong doubt in our mind about the genuineness of the discovery panchanama itself.Discovery at the instance of accused No.1 Kamlesh therefore, assumes no value and is not at all useful to the prosecution as the weapon of assault was found on the spot of incident itself, there was no recovery at the instance of accused No.2, Haresh, to whom role of actual assault is attributed.The record pertaining to the present case is absolutely silent about the fact that there were any finger prints found on the said weapon, of the appellant Haresh.9 The prosecution has examined P.W.18 Ashok D.::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:03 :::Nalawade A.S. 11/18 Cri.Appeal No.1009/12 & ors.Bhande, P.W.19 Kundan K. Jadhav to prove the motive behind the crime.They deposed that deceased Naim Khan was the brother of accused No.3 Faim @ Lala Ibrahim Khan.Accused No.3 Faim @ Lala Ibraghim Khan was doing the business of transport alongwith deceased Munna @ Naim Khan.A dispute ensued between the brothers on account of money.By the mediation of P.W.18 and 19 the said dispute was resolved.The deceased Munna @ Faim Khan started his own business and was doing well in the same.That, enraged accused No.3 ig Faim @ Lala Ibrahim Khan and therefore, he decided to kill his brother- Munna @ Naim Khan.10 The prosecution has thereafter examined P.W.9 Manoj Sagare to further prove the motive and also the conspiracy hatched by the accused persons.P.W.9 has deposited that on 12 th of year 2007 (month not mentioned).Lala had called him with vehicle and accused no.1, accused no.2 and accused no.3 had been to the High Court.On the next day he along with accused persons were returning from S.P Office in the vehicle of accused No.3 Faim @ Lala Ibrahim Khan when Lala (accused no.3) said that Munna (deceased) was having excess fat (Charabi) and he (deceased) was to be managed.This is the only sentence which was uttered by accused Faim @ Lala Ibrahim Khan on the basis of which the prosecution has put forth the theory of conspiracy ::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:03 ::: Nalawade A.S. 12/18 Cri.Appeal No.1009/12 & ors.::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:03 :::hatched by the accused persons.A close scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.9 reveals that the said statement made by accused No.3 Faim Khan is neither inculpatory nor is the statement which would lead us to infer that it amounts to conspiracy.It appears that Faim @ Lala Khan (accused no.3) was jealously talking about his brother who was flourishing in his own business and nothing more.11) The prosecution has also relied upon recovery of three mobile phones at the instance of accused No.3 Faim @ Lala Ibrahim Khan.Out of the said three mobile phones, two mobile phones bearing Nos.9322444929 and 9322444930 were in the name of accused No.1 Kamlesh Malpedi and Mobile No.9321662525 was in the name of accused No.3 Faim Khan.The learned counsel appearing for accused No.3 Faim Khan criticized the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court in Paragraphs 55 and 56 of the impugned judgment wherein, the Trial Court has held that call detail record shows that there were en number of calls exchanged between these two mobile phones belonging to accused No.1 Kamlesh Malpedi.He further held that it is impossible that anybody having two mobile phones with it, would call himself from one mobile to another.That, the case of ::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:03 ::: Nalawade A.S. 13/18 Cri.Appeal No.1009/12 & ors.::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:03 :::the prosecution that mobile phone No.9322444429 was used by accused No.2 appearing to be more probable.In the absence of any evidence to the effect that the said mobile phone bearing No.9322444929 was with accused No.2 Haresh, at the time of incident, the observations made by the Trial Court in Paragraphs 55 and 56 of the impugned judgment and the finding recorded thereto, in our considered opinion is based only on conjectures.Mr. Shirodkar, learned counsel appearing for original accused No.1 Faim @ Lala Ibrahim Khan further submitted that assuming for the sake of arguments that there were exchange of phone calls on 1.4.2007 and 2.4.2007 inter see in the said two mobile numbers, the same itself would not attract the charge of conspiracy.In support of his contention he relied upon a decision of the Supreme Curt in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru reported in (2005) 11 SCC 600 wherein Supreme Court has held that there were exchanges between two persons on cellular phone but form that circumstance alone no inference can be drawn of reasonable degree of certainty that said persons have entered into conspiracy.According to us, in the present case the prosecution has failed to prove that exchange of telephone calls between the said three phone numbers was for the purpose of firstly hatching and thereafter executing the conspiracy entered into by and ::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:03 ::: Nalawade A.S. 14/18 Cri.Appeal No.1009/12 & ors.::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:03 :::Appeal No.1009/12 & ors.::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:03 :::The evidence relating to electronic record, as noted herein before, being a special provision, the general law on secondary evidence under Section 63 read with Section 65 of the Evidence Act shall yield to the same.Generalia specialibus non derogant, special law will always prevail over the general law.It appears, the court omitted to take note of ::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:03 ::: Nalawade A.S. 16/18 Cri.Appeal No.1009/12 & ors.::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:03 :::Sections 59 and 65A dealing with the admissibility of electronic record.Thus, in the case of CD, VCD, chip, etc., the same shall be accompanied by the certificate in terms of Section 65-B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible."In the present case the date of incident is 2.4.2007.The amendment of Section 65 of the Evidence Act came into effect from 17.2.2000 and therefore, it was mandatory for the prosecuting agency to produce the certificate in terms of Section 65-B obtained at the time of collecting document (CDR) without which the secondary evidence pertaining to electronic record is inadmissible.Thus, in view of the mandate of Section ::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:03 ::: Nalawade A.S. 17/18 Cri.Appeal No.1009/12 & ors.::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:03 :::The test identification parade which was held belatedly also creates doubt about the said fact that whether after the lapse of about four months P.W.3 and P.W.4 the eye witnesses were really able to identify accused No.2-Haresh.As stated above, the P.W. Nos.3 and 4 had at the most only 30 seconds to observe the accused No.2 at the time of incident from a running scooter and they have identified the accused no.2 in test identification parade after a gap of about 4 months without any special characteristics of accused no.2 and therefore, it creates doubt about their claim of identifying the accused No.2-Haresh Patil.As stated earlier the record of call details of the aforesaid three mobile numbers produced by the prosecuting agency is inadmissible in view of the mandate of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act and therefore, according to us the accused persons are entitled for benefit of doubt.::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:03 :::Nalawade A.S. 18/18 Cri.Appeal No.1009/12 & ors.14 Thus, the benefit of doubt is given to the accused persons and they are acquitted from the charges framed against them.Hence, the following order.a) The appeals preferred by the respective appellant are allowed.They are acquitted from all the charges framed against them.b) Fine, if any, paid by the appellants be refunded toc) them.The appellants be released from Jail forthwith if they are not required in any other case.d) The Appellant-Accused No.3 is on bail and his bail bond stands cancelled.::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:03 :::	['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
67,529,262	Heard on I.A. no.5333/2015 which is an application under section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant Rakesh S/o Bhaggu @ Bhagirath The present appellant suffered the conviction and jail sentence as follows :Taking all the relevant facts in totality, no case is made out for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail at this stage.Accordingly, I.A. no. 5333/2015 is dismissed.C c as per rules.( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE amol	['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
67,529,659	Signature Not Verified SAN The jail authorities shall have the appellant checked by the jail doctor to Digitally signed by ASHISH DATTA Date: 2021.03.01 10:50:45 IST 2 CRA-2307-2018 ensure that he is not suffering from the coronavirus and if he is, he shall be sent to the nearest hospital designated by the State for treatment.If not, he shall be transported to his place of residence by the jail authorities.C.C. as per rules.(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE a Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by ASHISH DATTA Date: 2021.03.01 10:50:45 IST(TEJBALI YADAV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 13 Jabalpur, Dated : 27-02-2021 Mr. Ramji Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant.Mr. Rakesh Singh, learned P.L. for the State.Heard on I.A. No.11938/2020, which is an application filed on behalf of appellant Tejbail Yadav seeking suspension of sentence and for grant of bail.The appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable U/s.450 and Section 376(g) of the I.P.C. with the maximum sentence of 10 years R.I. with default stipulations.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this is the second application being filed on behalf of the appellant for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court to para 58 of the trial Court's order, which reflects that the appellant Tejbail Yadav and another co-accused Gendlal Yadav have been in judicial custody since 01.11.2015, till the delivery of judgment of the learned trial Court dated 06.12.2017 and thereafter, they continued to remain as prisoners, undergoing their sentence.	['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
188,817,436	This is first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The applicant has been arrested in Crime No.35/2013 registered at Police Station, Nayagaon, District Bhind, for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34, 498-A, 34 of IPC alternate 304-B of IPC.As per prosecution case, the marriage of deceased Gyankunwar was performed with Dashrath.After marriage, husband, Jeth, Jethani, mother-in-law, father-in-law used to harass the deceased.On 11.7.13 there was marriage of sister-in- law of Gyankunwar and brother of the deceased attended the marriage, then deceased told him regarding harassment.On 13.7.13 the complainant called a Panchayat in which husband, Jeth, Jethani, mother-in-law, father-in-law assured that deceased shall not be harassed.Thereafter, the complainant was informed that deceased has been killed by her in-laws.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has not committed any offence.He has falsely been implicated in the case.The co-accused Devendra has been granted bail by the trial Court and Umadevi has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 13.2.2014 passed in M.Cr.2 M.Cr.Hence, prayed for bail.The prayer is opposed by learned Public Prosecutor.Case diary perused.As per the postmortem report, deceased has received 11 incised wounds on left cheek, right side of chin, right side of cheek, clavicle region, index finger etc. The death of the deceased was due to shock as a result of excessive haemorrhage due to injuries all over the body.Witness Ramprakash has stated in his case diary statement that he was sleeping on roof.He heard screaming from the house of Lajjaram, then he went there and saw that Gyankunwar was lying dead and Devendra and Dashrath were present there.They rushed to beat him.Ramkaran father of the deceased, Sukhveer brother of the deceased and Kamladevi mother of the deceased, have stated that deceased used to complain that her father-in- law, mother-in-law and husband used to harass her.It is true that co-accused have been granted bail but considering that the applicant is none other but husband of the deceased, marriage of the deceased was solemnized one year prior to the death of the deceased in the matrimonial home, the deceased has received as many as 11 incised wounds over her body, the case of the applicant cannot be treated to be identical with the co-accused, 3 M.Cr.C.No.2685/2014 who have been granted bail, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail.Consequently, the application stands dismissed.3 M.Cr.	['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
188,818,785	Challenging the same, this appeal came to be filed.The appellant treated his wife cruelly and also demanded additional dowry.In this regard, P.W.1- father of the deceased lodged Ex.P1 Complaint before the Jeeyapuram Police Station, leading to registration of FIR-Ex.P10 in Crime No.53 of 2008 for the offence under Section 304(B) of IPC.Investigation was taken up and after completion of all the usual formalities, final report came to be laid before the Judicial Magistrate No.3, Tiruchirappalli against the appellant, his mother and his brother for the offence under Sections 498A and 304B r/w 34 of IPC.The case was madehttp://www.judis.nic.in2/12 Crl.Charges were framed all the three accused.They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.The prosecution examined 17 witnesses and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.M.O.1 and M.O.2 series were also marked.Therefore, he wanted a sum of Rs.5,000/- which according to P.W.1, was given to him.The appellant and his mother and his brother were tried for the offences under Sections 498(A) and 304B r/w 34 of IPC inhttp://www.judis.nic.in1/12 Crl.A.(MD)No.99 of 2011 S.C.No.85 of 2009 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Tiruchirappalli.By Judgment dated 09.03.2011, the appellant's mother and his brother were acquitted but the appellant alone was found guilty of the offence under Sections 498(A) and 304(B) of IPC and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment and seven years rigorous imprisonment respectively.D1 and Ex.D2 were marked.After considering the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge, by the impugned Judge, acquitted the appellant's mother and brother, but convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above.Questioning the same, this appeal came to be filed.3.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant confined his arguments only to seeking acquittal in respect of the offence under Section 304(B) of IPC.He submitted that he would not challenge the finding of guilt in respect of the offence under Section 498A of IPC.But he only wanted substantial modification of the punishment imposed on him.Section 304(B) of IPC could have been invoked against the appellant only if it can be shown that soon before her death, the appellant's wife was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand for dowry.A reading of the evidence of P.W.1 would indicate that the appellant wanted his wife to bring money from her parents to tide over the serious financialhttp://www.judis.nic.in3/12 Crl.A.(MD)No.99 of 2011 crisis.Even according to P.W.1, the appellant told his wife that since he is not having any income from his work, he wanted P.W.1 to bring some amount.The appellant wanted to shift to Coimbatore, where, he was hopeful of getting work.But then, he was not having any money to pay the rental advance.A demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the said word is normally understood.The evidence adduced by the prosecution does not therefore, show that any demand for “dowry” as defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was made by the appellants as what was allegedly asked for was some money for meeting domestic expenses and for purchasing manure.Since an essential ingredient of Section 304-B, IPC., viz., demand for dowry is not established, the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained.”5.Applying the aforesaid ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, going by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, one has to come to the conclusion that the appellant did not demand any dowry as such from his in-laws.Therefore, on the very face of it, Section 304(B) of IPC is not attracted.That apart, as rightly pointed out by the appellant's counsel, the deceased appears to have been suffering from some kind of mental depression.In the cross examination of P.W.1, a specific suggestion had been put in this regard.Of-course, the father of the deceased-P.W.1 denied the same.But then, the appellant had examined as many as three witnesses to establish his defence.They have deposed thathttp://www.judis.nic.in6/12 Crl.A.(MD)No.99 of 2011 two days prior to the occurrence, that is 02.03.2008, the deceased hit herself against the lamppost and suffered injuries on her forehead.She was taken to one Doctor-Kannan who examined the woman and also gave treatment.He had stated that the deceased Muthu Lakshmi did not give proper answers when he questioned her.D.W.2 is also another important witness.He had worked along with the appellant at Coimbatore.He had deposed that the deceased Muthu Lakshmi attempted to commit suicide at Coimbaotre and that is why, they were asked to vacate the house by the house owner and they returned to their native place thereafter.They were the residents of Somarasempettai, Trichy.They had moved to Coimbatore for better prospects.This probabilises the statement made by D.W.2 in his evidence.This Court wanted to know if in the postmortem, the injuries suffered by Muthu Lakshmi on her forehead, was reflected.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant drew my attention to Ex.P8-Postmortem Certificate, in which, this injury have been specifically noted.“3.Without attributing any motive and taking the evidence on its face value, therefore, it appears that the place of occurrence was at 400-500 yards from the place of Panchayat and it is on this piece of evidence, the learned advocate for the State heavily relied upon and contended that the distance was far too short so as to be an impossibility for the accused to be at the place of occurrence- we cannot but lend concurrence to such a submission a distance of 400-500 yards cannot possibly be said to be “presence elsewhere”-it is not an impossibility to be at the place of occurrence and also at the Panchayat meet, the distance being as noticed above: the evidence on record itself negates the plea and we are thus unable to record our concurrence as regard acceptance of plea of alibi as raised in the appeal.Before drawing the curtain on this score, however, we wish to clarify that the evidence tendered by the defence witnesses cannot always be termed to be a tainted one by reason of the factum of the witnesses being examined by the defence.The defence witnesses are entitled to equal respect and treatment as that of the prosecution.The issue of credibility and trustworthiness ought to be attributed to the defence witnesses on a par with that of the prosecution-a lapse on the part of the defence witnesses cannot be differentiatedhttp://www.judis.nic.in8/12 Crl.The appellants appears to have re-married a few years back.Two children have been born to the appellant through his second marriage.If the appellant ishttp://www.judis.nic.in10/12 Crl.A.(MD)No.99 of 2011 sentenced to undergo a long term of imprisonment, certainly, it will have a ruinous impact on his new family.Therefore, taking into account all these mitigating aspects and also the fact that the appellant demanded only to meet out his dire financial necessity, the interest of justice will be served by reducing the sentence of imprisonment from two years rigorous imprisonment to six months rigorous imprisonment.It appears that the appellant had already been in prison for about 65 days.The period of incarceration already undergone by the appellant will be set off in terms of Section 428 of Cr.P.C. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant under Section 304(B) of IPC is set aside.The conviction imposed on the appellant under Section 498(A) of IPC is confirmed.The sentence is reduced to six months rigorous imprisonment.10.With this modification, this criminal appeal is partly allowed.2.The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Tiruchirappalli.A(MD)No.99 of 2011	['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
188,821,493	This is an application under Section 14-A of the SC/ST M (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed for grant of of bail to the appellant in connection with Crime No.670/2017 for offences punishable under sections 354, rt 376, 506, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 3(1)(W)(ii), ou 3(2)(V), 3(2)(V)(a) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled C Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and Section 7/8 of h POCSO Act 2012 registered at Police Station-AJK, District- ig Betul (M.P).H The appellant is in judicial custody since 01/10/2017 in the aforesaid offence.The respondent No.2 has been noticed and Mr. Kapil Patwardhan, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted that respondent No.2, has no objection to bail being granted to the appellant herein.Under the circumstances, I am inclined to allow the appeal and direct that the appellant herein 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 trial Court.sh The appeal is finally disposed of.C.C. as per rules.e ad Pr (ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE a hy ad M julie of Digitally signed by JULIE SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JULIE SINGH JABALPUR, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=8f963ebaa02fb4a3345e372793059209283d40f40 22dc2e30a9072cfd258b4fc, rt 2.5.4.45=0321003332858E739A574EB55BA54916FFB3D23 46237BDC59751BF0BFEBA4CB37431CB, cn=JULIE SINGH Date: 2017.12.22 11:25:55 +05'30' ou C h ig H	['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
188,823,902	AB Court 28 C.R.M. 2221 of 2019 In Re : An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Dhupguri P.S. Case No.425 of 2018 dated 7.12.2018 under Sections 147 148/149/323/324/325/326/332/333/353/336/186/307/109 /114/120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25 /27 of the Arms Act and Section 9 of the WB Maintenance of Public Order Act and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act And In the matter of : Prabal Raha ...Petitioner.Mr. Brojesh Jha, Mr. Tarun Jyoti Tewari, Mr. Ravi Ranjan Kumar ...for the Petitioner.Mr. Rudradipta Nandy ...for the State.It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that co- accused person has been granted pre-arrest bail.Learned lawyer appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.Having considered the materials on record and bearing in mind the extent of complicity of the petitioner in the alleged crime and the fact that co-accused who is similarly circumstanced with the petitioner has been granted pre-arrest bail by this court, we are inclined to extend similar privilege to the petitioner also.Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest the 2 petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and also be subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on further condition that he shall not enter the jurisdiction of Dhupguri Police Station while on bail except for the purpose of investigation and attending court proceedings and shall report to the Officer-in-charge of Jalpaiguri Police station once a week until further orders.The application for anticipatory bail is, accordingly, allowed.Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities.(Manojit Mandal, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) 3	['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
188,824,369	Heard on point of admission.This criminal revision is admitted for final hearing.Requisition record of the lower court.Also heard on I.A. No.9257/2015, which is an application under Section 397(1) read with Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of applicant-Ravi S/o Babusingh for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail.The applicant suffered conviction and jail sentence as under :-	['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
188,830,480	Through : Ms.Richa Kapoor, Adv.The case of the prosecution, as noticed by the trial court, is that on 30.10.2007 at about 5.30 p.m., ASI Mahender Singh of Police Station CRL.APPEAL NO.1100/2010 Page 1 of 26 Karol Bagh, Delhi, was patrolling on Padam Singh Road and when he reached near UTI Bank he saw two boys running out from Vaibhav Jewellers.They were being followed by Abhay Sharma, owner of Vaibhav Jewellers, whom ASI Mahender Singh knew being the Division Officer of the area, and Abhay Sharma was running and shouting "pakro pakro chaku maar kar bhag rahe hai".The said incident was seen by the public persons including one Rajesh and Montu, a parking attendant.ASI Mahender Singh ran towards the boys and overpowered one of them with the help of public persons whereas the other boy escaped from the spot.The boy, who was caught, was carrying a knife in his right hand and the same was taken from him.The said boy disclosed his name as Rakesh.Abhay Sharma fell near Vijaya Bank and he was rushed to hospital by a public person, namely, Rajesh.The boy, who was caught by ASI Mahender Singh, was given beatings by the public.In the meanwhile information was recorded in Police Station Karol Bagh vide DD No.28A at about 6.15 p.m. as per which HC Om Prakash of PCR gave a message regarding stabbing of a man with knife on Padam Singh Road, Karol Bagh.After the said information was recorded SI Satyabir Singh was informed for necessary action.H.S. Chauhan was also sent to the spot.H.S. Chauhan, SI Satyabir Singh and Ct.Rajbir Singh reached the spot and they learnt that the injured had been rushed to Jassa Ram Hospital.SI Satyabir Singh was left at the spot while Inspr.H.S. Chauhan along with Ct.Rajbir Singh reached Jassa Ram Hospital and obtained the MLC of injured Abhay Kumar Sharma, who was declared clinically dead."PW3 Rajesh deposed that on 31st day of a month in the year 2007 near Diwali festival he was present outside his shop no.6/84, WEA, Karol Bagh, Delhi and saw some persons running towards the market on the Ajmal Khan Road; some police man were also running towards that side; Abhay Sharma (deceased) was also running towards that side and Abhay Sharma was holding his neck with a handkerchief and was shouting "Pakro Pakro Mar dia mar dia"; Abhay Sharma fell down at a place little ahead of Vijaya Bank.He further deposed that he noticed that police had caught hold of a person; he went to the place where the deceased was lying down; he picked up and removed the injured to Jassa Ram hospital in a car.He further deposed that "while travelling, he (deceased) CRL.APPEAL NO.1100/2010 Page 10 of 26 had told me that the boy who had been caught had given him a knife blow on his neck.At the hospital, the doctor had declared Abhay Sharma brought dead".CRL.APPEAL NO.1100/2010 Page 10 of 26In his cross-examination by Ld defence counsel this witness deposed that the person who had been apprehended by the police was at a distance of about 20 yards from the deceased; the accused present in the court was the same person who had been apprehended by the public; infact he had seen the accused when he had passed him while running away; the accused jumped over two motorcycle which were parked there; there was only one police personnel who was chasing the accused; the police personal was deputed in their beat and was known to him by face and not by name; the car in which he had removed the deceased was passing by that side.He did not know the residential address of the deceased.In his cross-examination he further deposed that it had taken about 10 minutes in reaching the hospital which was less than 1 km from the place where the deceased had fallen down; he had rang up the police at number 100 before taking the injured to the hospital; he might have rang up the police at about 5.30 P.M; both the boys had run towards the same direction, but he had concentrated the accused only because the accused had jumped over one motorcycle and the other in order to escape; thereafter he had gone to help Abhay Sharma whom he had seen falling down on the ground.He did not see any weapon in the hands of the boys; police had met him in the hospital and from there they had come to the spot where his statement was recorded on 30/10/2007 at about 8.00 P.M; blood had spread over the place where Abhay Sharma had fallen.PW5 Manmeet Singh @ Montu has deposed that on 30/10/2007, he was working as a Parking Attendant at Padam Singh Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi; on that day at about 5:30 P.M, he Saw the accused present in the court, running away having a knife in his hand; the accused had come out of the shop M/s Vaibhav Jewellers located at Padam Singh Road and was being chased by the injured CRL.APPEAL NO.1100/2010 Page 11 of 26 who was shouting "Pakro, Pakro, Chaku Maar Ke Bhaga Hai".He further deposed that one ASI was also chasing the accused and the accused was apprehended at some distances by the said ASI and public and at that time also he was carrying a knife in his hand.In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness stated that he had stated whatever was seen by him and he was at a distance of about 25 yards when he had first seen, the accused who was running towards his side.He further deposed that his statement was recorded on the same day after about half hour and he had first seen the accused when the accused had come in front of the hotel where he was standing.He further deposed in his cross examination that accused was carrying the knife in his right hand but he did not notice whether the knife was stained with blood.CRL.APPEAL NO.1100/2010 Page 11 of 26PWI5 ASI Mahender Singh has deposed that on 30/10/2007, he was posted at Police Station Karol Bagh and at about 5:30 P.M when he was present opposite UTI Bank on the Padam Singh Road, he saw two boys running away who had come out of M/s Vaibhav Jewellers; those boys were being followed by Ahhay Sharma, the owner of M/s Vaibhav Jewellers who was crying "Pakro Pakro, chaku Maar Ke Bhag Rahe Hain'.He further deposed that he had apprehended the accused with the help of one Montu, a parking attendant and another person namely Rajesh; the accused who disclosed his name as Rakesh was having a blood stained knife in his right hand; he took away the said knife from the possession of the accused and Abhay Sharma, owner of M/s Vaibhav Jewellers had fallen down in front of M/s Vijaya Bank; Abhay Sharma was removed to hospital by aforesaid Rajesh; in the meanwhile SI Satbir alongwith Inspector H.S. Chauhan and Ct.Rajbir had reached the spot; he had handed over the blood stained knife recovered from the accused to inspector H.S. Chauhan who had taken the same into his possession vide memo Ex.PW14/X. He further deposed that the Inspector had prepared the sketch of the knife and had sealed it with the seal of SB and thereafter Inspector H.S. Chauhan had recorded his statement Ex.PWI5/A; the said statement was endorsed and Ct.Rajbir was sent to police station for registration of the case; Inspector H.S. Chauhan had prepared site plan Ex. PWI5/A at his instance and the crime team lifted earth control; blood stained earth from the spot vide memo Ex.PWI5/C; Inspector H.S. Chauhan had arrested the accused vide memo Ex.PWI5/D and conducted his personal search vide memo CRL.APPEAL NO.1100/2010 Page 12 of 26 Ex.PW15/E; the Investigating Officer had also recorded disclosure statement of the accused which is Ex.PWI5/F. He further deposed that another named accomplice Droniel was brought to Police Station Karol Bagh from Panchkula and he had told the Investigating Officer the correct name of accused as Rahul Kumar Raman Bhai Chaudhary and the accused admitted that he had given false name to the police.This witness further deposed that Investigating Officer had taken into possession the clothes worn by accused which were stained with blood and had correctly identified the knife as Ex.P1, T-Shirt Ex.P2 and Black Pants Ex. P3 stating that the same were worn by the accused at the time of his apprehension.CRL.APPEAL NO.1100/2010 Page 12 of 26In his cross examination by Ld defence Counsel, he has stated that he had seen two persons running away and one of them was the accused; on being apprehended the accused tried to confuse him by saying that there was another person with and he was not the real culprit; he was present in front of UTI Bank on Padam Singh Road from where M/s Vaibhav Jewellers might be at a distance of 100 yards; the accused was running towards Ajmal Khan Road.He further deposed that he had heard the cries of Abhay sharma; he had apprehended the accused while he was carrying the knife Ex.P1 in his right hand; he was on duty in the said division for the last one year and he knew the deceased by his name and the deceased was resident of Gurgaon; the knife was measured with the help of a scale at Padam Singh Road.PW1 Dr. Mirajul Haque Siddique, CMO Jassa Ram hospital deposed that on 30/10/2007 at about 6.10 P.M when he was working as CMO in RB.Seth Jassa Ram and Brothers hospital Karol Bagh Delhi, Abhay Kumar Sharma, 49 years old male was brought to hospital by Rajesh with the alleged history of cut injury throat region with sharp instrument at around 5.30 P.M at his shop in Karol Bagh as reported by the attendants; the patient was unconscious, bleeding from the throat region, clothes soiled with blood; on local examination, neck anteriorly incised wound 20 X5 cm upto muscle deep SCM (Left) cut (right) carotid cuts bleeding (right chest) 5 x 3 cm profusely, left thigh medially NW 25X 5 cm curved; the patient could not revive despite efforts and was declared dead.He has proved the MLC Ex. PW1/A and given his CRL.APPEAL NO.1100/2010 Page 13 of 26 opinion about the nature of injuries as dangerous at point-B on the ML Ex.PW1/A.P8 are seen.At about 5.30 p.m., when he was present opposite UTI Bank on the Padam Singh Road, he saw two boys running away who had come out of M/s Vaibhav Jewellers and those boys were being followed by Abhay Sharma, the owner of M/s Vaibhav Jewellers, who was crying "Pakro Pakro, chaku Maar Ke Bhag Rahe Hain'.PW-15 apprehended the appellant with the help of one, Montu, parking attendant and another person, namely, Rajesh.The accused disclosed his name as Rakesh.He had a blood stained knife (P-1) in his right hand.Knife was taken from him.The victim was removed to the hospital by Rajesh.The appellant was caught at the spot.Thereafter Inspr.H.S. Chauhan returned to the spot where ASI Mahender Singh handed over the appellant along with blood stained knife to him.Pursuant to the statement made by ASI Mahender Singh a case under Section 302/34 IPC was registered, post-mortem of Abhay Kumar Sharma CRL.APPEAL NO.1100/2010 Page 2 of 26 was conducted and dead body was handed over to his relatives.On the basis of the information given by the appellant, one, Droniel, whom the appellant named, was arrested from Panchkulla, who on seeing the appellant informed that his actual name is Rahul Kumar Raman Bhai Choudhary and he is a resident of Gandhi Nagar, Gujarat.The appellant made a second disclosure during Police custody stating that no other person except him was involved in the murder of Abhay Sharma, owner of Vaibhav Jewellers.A chargesheet was filed before the trial court.On 23.4.2008 a charge under Section 302 IPC along with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act was framed against the appellant.CRL.APPEAL NO.1100/2010 Page 1 of 26CRL.APPEAL NO.1100/2010 Page 2 of 26Counsel contends that the circumstances against the appellant have not been proved; the FIR was concocted; the investigation was tainted; three material witnesses, namely, ASI Mahender Singh (PW-15), Rajesh (PW-3) and Manmeet @ Montu (PW-5), who were the foundation of chain of circumstantial evidence, were unreliable and their evidence did not corroborate each other.Counsel further contends that the inquest report of the dead body does not bear the FIR Number and is, thus, rendered extremely suspicious and leads to the conclusion that the FIR is antedated and tailor made and registered after the preparation of the inquest report.In support of his submissions, reliance is placed by learned counsel for the CRL.APPEAL NO.1100/2010 Page 3 of 26 appellant in the case of Ramesh Baburao Devaskar and Others v. State of Maharashtra, reported at (2007) 13 SCC 501, more particularly para 18, wherein it has been held by the Supreme Court that a First Information Report cannot be lodged in a murder case after the inquest has been made.Para 18 reads as under:CRL.APPEAL NO.1100/2010 Page 3 of 26A First Information Report cannot be lodged in a murder case after the inquest has been held.The First Information Report has been lodged on the basis of the statements made by PW-11 to the informant himself at the spot.If the said prosecution witness who claimed himself to be the eye-witness was the person who could lodge a First Information Report, there was absolutely no reason as to why he himself did not become the first informant.The First Information Report was recorded on the basis of his information given to the first informant at the spot.All information given by him to PW-13 was made before the Investigating Officer himself.What prevented him from lodging the First Information Report is beyond our comprehension.PW-11, we may place on record, categorically stated that he had disclosed the details of information to all concerned.Therefore, it is expected that the first informant was informed thereabout.We have noticed hereinbefore that the information given by PW-13 had at least been recorded by the police in the Crime Register and he categorically stated a few facts, viz., the main accused Accused No. 9 committed murder of his brother Shivaji Patil and one Baburao Patil.Even the place where the murder took place was known to him.If we are to believe the investigating officer, he recorded the statement after holding inquest.The detailed report in regard to the nature of injuries as also the place where the injuries were inflicted was known to him as inquest report had already been prepared.Such an attempt on the part of the investigating officer has been deprecated by this Court in a large number of decisions.All other witnesses including the Panch witnesses must have been present there.If despite the same, according to Panch Witnesses, at least in respect of Baburao, unknown persons are said to be his assailants, it is evident that PW-11 did not disclose the names of the assailants; at least all of them before PW-9 as also the Investigating Officer."With regard to circumstance no.3 pertaining to apprehending the appellant CRL.APPEAL NO.1100/2010 Page 4 of 26 by complainant PW-15, Mahender Singh, with the help of PW-3, Rajesh, and PW-5, Manmeet Singh, it is submitted that the same has not been proved for the reason that in the examination-in-chief PW-3, Rajesh, and PW-5, Manmeet Singh, clearly testify that they witnessed the appellant being apprehended from a distance and they were not along with PW-15, Mahender Singh.Counsel, thus, submits that the manner in which the appellant was apprehended has not been established by the prosecution by the evidence of PW-3 and PW-5 and, thus, circumstance no.3 cannot be relied upon.With regard to circumstance no.4, which is recovery of blood stained knife, counsel for the appellant submits that the same cannot be relied upon for the reason that not a single independent public witness was involved at the time of recovery.It is further contended that although the knife was seized immediately after the appellant was apprehended on 30.10.2007 at 5.30 p.m. yet the same was sent for forensic examination after 24 days.In these circumstances, it would be extremely risky and hazardous to place any reliance on the recovery of the knife and, thus, circumstance no.4 cannot be relied upon.Counsel next submits that circumstance no.5, being the statement made by the deceased to PW-3, Rajesh, on the way to the hospital that "the boy who was running and apprehended by Police stabbed him by knife" is hearsay evidence and cannot be relied upon.Learned counsel for the appellant contends that circumstance no.6, relied upon by the prosecution, has not been established, as the said circumstance pertains to a disclosure statement made by the accused, which turned out to be false.CRL.APPEAL NO.1100/2010 Page 4 of 26With respect to circumstance no.7, learned counsel for the appellant submits that chance print relied upon by the prosecution, only one out of the six chance prints matched with the appellant and there was a delay of 69 days in sending the same for forensic examination.Thus, it would be CRL.APPEAL NO.1100/2010 Page 5 of 26 unsafe to place reliance on the forensic report with regard to the chance print.CRL.APPEAL NO.1100/2010 Page 5 of 26With regard to circumstance no.8 learned counsel for the appellant submits that the same only proves that the blood stained earth, blood on knife and blood on the clothes of the deceased matched and that by itself cannot be a circumstance leading to the inference that the deceased was stabbed by the appellant.It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution has failed to examine the owner/driver of the car in which PW-3, Rajesh, took the deceased to the hospital.The version of ASI Mahender Singh, complainant, that he apprehended the appellant with the help of PW-3, Rajesh, and PW-5, Manmeet Singh, is belied as in the examination-in- chief both these witnesses deposed that they saw the appellant being apprehended by PW-15 from a distance.Another contradiction, which have been pointed out by counsel for the appellant is that PW-3, Rajesh, had made a categorical admission in his cross-examination that he did not see any weapon in the hands of the appellant whereas PW-15, complainants version is that the appellant was running with a knife in his right hand which has not been corroborated by the evidence of PW-3, CRL.APPEAL NO.1100/2010 Page 6 of 26 Rajesh.Kumar has also contended that as per the evidence of PW-1 the patient was dead when brought to the hospital.Counsel, thus, contends that the deceased was not in a position to talk and, thus, he could not have made a statement to PW-3, Rajesh, that he was stabbed by the boy, who was running and apprehended by the Police nor he could shout while running behind the appellant.CRL.APPEAL NO.1100/2010 Page 6 of 26Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon Dandu Jaggaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported at (2011) 14 SCC 674 more particularly para 9 in support of his plea that in a case relating to circumstantial evidence motive is a strong circumstance which has to be proved by the prosecution whereas in this case the prosecution has failed to prove the motive.He was also distributing toffees, sweets etc. to the boys and girls.He was known for his affectionate and loveable conduct.CRL.APPEAL NO.1100/2010 Page 13 of 26In his cross-examination he has deposed that the patient was clinically dead at the time he was brought to the hospital; he did not know how the, patient was brought to the hospital.PW4 Dr. Vijay Dhankar, Sr.On examination he found following injuries on the body:(1) Cut throat injury 10 X 4 cms present over the left side of front of neck with neck structures exposed and clean cut margins.(2) Incised stab wound 5 X 2.5 cms with lung tissue protruding out present over the right side of front of chest 6 cms.From the midline and 3 cms from the right nipple.The margins were clean cut, upper angle was obtuse and lower angle acute.(3) Incised stab wound 2 X I X 4 cms present over upper part of left side of chest with clean cut margins and upper angle obtuse and lower angle acute.subcutaneous tissues, pectoral muscle, rib cage, enters the pleural cavity cuts the right lung and goes upto a 'depth of 7 cms.The direction was backwards, downwards and medially.Total depth of wound was 12 cms.CRL.APPEAL NO.1100/2010 Page 14 of 26(2) Injury no. 3 starts from the skin cuts through the subcutaneous tissues to a depth of 4 cms.In backwards, downwards and medical direction.(1) Neck-- the neck structures were cut beneath injury no.1 including larynx Sternocleidomastoid and other neck muscles.Chest cavity contained about 2000 ml of fluid and clotted blood on the right side.All injuries were ante-mortem, fresh and would he caused by one side sharp edged weapon.Injury no. I and 2 were sufficient, to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, individual as well as combined, lie further deposed that the clothes of the deceased which included a white shirt, a white vest, black pant, black leather belt, blue underwear and pair of socks were scaled alongwith a blood sample of gauge were handed over to the 10 alongwith the inquest papers.The post mortem report is proved as Ex. PW4/A.After examining the weapon of offence in co-relation to the injuries mentioned in the postmortem report he had given the opinion that injury no. 1 to 4 were possible with the knife sent to him for examination.His opinion in that regard is Ex.PW4/C. He has also identified the knife Ex. P1 stating that it was the same which was produced before him for giving opinion.In his cross-examination the doctor has deposed that the larynx cut is usually fatal.The person died due to haemmorhage.A question was put by Ld defence counsel as under:-CRL.APPEAL NO.1100/2010 Page 15 of 26"Question: The person shall become unconscious after receiving cut injury on the larynx as in this case?It is correct that such injury may cause suffocation and breathing problem.The vagal nerve branches are not always cut in a partial cut of larynx."Question: Once larynx is cut, negative pressure shall be built, air shall suck into larynx due to building of negative pressure and a person shall feel difficulty in speaking and breating?Answer: Once the larynx is cut there is no negative pressure, however, due to loss of pressure in the trachea the person may have difficulty in speaking and breathing.However, a person can even shout/cry in a loud voice with the injuries as is in the case.I cannot comment whether the cut on the larynx was below or above the vocal cord.however, even if there is a partial larynx cut below the vocal cord, the person can shout/cry in a loud voice."In his further cross-examination he has denied the suggestion that on receiving a partial cut on the larynx a person can only whisper.CRL.APPEAL NO.1100/2010 Page 16 of 26He clarified that if there is a large or complete cut on the larynx below the vocal cord, the person can only whisper and will not be able to shout/ cry.A person having injury no. 1 to 4 as in the present case, may survive for a variable period from few minutes to few hours and may be able to run and shout for a short distance.For how much time a person can survive after such injuries and what distance he can run depends upon person to person and is highly variable.He further deposed that all the wounds were clean cut incised wounds and there were no ragged margins or bruising.On side of the knife Ex P1 is blunt.On seeing the clothes of the deceased the doctor has correctly identified the same stating that the clothes were sealed and handed over to the IO at the time of postmortem examination and the same find mention in his report.He had not given opinion regarding cuts on the clothes of the deceased.During his cross-examination the shirt and pant Ex.P18 worn by the deceased were seen and it was observed that:-"Court observation:- The shirt and pant of the deceased Ex.The shirt is smeared totally with blood and is having cut marks on right side near the third button from the collar.The pant is also having cut on the left side between thigh to knee and is smeared with blood"."As far as the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant that FIR is antedated and tailor made and the same was registered after the preparation of inquest report is concerned, the same is without any force on account of the fact that inquest report does not bear the FIR number.Merely because the inquest report does not contain the FIR number that by itself cannot lead to the conclusion that the FIR is antedated.We find that the prosecution has carried out timely investigation and the FIR has been registered promptly.PW-17, Inspr.H.S. Chauhan, in his testimony has explained the entire procedure which would show that there was no delay in recording the FIR.PW-17 after reaching the spot had recorded the statement of ASI Mohinder Singh (Exhibit PW-15/A).He made his endorsement on the statement (Exhibit PW-17/A) and thereafter sent CRL.APPEAL NO.1100/2010 Page 17 of 26 Ct.Rajbir Singh with rukka to the Police Station for registration of the case.He also took possession of the knife and prepared the sketch.He has also explained that the blood lying on the spot was taken as a sample, the blood stained piece of floor, a piece of carpet and the earth controls were seized and they were converted into separate cloth parcels and sealed.The crime team had also reached the spot.PW-17 has also testified that Ct.Rajbir reached the spot after registration of the case and handed over a copy of FIR and rukka to him.Further in his testimony PW-17 has also deposed that he recorded the statement of the relatives of the deceased, the dead body was identified and thereafter he filled Form No.25.35 (1)(B) inquest papers (Exhibit PW-17/E).We find that there is nothing in the cross-examination, which would shake the testimony of this witness.CRL.APPEAL NO.1100/2010 Page 17 of 26As per the prosecution following circumstances against the appellant do not leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.Relevant portion reads as under:iii) Accused was apprehended by complainant with the help of one Rajesh and Manjeet Singh @ Montu (PW3 and PW5) while escaping after committing alleged offence.iv) Recovery of blood stained knife from hand of accused by complainant and followed by recovery of blood stained clothes worn by accused.v) Statement made by PW3 Rajesh that while removing deceased to hospital by car deceased told to PW3 Rajesh that the CRL.APPEAL NO.1100/2010 Page 18 of 26 boy who had been caught hold by police had stabbed the deceased.CRL.APPEAL NO.1100/2010 Page 18 of 26vi) Disclosure statements made by accused and recorded by two different IOs on the day of 30/10/2007 after apprehension by police and on 1/11/2007 during police remand.vii) Out of 6 chance prints taken by crime team just after incident had happened, one chance print is similar to specimen left hand palm print of accused.(viii) Blood stained earth controls, blood stained earth picked up from spot, blood on knife and the blood group found on clothes worn by deceased."The law with regard to conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence is well settled.His blood stained clothes were taken into possession.PW-15 has also deposed that public had given beatings to the appellant.We find that the defence has not been able to shake the evidence of this CRL.APPEAL NO.1100/2010 Page 19 of 26 witness in the cross-examination.His evidence was consistent that he apprehended the appellant with the knife in his right hand and the deceased was shouting "pakro pakro chaku maar kar bhag rahe hai" on 30.10.2007 at about 5.30 p.m.CRL.APPEAL NO.1100/2010 Page 19 of 26The material portion of the evidence of PW-15, ASI Mohinder Singh, stands duly corroborated by the evidence of two public witnesses i.e. PW- 3, Rajesh, and PW-5, Manmeet.PW-3, Rajesh, had deposed that Abhay Sharma, deceased, was running towards the market on the Ajmal Khan Road.Abhay Sharma was holding his neck with handkerchief and was saying "pakro pakro maar diya mar diya".He has fallen down at the place a little ahead of Vijaya bank and public had caught hold of a person and given beatings to him.PW-3 picked up the deceased who was lying down and removed him to Jassa Ram hospital in a car.While travelling, the deceased had told PW-3 that the boy who had been caught had given knife blow on his neck.In his cross-examination, PW-3 had deposed that the appellant present in the court was the same person who had been apprehended by the public; in fact he had seen the appellant as he had passed him while he was running away; the appellant had jumped over two motorcycle which were parked there.One police personnel was chasing the appellant who had been deputed in the Beat.He had concentrated on the appellant as he had jumped over the motorcycle and the other in order to escape.Thus, the evidence of this witness has fully corroborated the version of the complainant PW-15, Mahender Singh.23. PW-5, Manmeet Singh @ Montu, has stated that on 30.10.2007 at 5.30 p.m. he saw the appellant present in the Court, running away having knife in his hand and he had come out of the shop M/s Vaibhav Jewellers located in the Padam Singh Road.Appellant was being chased by the CRL.APPEAL NO.1100/2010 Page 20 of 26 injured who was raising a noise "pakro pakro chaku maar ke bhaga hai".An ASI was also chasing the appellant, who was apprehended at some distance by the said ASI and the public.At that time the appellant was carrying a knife in his hand.In his cross-examination PW-5 has deposed that he had not seen the appellant stabbing the injured and he had stated whatever was seen by him.He also deposed that he was at a distance of about 25 yards when he had seen the appellant who was coming and running towards his side.The appellant was carrying knife in his right hand but he did not notice whether the knife was stained with blood.Thus the presence of this witness and his deposition while corroborating the complainant, PW-15, stands proved from the deposition in his cross- examination.CRL.APPEAL NO.1100/2010 Page 20 of 26We are unable to agree with the argument of counsel for the appellant that evidence of PW-15 is unreliable as he is a police officer.We see no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW-15 and merely because he is a Police officer his evidence is not to be discarded.We find the evidence of PW-15 to be trustworthy and reliable.PW-3 had also deposed on the same lines that Abhay Sharma was holding his neck with a handkerchief and was shouting pakro pakro mar dia mar dia whereas different language has been used by different witnesses.The knife was recovered from him.Both PW-5 and PW-15 have testified to this effect.	['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.
1,888,327	ORDER Anil Dev Singh, J.W. 900/1999 & Crl.In the complaint it is stated that the officials of the Kuber Group of Companies approached the complainants & asked them to keep their personal savings as fixed deposits in the various schemes launched by the aforesaid Group.The further allegation in the complaint is that the officials of the Kuber Group of Companies persuaded them to influence their relatives and friends to keep their savings in fixed deposit schemes of Kuber Group of Companies.It is also averred that representations were made to the effect that the Kuber Group of Companies were doing extremely well.When the deposits were at the stage of maturity, the concerned office of Kuber was shut down at Buland Shahar.Since the complainants were not able to contact anyone at Buland Shahar, they approached the Head Office of the company at Greater Kailash.On 19.4.1999 a complaint was filed with the Police Station Greater Kailash I against Kuber Group of Companies and their officials.On the basis of the complaint an FIR was registered under Sections 406/409/420/120 IPC.The company handed over a few cheques to the complainants in lieu of the deposits but the cheques were dishonoured by the concerned bank(s) with the remark "funds not arranged for".Pursuant to the registration of the FIR, the petitioner, who is the wife of the Chairman of the various Kuber Group of Companies and a Director of Kuber Mutual Benefits Limited, which has its Registered Office in Kanpur was arrested and is in judicial custody.It is not disputed on either side that the FIR in the instant case has culminated in the filing of a charge sheet.The petitioner moved an application before the trial court for seeking bail.The Metropolitan Magistrate by his order dated 10.9.1999 granted interim bail to the petitioner for a period of one month on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of rupees one lakh with two sureties of the like amount for the purpose of enabling her to make efforts to make payment to the investors.In the meantime various Criminal Courts issued production warrants requiring her attendance in connection with the investigation of cases registered against her.Petitioner apprehending that she will not be released despite the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate dated 10.9.1999 granting interim bail to her, filed the instant writ petition for grant of the following reliefs:-"A. An appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India releasing the Petitioner from the custody of the respondents as she has been granted interim bail by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi in FIR No. 126/99 for the purposes of the effective implementation of the Scheme for the repayment to the investors and to supervise the disposal of the properties and disbursement of the money to all the investors.In reply to the petition, Sh.Kewal Singh, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Headquarters filed an affidavit.As per the affidavit, the Kuber Group had floated a number of companies for collecting money from the investors.Till date more than 739 complaints have been received against Kuber Mutual Benefits Limited, Kuber Planters, Kuber Build well Ltd., Kuber Auto General Finance & Leasing Ltd. and Kuber Media Ltd. in Crime Branch.	['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
188,832,759	Superficial and by hard and blunt object.Shri Vivek Singh, learned Counsel for the applicants.Shri C.S. Ujjania, learned Panel Lawyer for the non-applicant/State.2) Applicants- Ramesh Patel the then President Zilla Panchayat, Badwani, Gangaram Baghel S/o Ratansingh Bhilala, Kangress S/o Ramchandra Banjara, and Raisingh S/o Partap Balai are apprehending their arrest in Crime No. 110 of 2010, registered at police Station- Silawad, District- Barwani, under Sections 366, 376 (G), 506, 342, 354 and 509 of IPC.3) Brief facts of the case are that a written complaint dated 02.08.2010 was made by the prosecutrix against the present applicants to the Police Station-Rajpur which reads as under:-"Fkkuk izHkkjh egksn;] jktiqj] fjiksVZ fjiksVZdrkZ dh vksj ls%& dqekjh ^d^ firk Lo- gfj;k tejs mez 26 o"kZ tkfr fHkykyk /ak/kk ukSdjh lgk;d okMZu ckfydk Nk=kokl xzke es.khekrk cMokuh fuoklh xzke fyEcbZ Fkkuk jktiqj ftyk cMokuhA fjiksVZdrkZ lkeus ds yksx 1- jes'k firk pSuflag iVsy ftyk iapk;r v/;{k cMokuh fuoklh xzke lqLrh[ksMk] rsglhy cMokuh ftyk cMokuh 2- jk;flag cjMs /ka/kk bZ th ,l f'k{kd fuoklh xzke es.khekrk rsglhy cMokuh 3- dkxzsl firk jkepUnz fuoklh xzke es.khekrk rsglhy cMokuh 4- xaxkjke c?ksy tuf'k{kd fuoklh dkyh cSMh gkyeqdke cMokuh fo:) i{k izkFkZuk fjiksVZdrkZ dh vksj ls %& 1- eSa fjiksVZdrkZ ^d^ xzke fyEcbZ Fkkuk jktiqj ftyk cMokuh dh jgus okyh gwa rFkk eS ukSdjh djrh gwa rFkk xzke es.khekrk esa lgk;d okMZu ckfydk Nk=kokl esa gwa rFkk eSus ,e-, QkbZuy dh ijh{kk bl o"kZ nh gSA 2- ;g fd fnukad 31-01-2010 dks okj 'kfuokj dks jkr eSa yxHkx 12 cts lHkh fo:) i{k ds yksx jesa'k iVsy] jk;flag cjMs] dkxzsl vkSj xaxkjke c?ksy ckfydk Nk=kokl xzke es.khekrk es vk;s rFkk esjs fuokl LFkku dk njoktk [kqyok;k] lHkh yksxks us eq>s idMdj ckgj fudkyk vkSj dgus yxs fd jes'k iVsy dks [kq'k djks vkSj rqEgkjk thou lq/kj tk;sxk] jes'k iVsy ftyk iapk;r v/;{k gSA rqEgkjk izeks'ku gks tk;sxk] rqEgkjs lkFk jes'k iVsy laHkksx djuk pkgrs gS] rks eSusa euk fd;k fd eSa ,slk dke ugha d:xha rks ;s lHkh yksx esjk eqag nckdj eq>s tcju mBkdj ys x;s rFkk Nk=kokl ds ckgj okgu cksysjks ftl ij yky cRrh ij yxh gksdj ftyk iapk;r v/;{k dk cksMZ yxk gS ftldk uEcj ,e-ih- 46 ch-,- 4263 gksdj ml okgu ds vUnj eq>s tcju lHkh yksxksa us Mky fn;k vkSj jes'k iVsy ds gkFk es cMh canqd Hkh Fkh vkSj okgu dks fpdY;k xkao rjQ ys x;s] rFkk okgu ds yksxks us esjs lkFk NsM[kkuh dh] Nkrh nckbZ vkSj xanh xanh gjdrs dh mlds ckn jes'k iVsy us esjs lkFk cykRdkj djuk pkgk rks eSus fojks/k fd;k rks jes'k iVsy us eq>s ykrs ekjh vksj mlds ckn esjs gkFk iSj idMdj diMs mrkjs vkSj jes'k iVsy esjs lkFk cUnqd vMkdj cykRdkj [kksVkdke fd;k rFkk okgu esa lHkh fo:/ki{kh ds yksx lkFk es gksdj esjk etkd mMkrs jgs rFkk xaxkjke c?ksy cksyk dh esMe jes'k iVsy tSlk djs mls djus nks vkSj lHkh yksx eq>s jkr dks 3 cts rd okgu es a?kqekrs jgs vkSj dgus yxs fd fdlh ls crkuk er ojuk tku ls ekj Mkysxsa] eS jksrh jgh mlds ckn jkr dks tc xkMh jksdh rks esSa va/ksjs esa mrjdj es Hkkxh vkSj mlds ckn txay taxy Hkkxrh jgh gksdj cSMh ij gksdj jkr es gh xksbZ unh es xys xys ikuh es ls fudydj Hkkxh mlds ckn lqcg&lqcg iylqn ls 2&3 fd-eh nwj vkbZ ogka ls cl es cSBdj pkSrjh;k QkVs ij vkbZ mlds ckn iSny&iSny xzke fyEcbZ es vkbZ mlds ckn ?kj ij esjh eka [ksr ij xbZ Fkh rFkk esjk HkkbZ ?kj ij gh Fkk] eSa cgqr lgeh ,ao Mjh gqbZ Fkh 'kke dks esjh eka ?kj ij vkbZ rks eSusa iwNk HkkbZ dgk gS rks esjh eka us cksyk dh rsjk HkkbZ jkr es vk;sxk fQj lqcg esjs HkkbZ dks jfookj dks lkjh ckrs crkbZ essjs HkkbZ us cksyk fd buds f[kykQ dk;Zokgh djks fQj eSus Mj ds ekjs fjiksVZ ugh fd ijUrq ;s yks eq>s tku ls [kRe dj ldrs gSA bl dkj.k jkr esa va/ksj gksus ds dkj.k Nqi dj fjiksVZ djus vkbZ gwaA esjs firkth e`r gks pqds gSA lkeus ds yksx cgqr 'kfDr'kkyh vkSj igqap okys gS] buds f[kykQ 'kh?kz dk;Zokgh dh tkosA esjs iSjks esa dkVs Hkh pqHks gq, gS esjs gkFk vkSj iSj es Hkh pksVs gS esjs ifjokj dh vkSj esjh Hkh lqj{kk dh tkosA fjiksVZdrkZ dq- ^d^"4) The prosecutrix was sent for medical examination.Dr. Ramesh Chandra Choyal found following injuries on her person."(1) Abrasion over left elbow or 1" x 1".Simple in nature and by hard and blunt object within 2-3 days.(2) Abrasion over right & left knee of 2" x 2".(3) C/0 Blunt injury on back and chest.No external injury.Simple in nature caused by hard and blunt object."5) After completion of investigation, final report has been filed against the applicants.Considering the material on record, learned Special Judge has framed the charges against the applicants for the offences under Sections 366, 376 (2) (g), 307, 509, 354 and 506 of IPC and also under Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 46/196, 36/192 and 3/81 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The prosecution has examined 18 witnesses, including the prosecutrix and her brother Mayaram, but prosecutrix and her brother have turned hostile to the extent that no incident had taken place.6) On 03.01.2011 a petition, Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 905 of 2011, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed before the High Court stating that the prosecutrix and her brother were threatened and forced to give false evidence as no police protection was provided to them.7) This Court by order dated 10.2.2011 allowed the petition and directed the Special Judge that in case the prosecutrix files an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure within a week from the date of order, then Special Judge shall consider the application for re-examination of the prosecutrix.The Special Judge inspite of knowledge of the order dated 10.2.2011 proceeded with the trial in high haste manner and pronounced the judgment of acquittal in favour of the applicants on 28.2.2011, not only this he also directed to make an enquiry against the prosecutrix and if necessary file complaint against her for the offences under Sections 193 and 211 of IPC.9) On 28.10.2015 the Division Bench of this Court allowed the appeal of the State and directed the applicants to surrender before the Special Judge on 16.11.2015 and shall file the application for bail and then the Court shall consider it as per law.It also observed that in case they failed to appear before the Court on the given date, then for securing their presence, learned Special Judge shall be free to take recourse as per law against them.The applicants are also warned not to come in contact in any manner with the prosecutrix and her brother Mayaram till conclusion of the trial.10) Paras 18 to 24 of the order dated 28.10.2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1188 of 2011 is relevant which reads as under:-"[18] It was obligatory on the part of the learned Special Judge that when an application under Section 311 of the Code was filed before him, then he should have considered it in the light of the circumstances of the case and at least prosecutrix should have been given an opportunity to bring truth before the Court.Therefore, we direct that a copy of this order be sent to Principal Registrar (Vigilance), High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur with the direction that put up the matter before Hon'ble the Chief Juastice and then proceed further as per the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice in the matter.[20] The order of acquittal is not sustainable in law.Therefore, it is hereby set-aside and the case is sent back to the Trial Court for re- considering the application filed under Section 311 of the Code with the direction that after hearing the parties decide the application afresh in the light of the earlier order passed by this Court in Misc.[21] The Prosecuting Agency is directed to provide proper protection to the prosecutrix and her brother Mayaram so they may be able to depose truth before the Court.[22] The Respondents are directed to surrender before the Special Judge on 16.11.2015 and shall file the application for bail, then the Court shall consider it as per law.It is made clear that in case, any of the Respondents failed to appear before the Court on the given date, then for securing their presence, learned Special Judge shall be free to take recourse as per law against them.[23] Office is directed to sent the record of Trial Court along with copy of this order forthwith.A copy of this order be also sent to Superintendent of Police, Badwani for information and compliance.[24] With the aforesaid, this appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated above."11) It is submitted that the applicants came to know that the judgment had been delivered on 18.11.2015 and immediately on 18.11.2015 certificate copy was obtained and, therefore, they could not appear on 16.11.2015 before the learned Trial Court.On 21.11.2015 they filed an application for grant of anticipatory bail which has been rejected and against the rejection, present application for grant of anticipatory bail has been filed.13) Looking to the nature of the allegation made against the applicants and considering the fact that applicant No.1 is an influenced person and at the time of occurrence he was President of Zilla Panchayat, Barwani and inspite of clear direction they failed to mark their presence.14) As per case-diary the allegation against the present applicants prima facie is made available regarding their involvement in the alleged offence.15) On due consideration, no case for grant of anticipatory bail as prayed is made out.Accordingly, M.Cr.	['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 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.
1,889,267	JUDGMENT J.P. Mitter, J.Appellant Adwait Kumar Das was convicted under Section 409, Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another fortnightSometime before 28-4-1953, Postal Inspector P. W. 1, Nitish Chandra Bose, happened to inspect at the R.M.S. office some covers of the Alipore Post Office.His view was that some of the registered articles arid V. P. parcels emanating from the Alipore Post Office contained previously used stamps.Upon enquiry, it was learnt that the stamps in question had been issued by the appellant.Later that day, at about 3 p.m. the appellant was in fact caught red-handed while affixing a previously used stamp on a cover.As the registration clerk, the appellant was given a permanent advance of Rs. 50/- for purchase of stamps.This advance, according to evidence, was to remain with the registration clerk until he was succeeded by another clerk.According to evidence, a Postal Supervisor should occasionally check this advance.As a result of a check, shortly after the appellant was caught affixing a previously used stamp, only a sum of Rs. 30/5/- was found with the appellant.There was thus a shortage of Rs. 19/11/. As to this shortage, the appellant was unable to give any satisfactory explanation.The appellant's defence was that there was no shortage of stamps advance money during the period in question and that he was wholly innocent of the charge.Upon the evidence adduced at the trial the learned Judge of the West Bengal, 1st Special Court, Alipore, convicted the appellant and sentenced him as aforesaid.Originally the appellant was charged under Sections 262, 263 and 409, Penal Code.Upon an objection taken on the appellant's behalf at the concluding stage of the trial, the charges under Sections 262 and 263 were struck out.The trial upon the remaining charge under Section 409, I. P. C., was proceeded with after an amendment of that charge as to the time of the alleged occurrence.The appellant was called upon to plead to the amended charge which he did.The appellant was also allowed to cross-examine prosecution witnesses afresh.Mr. Nalin Banerjee on behalf of the appellant has contended that in view 01 the charges under Sections 262 and 263 having been struck out, the evidence in the case that the appellant was found affixing a used stamp on a cover should have been left out of consideration.The point as to the necessity of sanction to prosecute the appellant under Section 409, Penal Code, was abandoned before us.That there was a shortage to the extent of Rs. 19/11/- cannot possibly be questioned on the evidence in the case.That the appellant had a stamp advance of Rs. 50/- cannot also be challenged.That being so, the appeal fails and is dismissed.The appellant, who is on bail, must now surrender and serve out the sentence.	['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
188,929,880	Case diary is available.This is first application under Section 438 of CrPC for grant of anticipatory bail.The applicants apprehend their arrest in Crime No.386/2019 registered by Police Station Lahar, District Bhind for offence punishable under Sections 498 A, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant No.1 being brother-in-law(Jeth), the applicant No.2 father-in-law, and the applicant No.3 mother-in-law of the victim Manoj Kumari whose marriage was solemnized with Manoj on 16.05.2017, have been falsely implicated in this case.As per the allegations, on 23.07.2019 the applicants came to the house of the complainant and started abusing her and her family members.The report was lodged on 26.11.2019 on the basis of which FIR bearing crime No.386/2019 for the offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and 3 /4 of Dowry Prohibition Act has been registered against them.C. No.12238/2020 (Satyendra Singh and Ors.Per contra, counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the application and prays for its dismissal.C. No.12238/2020 (Satyendra Singh and Ors.	['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
188,945,575	Facts of the case, in short are that the complainant had lodged a criminal complaint against the accused Narendra Raghuvanshi and Manager of L & T Finance C. Limited that the complainant had purchased a Tractor amounting to Rs. 4,99,268/- from the accused Narendra Raghuvanshi on 01/03/2007 and on the advise of the accused Narendra Raghuvanshi, he applied for loan before the L & T Finance Co. Ltd. and he got the finance of Rs. 3,80,000/-.Thereafter, 3 Cr.R. No.482/2010 & Cr.R. No.657/2010 the lift, gear box and self starter of the Tractor were not functioning.Ultimately, the engine of the Tractor was seized.(Delivered on this Day of 11th May, 2016) Since both these revisions have arisen from the same order dated 25/05/2010 passed by 3 rd Additional Sessions Judge, Vidisha in S.T. No. 113/2010, the present order shall govern the 2 Cr.R. No.482/2010 & Cr.R. No.657/2010 disposal of both of these revisions.The applicant-accused of criminal revision No.482/2010 has filed the revision against the aforesaid order because by the aforesaid order charge of offence under section 420, 467 & 468 of IPC were framed against the applicant Narendra Raghuvanshi.In Cr.R. No. 657/2010, the applicant / complainant had filed the criminal revision against the aforesaid order because no charge of offence under section 471 & 120-B of IPC was framed against the accused Narendra Raghuvanshi and the accused No. 2 Manager of L & T Finance Co. Limited was discharged from the charge.The complainant got the Tractor examined by Chitransh Engineering and thereafter, the fact was discovered that a second hand (demo) Tractor was supplied to the complainant.On 03/05/2007, a report was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Vidisha.A complainant was also sent to the Managing Director of the Company.Ultimately, the complainant filed a criminal complaint for offence under sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 120-B r/w section 34 of IPC.I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.It would be apparent that initially Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vidisha vide order dated 03/12/2007 took cognizance in the case and registered a complaint case.A detailed order was passed by the CJM and thereafter the case was transferred to JMFC who directed to register the case vide order dated 4 Cr.R. No.482/2010 & Cr.The accused / applicant Narendra Raghuvanshi had challenged the order of registration of case before this Court under section 482 of Cr.P.C. in M.Cr.Under these circumstances, the order dated 03/12/2007 passed by the CJM became absolute for the purpose of taking cognizance in the case.The present revisions are filed relating to order of framing of charges.However, when petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant Narendra Raghuvanshi was withdrawn then in revision against the order relating to framing of charges, this Court should stand on the shoes of the trial court and defence documents cannot be considered at this stage.On the contrary, on the basis of that document, the complainant himself obtained some loan.Similarly, the document relating to satisfaction of the complainant was prepared.	['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 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.
188,954,304	At the conclusion of the trial, all the accused wereconvicted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148,302 read with 149 and 324 read with 149 of the IPC.They weresentenced as under :(i) For the offence punishable under Section 143 of the IPC, accused no.1 - Bablu Ramdas Shinde, accused no.2 - Vipul Ramdas Shinde, accused no.3 - Niranjan Subhash Nyamane, accused no.4 - Rohit @ Chiknya Prakash Nikam, accused no.5 - Rahul Prakash Nikam and accused no.6 - Ajay Suryakant Malge were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months a to pay fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five days.(ii) For the offence punishable under Section 147 of the IPC, each of the accused was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 days.(iii) For the offence punishable under Section 148 of the IPC, each of the accused was sentenced to suffer rigorousURS 4 of 27 ::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2018 23:37:23 ::: 5 APEAL 558-10 @ Others - Judgment.doc-202 imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 days.::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2018 23:37:23 :::(iv) For the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC, each of the accused was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 15 days.(v) For the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 149 of the IPC, each of the accused was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 15 days.Deceased Ajay Kamble and his younger brother VijayKamble were working for Lakhan Bhel House on commission basis atLucky Square, near Hutatma Garden, Solapur.Lakhan Bhel Housewas owned by one Narsing Sathe.Deceased Ajay and Vijay used tomove around in Hutatma Garden looking for customers.After takingtheir order, they used to collect the snacks from their stall and used toserve their customers.About two weeks before the incident dated04/05/2007, three boys had bhel and kachori from them but they hadrun away without paying for the same.Vijay made inquiries aboutthese boys and was told by one Amit Chotya who was working in anearby stall, that, names of two of them were Babu Shinde and VipulShinde.It is further the prosecution case that, on 04/05/2007, out ofthose three boys, Vijay noticed two boys and demanded the unpaidmoney from the previous occasion.Before referring to the evidence of the eye witnesses, itwould be advantageous to refer to the medical evidence led by theprosecution in the form of deposition of PW 14 Dr. Tipanna Kamble.This witness had conducted the post-mortem examination on the deadbody of the deceased and had found the following injuries :On internal examination, it was noticed by him that the heart wasperforated because of the stab injury.In the cross-examination, hehas admitted that Injury Nos.2 to 6 were simple in nature and thatthey were not the cause of death of the deceased.Thus, in effect, hisevidence shows that the deceased had suffered one major stab injurywhich had led to his death.He has further deposed that the boy who gave the firstblow to Ajay, gave another blow by knife on the left side of the chest.He has further deposed that the same boy again gave one more blowwith knife on Ajay's back.According to him, another boy wasassaulting Ajay by means of iron scale.He was not working in the vicinity.He just happened to pass from that area at the time when the incidenthad taken place.His conduct, after the incident, was not natural.Hehas admitted that he was knowing the deceased since childhood.Even then, he did not try to intervene or save him.Even assumingthat being scared he would not have intervened, but even thereafterhe did not go to police chowki to seek help.Navi Ves Police Chowkiwas located nearby.He had waited at the spot when the police hadarrived and even then, he did not disclose anything about the incidentto the police.His statement was recorded on 09/05/2007 and noexplanation is offered as to why he had not given his information tothe police for five days.Besides the pool of blood at the spot, he had noticed aknife without handle, a plastic chappal with bloodstains, steel tray,iron folding stool at the spot.He has described the location and thesurrounding locality of the spot.DATE :- 25 JUNE, 2018JUDGMENT (PER : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) :-These Appeals are preferred by different accused inSessions Case No.190 of 2007 on the file of the learned Ad-hocAdditional Sessions Judge, Solapur.Since all these Appeals areagainst the same Judgment and Order, all these Appeals are disposedof by this common Judgment.For the sake of convenience, theAppellants are referred to by their status as accused in the saidSessions Case.::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2018 23:37:23 :::All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.Theaccused were acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 504of the IPC and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.The prosecution case, in brief, is asfollows :::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2018 23:37:23 :::The accused nos.1 and 2 did notlike it.They threatened Vijay and gave a blow of a tray on Vijay'shead.There was a quarrel between these two accused and Vijay andhis brother Ajay.Thereafter, they left the place and came back around8.45 p.m. with 4 to 5 boys wielding weapons like knives.According tothe prosecution case, accused no.1 assaulted Ajay on his left abdomenURS 6 of 27 ::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2018 23:37:23 ::: 7 APEAL 558-10 @ Others - Judgment.doc-202and chest and some of them assaulted Vijay with knife, othersassaulted Ajay with kicks and fist blows and they left the spot.Somebody informed the police who removed Ajay to Civil Hospital.Vijay was taken for his own treatment.The stall owner Narsing Satheinformed Vijay regarding the names of the accused / assailants.Afterthe treatment from Civil Hospital, Vijay was taken to police stationwhere he gave his statement which was treated as FIR.The FIR wasregistered at Fauzdar Chawdi Police Station, Solapur, vide C.R.No.130of 2007, under Sections 302, 324, 323, 506, 143, 147 and 148 readwith 149 of the IPC and under Section 25(4) read 27 of the IndianArms Act and under Section 37(B)1 read with 135 of the BombayPolice Act. The investigation commenced.Different panchanamaswere conducted.Statements of different witnesses were recorded.Their clothes were seizedand the weapons were recovered at the instance of accused nos.1 and::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2018 23:37:23 :::After conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed.Thecase was committed to the Court of Sessions at Solapur for trial.During trial, the prosecution examined 20 witnesses.Thedefence of the accused nos.2 to 6 was of total denial.However, theURS 7 of 27 ::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2018 23:37:23 ::: 8 APEAL 558-10 @ Others - Judgment.doc-202accused no.1 took a defence that the deceased assaulted him andwhile defending himself, the injuries were caused to the deceasedAjay.After recording the evidence and the statements of the accusedunder Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the learned trial Judge passed hisimpugned Judgment and Order convicting and sentencing the accusedas mentioned earlier.::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2018 23:37:23 :::We havealso heard Mr. J. P. Yagnik, learned APP for State.With theirassistance, we have read the entire evidence and have gone throughthe record and proceedings of the case.Learned Counsel appearing for various Appellantssubmitted that PW 2 Vijay is not a truthful witness.::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2018 23:37:23 :::Therefore, false implication of the accused on his part cannot be ruledout.Admittedly, PW 2 Vijay was not knowing the other accused andtheir names were told by PW 8 Narsing.Similar is the case with PW 4Somnath.Even he was not aware of the names of the accused.SincePW 8 Narsing was declared hostile, neither of these witnesses isreliable.They further submitted that PW 3 Sunil was an interestedwitness being closely associated with PW 2 Vijay and deceased Ajay.His conduct is unnatural and his statement is recorded belatedly.Therefore, he is a got up witness.The recoveries from the accusedcannot be believed and the prosecution has failed to establish the linkbetween the offence and these recoveries, including the seizure ofclothes.On the other hand, the learned APP submitted that there isno reason to disbelieve the evidence of the eye witnesses.Theirpresence at the spot was natural.PW 2 Vijay himself being an injuredeye witness, his evidence inspires confidence.The learned APPfurther submitted that the prosecution case is based on direct evidenceand the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt andtherefore, the impugned Judgment ought not be interfered with.::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2018 23:37:23 :::The prosecution case is based mainly on the evidence ofthe eye witnesses, PW 2 Vijay Kamble who himself suffered injuries inthe incident.Vijay was the brother of the deceased and had lodgedthe FIR.PW 3 Sunil Gaikwad, PW 4 Somnath Sonawane and PW 8Narsing Sathe were the other eye witnesses.PW 8 Narsing Sathe wasowner of Lakhan Bhel House which was a stall on a handcart.PW 8had allegedly given names of the assailants to PW 2 Vijay.However,this witness PW 8 Narsing Sathe did not support the prosecution andwas declared hostile.The prosecution case heavily relies on theirevidence and therefore, their evidence needs to be scrutinizedcarefully.(1) Stab injury on left side of chest, 8 cm below and medially of left nipple 3 cm X 1 cm X cavity deep,URS 10 of 27 ::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2018 23:37:23 ::: 11 APEAL 558-10 @ Others - Judgment.doc-202 (2) Another stab injury on back side 5 cms from the vertebral column to left side at renal region 1 cm X ½ cm X skin deep, (3) CLW over scalp at left parietal region 2 cms from central line, 1.5 cm X 1 cm X scalp deep, (4) CLW to right shoulder 1 cm X ½ cm X ½ cm, (5) Abrasion linear scratch 3 cms on right scapular region, (6) A curved scratch line abrasion 11 cms on left scapular area towards left axilla.::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2018 23:37:23 :::PW 2 Vijay Kamble was the first informant and an injuredeye witness.According to him, he and the deceased Ajay wereworking on commission basis for Lakhan Bhel House and used toscout for the customers in Hutatma Garden.He has narrated that,URS 11 of 27 ::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2018 23:37:23 ::: 12 APEAL 558-10 @ Others - Judgment.doc-202about two weeks prior to the incident dated 04/05/2007, three boyshad taken snacks from them, but had not paid for the same.Therefore, PW 2 and Ajay had to pay Rs.25/- out of their own pocketfor these snacks.PW 2 has deposed that on inquiries made by him, hecame to know from one Amit Chotya who was working with a nearbyJai Bhavani Bhel House that names of two persons out of three, wereBablu Shinde and Vipul Shinde.PW 2 has further deposed that on04/05/2007, he and Ajay had come for their job at about 4.00 p.m.While they were on their job, PW 2 saw the accused nos.1 and 2 in thegarden and therefore, immediately confronted them and demandedthe unpaid amount.At that time, a quarrel ensued and both theaccused nos.1 and 2 threatened him.The accused no.1 snatched atray from a boy named Amit and gave a blow with that tray on PW 2'shead.At that time, boththe accused threated Ajay and left the spot.At about 8.45 p.m., boththe accused nos.1 and 2 came there with 4 to 5 boys wieldingweapons.The accused no.1 was having a knife and the accused no.2was holding an iron scale.PW 2 has further deposed that the accusedno.1 gave a blow of knife on the left abdomen of Ajay and a blow onthe left side of the chest.In the meantime, one of the accusedURS 12 of 27 ::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2018 23:37:23 ::: 13 APEAL 558-10 @ Others - Judgment.doc-202assaulted PW 2 on his right shoulder.According to him, the personwho gave a blow on his shoulder was the accused no.3 Niranjan.Theaccused no.6 gave a blow with an iron stool lying nearby on the headof the deceased.PW 2 has further deposed that he first rushed to thehandcart of his cousin Kisan Kamble but Kisan was not there andtherefore, he came back to Lakhan Bhel House.At that time, he sawAjay was lying in a pool of blood with a sharp edged iron knife lyingnearby.It is PW 2's case that he asked the stall owner Narsing Sathethe names of the boys who had assaulted him and Ajay and at thattime, Narsing told him names of the six accused.According to PW 2,out of them he was knowing the accused nos.1, 2 and one AmitChotya.Ajay was taken to Civil Hospital, Solapur and police took PW2 to the hospital for his treatment.After his treatment, he wasbrought to the police station where his statement was recorded andwas treated as FIR.In his cross-examination, he has admitted that there were other stalls in andaround that area.There was a rickshaw stop and in short, it was acrowded locality around that time.He has deposed in his cross-examination that Fauzdar Chawdi Police Station was at some distanceand it took half an hour to reach there walking.He did not know atURS 13 of 27 ::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2018 23:37:23 ::: 14 APEAL 558-10 @ Others - Judgment.doc-202what time police officers had come to the hospital who had recordedhis complaint.He further admitted that the incident was witnessed bysome handcart owners.On behalf of the accused no.1, a specificsuggestion was given to this witness that deceased Ajay was trying tostrangulate the accused no.1 and the accused no.1 had to protecthimself.When the accused no.1 tried to protect himself, PW 2 andAjay sustained injuries.Of course, this witness has denied thissuggestion.::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2018 23:37:23 :::::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2018 23:37:23 :::::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2018 23:37:23 :::The prosecution has examined PW 16 Dr. PradipKaryakarte who had examined PW 2 for his injuries and had treatedhim.According to h im, PW 2 had suffered the following injuries :(1) Incised wound on right shoulder blade 6 inch X 1/4 inch X 1/5 inch sharp pointed object, fresh, nature simple, (2) Incise wound on left hand thumb palmer aspect - size of injury was 1/4 inch.Both these injuries were described as simple injuries.The prosecution has examined PW 4 Somnath Sonawaneas one of the eye witnesses to the incident.He used to sellURS 14 of 27 ::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2018 23:37:23 ::: 15 APEAL 558-10 @ Others - Judgment.doc-202groundnuts at Lucky Square in front of Hutatma Garden.He wasknowing that Narsing Sathe was the owner of Lakhan Bhel House.Hewas also knowing the deceased Ajay and his brother PW 2 Vijay.These two used to reside near this witness's house.This witness usedto sell groundnuts at that spot till around 10.30 p.m. He hasdescribed the incident and has deposed that at about 8.45 p.m., 7 to 8persons with knife and iron scale had gone to Lakhan Bhel House.One of the young boys gave a blow of knife to the deceased Ajay.When Vijay caught the knife, another young boy gave a knife blow onhis shoulder.He has further deposed thatone of the boys then picked up an iron stool which was normally usedby this witness and hit Ajay on his head with the same.The otherboys were assaulting by fists and kicks.The boy who had assaultedVijay, threw the knife at the spot and then all of them left together.Thereafter, police came and made inquiries.He informed them thatthe iron stool belonged to him.Importantly, this witness hasURS 15 of 27 ::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2018 23:37:23 ::: 16 APEAL 558-10 @ Others - Judgment.doc-202categorically deposed that he made inquiries with PW 2 Vijay.He has further deposed that theaccused no.1 had given a blow of knife to the deceased Ajay and theaccused no.3 Niranjan had assaulted Ajay with knife.The accusedno.2 Vipul had assaulted Ajay with an iron scale and the accused no.6Ajay Malge had assaulted the deceased Ajay with an iron stool.Theother accused assaulted Ajay by fist and kick blows.He has furtherreiterated in his deposition that all these names of the accused weredisclosed to him by PW 2 Vijay and PW 8 Narsingh.In his cross-examination, he has stated that the police recorded his statement on05/05/2007 at about 2.30 p.m. Surprisingly, in his cross-examination, he has described the accused nos.4 and 5 by their namesand has deposed that they were brothers of one Ravi Nikam.He has further admitted that hehad affection for the deceased Ajay and PW 2 Vijay.::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2018 23:37:23 :::::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2018 23:37:23 :::PW 8 Narsing Sathe has not supported the prosecutioncase and was declared hostile.According to him on the date of theURS 16 of 27 ::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2018 23:37:23 ::: 17 APEAL 558-10 @ Others - Judgment.doc-202incident, he had closed his business at about 7.30 to 8.00 p.m. andhad gone to answer nature's call.When he came back, he saw thatAjay was lying on the road.Apart from that, he pleaded ignoranceabout the incident.Thus, the PW 8 has not supported the version ofthe PW 2 that the names of the assailants were supplied by him.::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2018 23:37:23 :::Thus, reading the evidence of PW 2, PW 4 and PW 8, it isclear that PW 2 was not knowing anybody except accused nos.1 and 2.PW 4 Somnath has admitted that the names of the accused were givenby PW 8 Narsing and PW 2 Vijay.Therefore, it was absolutelynecessary for the investigating agency to have held an identificationparade to enable these witnesses to identify the suspects at theearliest.Insofar as the evidence of these witnesses is concerned, theidentification of the assailants is the most crucial aspect where theprosecution has failed to establish the identity of the accused, exceptthat of the accused nos.1 and 2 who were known to PW 2 Vijaybecause of the earlier incident of non-payment of money.Theevidence of PW 4 Somnath is, in any case, not reliable.In that case, he should have clearly stated so while attributingroles to the accused and there was no necessity for him to inquire withPW 2 and PW 8 regarding the identity of the assailants.::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2018 23:37:23 :::Insofar as the evidence of PW 3 Sunil is concerned, theprosecution has relied on his evidence as he has claimed to be one ofthe eye witnesses to the incident.He was knowing the deceased Ajayand PW 2 Vijay.He used to do labour work.When he was returninghome and when he was near Hutatma Garden, he noticed the crowdin front of Lakhan Bhel House.He has deposed that he had seen theaccused nos.1 to 3 and other 2-3 boys assaulting Ajay and Vijay byknife and iron scale.He has identified all the accused before theCourt.He has deposed that the accused no.1 had assaulted Ajay withknife and accused no.3 assaulted Vijay on his right shoulder.He hasfurther deposed that the accused no.2 also gave a blow of iron scaleon the head of Ajay and the accused no.6 assaulted Ajay on his headwith an iron stool.The others were assaulting by fist and kick blows.::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2018 23:37:23 :::Thus, he has described the incident in detail naming all the accusedand ascribing roles to them.This witness has admitted in his cross-examination that he was knowing the deceased Ajay and PW 2 Vijayfrom childhood and they used to reside at the backside of his house.He has admitted that after the police camethere, he had gathered sufficient courage but still he had not informedthe police about witnessing the incident.Looking at these infirmities,we are not inclined to place reliance on his evidence.::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2018 23:37:23 :::Apart from this direct evidence, the prosecution has triedto rely on corroborative pieces of evidence in the form of recovery ofweapons and seizure of clothes worn by the accused at the time of theincident.Besides the Investigating Officers, the prosecution hasexamined PW 1 Siddhu Shivsharan to prove various panchanamas ofseizure.This witness was a panch for different panchanamas.On04/05/2007 at about 11.45 p.m., he was called for conducting spotpanchanama.In the presence of this witness, PW 2had produced his clothes.On 05/05/2007 at about 6.30 p.m. in hispresence, arrest panchanama of accused nos.1, 2 and 3 was preparedand their clothes were seized.On 09/05/2007 at about 5.30 p.m., hewas again called to the police station.According to him, the accusedno.1 made a statement that he was willing to show the place where hehad concealed the knife used in the incident.After completing theformalities of writing the memorandum statement between 5.45 p.m.to 6.0 pm., the police party and this witness was led by the accusedURS 20 of 27 ::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2018 23:37:23 ::: 21 APEAL 558-10 @ Others - Judgment.doc-202no.1 near Indira Kanya Prashala.The accused led the panchas andthe police to a public lavatory and produced a knife from the roof ofthe lavatory.The same was seized by the police.On the same day, aniron scale was recovered at the instance of the accused no.2 from hishouse.On 12/05/2007, clothes of accused no.6 were seized from hishouse in the presence of this witness.However, the knife waskept by the accused no.1 on the upper side of the public lavatory.Thoughthere is a CLW on scalp, the evidence shows that the deceased wasassaulted on his head with an iron stool and there is only one injuryon the head.Therefore, that injury could not have been caused bothby the iron stool and the iron scale.::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2018 23:37:23 :::::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2018 23:37:23 :::Except the evidence of PW 3, PW 4 and PW 5 as the eyewitnesses and PW 1 as the panch for recovery of weapons, the rest ofthe depositions of other witnesses are not very material.Most of thesewitnesses are panchas for various panchanamas viz. arrest of accused,seizure of their clothes, seizure of clothes of the deceased, etc. PW 17PSI Rajaram Nale, PW 18 API Kaluram Dandekar, PW 19 PI GajananHuddedar and PW 20 Sr.PI Kashinath Umbarje had conducted theinvestigation in different parts.::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2018 23:37:23 :::There is no reason todoubt his evidence insofar as the identity of the accused nos.1 and 2 isconcerned.According to him, he came to know about their namesabout 15 days before the incident of murder.Admittedly, the PW 2had reason to hold grudge against these two accused.On the date ofthe incident also, it was the PW 2 who had initially confronted thesetwo accused.According to him, thereafter these two accused cameback with other accused and the assault took place.PW 2 has notascribed any role to the accused no.2 in assault on the deceased.According to him, the accused no.2 was carrying an iron scale, whichcan hardly be described as a deadly weapon.The accused no.1 hastaken a specific defence that the deceased Ajay tried to assault himand sensing danger, in retaliation by the accused no.1, the deceasedhad suffered the fatal injury.He has specifically stated in hisstatement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. as under :"On 4/5/2007 at about 7-30 p.m. when I was proceeding towards Employment Exchange Chowk, near Hutatma garden, both Ajay and Vijay Kamble met me.They both started assaulting me.Ajay caught hold of my neck.Vijay was bringing a knife of Bhelwala handcart to implict injuries & assault me.I pushed Ajay away.With a viw to save my life, when I was moving a knife, which I hadURS 23 of 27 ::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2018 23:37:23 ::: 24 APEAL 558-10 @ Others - Judgment.doc-202 taken from handcart of Bhelwala, it mistakenly struck to Ajay.I had no enmity with Ajay.Report lodged against me is false.I had not gone to ear Bhel prior to that day.There was a container (kadas) having not oil.They both were pushing me.I was pushing them.Mistakenly knife in my hand struck Ajay.I had no intention to assault them (both the brothers).Other accused were not present there."::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2018 23:37:23 :::The PW 2had confronted these two accused at the first instance.Therefore, weare inclined to give benefit of doubt to the accused no.1 of Exception4 and the Explanation thereunder as mentioned under Section 300 ofthe IPC which reads thus :"Exception 4.-- Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without theURS 24 of 27 ::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2018 23:37:23 ::: 25 APEAL 558-10 @ Others - Judgment.doc-202 offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2018 23:37:23 :::Explanation.-- It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault."Since the blow was given on the chest, the intentionmentioned in first part of Section 304 can be attributed to him.Thus,we are of the opinion that the accused no.1 has committed an offencepunishable under Section 304 (Part-I) of the IPC.The fact that theaccused no.2 had not carried a deadly weapon and had not taken partin actual assault on the deceased shows that he did not share thecommon intention with the accused no.1 and therefore, the accusedno.2 deserves benefit of doubt.The other accused are not foundguilty because their identity is not established and the evidence of PW3 is not acceptable.With the above observations, we pass thefollowing order.::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2018 23:37:23 :::Appeal Nos.558 of 2010, 478 of 2010, 486 of 2010 and963 of 2010 are allowed.Appeal No.569 of 2010 is partly allowed.The order of conviction and sentence against theAppellants / original accused nos.2 to 6 under Sections 143, 147, 148,302 read with 149 and 324 read with 149 of the IPC is quashed andset aside.The said accused are acquitted of the charges chargedwith.The accused nos.3 and 6 are directed to be set at libertyforthwith if not required in any other case.The bail bonds of accused nos.4 and 5 shall standdischarged.The order of conviction against the accused no.1 for theoffence under Section 302 of the IPC is turned into that under Section304 (Part-I) of the IPC.The accused is sentenced to suffer rigorousimprisonment for ten years for the said offence.The rest of the orderregarding fine insofar as the accused no.1 is concerned, is maintained.::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2018 23:37:23 :::The accused no.1 has already undergone a sentence ofalmost 11 years.He is, therefore, directed to be set at libertyforthwith if not required in any other case.In view of disposal of Criminal Appeal No.486 of 2010,Criminal Application No.1535 of 2016 also stands disposed of.::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2018 23:37:23 :::	['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
188,961,749	CRM No. 7397 of 2018 Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 6th September, 2018 in connection with Rejinagar Police Station Case No. 154 of 2018 dated 24.6.2018 under Sections 376/417/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re:- Nabab Ali Sk.In addition, the petitioner will also report to the Investigating Officer at such time and place as may be specified by the concerned police officer A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2	['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
18,896,301	Heard finally.This is the first bail application filed by applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested on 25/12/2011 in connection with Crime No. 459/11 registered at P.S. Lavkush Nagar, District Chhatarpur for the offence punishable under sections 302, 302/34 and 307/34 of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case.It is further submitted that a counter case u/s 307/34 of IPC is also registered against the complainant party arose from same incident.Complainant Suresh lodged the report and stated that this applicant and his brother Dhiru assaulted the deceased Kamlesh by using an axe.Deceased Kamlesh sustained only one injury on his vertex and thereby he succumbed to the said injury.It is submitted that if two persons were assaulted Kamlesh then there may be two injuries on his head but only one injury has been found on the body of Kamlesh.Trial would take considerable time to dispose of finally therefore, he prays for bail to the applicant.Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.I have perused the case diary alongwith the statement of Suresh.Suresh also got injured in the incident and sustained two incised wounds however, only one injury was found on the body of deceased but at this stage it cannot be meticulously appreciated.Accordingly, this application filed u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail is hereby dismissed.	['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.
18,896,973	pk CRM No. 6889 of 2015 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 24.07.15 in connection with Chapra P.S. Case No. 376/15 dated 7.6.15 under Sections 447/325/326/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of:- Kalachand Ghosh & Ors.447/325/326/34 of the Indian Penal Code have come to this court for anticipatory bail.In the event of arrest, the petitioner nos. 1, Kalachand Ghosh, 3, Durga Ghosh and 4, Santu Ghosh shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer upon furnishing a Bond of Rs. 5,000/- each on condition that after release they shall surrender before the regular court within four weeks thereafter.This order is subject to the conditions as laid down in sub- section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Malay Marut Banerjee, J)	['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
18,897,292	The proceedings recorded in the wake of the said directions shall be noted later at appropriate stage in the course of this judgment.It is essential to take note of the background facts before proceeding further.The prosecutrix (PW-2) is the daughter of the elder brother of the appellant, she being one of the five siblings which include two brothers and two sisters, her father concededly having two brothers including the appellant, he living in a separate accommodation.The prosecutrix concededly was 21 years' old on the date of FIR (Ex. PW1/B) being registered at her instance and on her complaint (Ex. PW1/A) in the police station, it being part of the rukka which contains endorsement (Ex. PW13/A) of SI Devinder Kaur (PW-13), the investigating officer (IO).The prosecutrix was taken by the parents to nearby railway hospital where her medical examination statedly brought to light the pregnancy.The medical examination confirmed that she was carrying a fetus of about two months' duration when the complications had begun, it being also confirmed by the examining doctors that the prosecutrix had consumed some medicine on the previous day (i.e. 05.06.2016), the bleeding having eventually led to miscarriage.The record of the medical examination of the prosecutrix was proved at the trial through two medical officers i.e. PW-4 (Chief Gynaecologist) and PW-5 (Assistant Divisional Medical Officer), they having, inter alia, referred in the course of their testimony to the medico-legal certificate (Ex. PW2/A), casualty card (Ex. PW4/A) and indoor treatment file (Ex. PW4/B).The pregnancy was confirmed with the help of urine pregnancy test kit.Pertinent to note here that Crl.The matter was entrusted initially to SI Raj Kumar (PW-10) who reached the hospital, accompanied by HC Manoj.As per the version of the said police official (PW-10), he had found the prosecutrix admitted in the hospital against MLC but she Crl.Provided further that in cases of acid attack a sum of Rs. One lakh shall be paid to the victim within 15 days of the matter being brought to the notice of SLSA/DLSA.The order granting interim compensation shall be passed by the SLSA/DLSA within 7 days of the matter being brought to its notice and the SLSA shall pay the compensation within 8 days of passing of order.Thereafter an additional sum of Rs.2 lakhs shall be awarded and paid to the victim as expeditiously as possible and positively within two months.(emphasis supplied)The guidelines provided in (clauses 12 and 13 of) the first Part of the Delhi Scheme are mutatis mutandis similar to those quoted (from the second Part) above.Original fixed deposit receipts be retained by the bank in safe custody.However, the statement containing FDR(s) number, FDR(s) amount and date of maturity be furnished to the beneficiary.The maturity amount of the FDR(s) be credited in the above account of the beneficiary.No loan, advance or pre-mature discharge of the FDR(s) would be permissible without the permission of this authority.xxx In this, child who has been born out of relationship between the prosecutrix and Rajesh Kumar is the victim, as the said child has acquired the status of being illegitimate for no fault of her and at the same time, said child will suffer various hardships including emotional and mental trauma on account of lack of care and protection which would have been otherwise provided by a father in case she was a legitimate child.(emphasis supplied)This criminal appeal assailing conviction on charge of rape, notwithstanding the testimony of the prosecutrix conceding the relationship to be consensual, has led to revelation of a pattern of irresponsible exercise of jurisdiction vis--vis victim compensation scheme necessitating measures to be taken so as to curb misuse of public money.The appellant was brought to trial in the court of Sessions (case no.28940/2016) in the wake of report (charge-sheet) under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC) dated 23.08.2016 submitted by the Station House Officer (SHO) of police station Pahar Ganj upon conclusion of investigation into first Crl.Appeal No.187/2018 Page 1 of 67 information report (no.247/2016), on the accusations of his complicity in certain acts of commission or omission, the same statedly constituting offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and (f), 313 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).The Additional Sessions Judge presiding over the trial, by his judgment dated 27.12.2017, held the appellant guilty and thus convicted him, as charged, for the said offences.Appeal No.187/2018 Page 1 of 67By order dated 06.01.2018, sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs.2,000/- was awarded as the punishment for offence under Sections 376(2)(n) and (f) and Section 313 IPC respectively.In addition to this, the trial judge also awarded imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.2,000/- for offence under Section 506 (Part-I) IPC.The order on sentence further directed that in case of default in payment of fine, the appellant would undergo simple imprisonment for one year on the first three counts and simple imprisonment for six months on the last count.The benefit of set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC) for the period of detention already undergone was also accorded.The trial court, accepting the application of Delhi Commission for Women (DCW), further directed the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) as compensation to the prosecutrix.Feeling aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment of conviction, and order on sentence, the appeal at hand was filed alongwith an application for suspension of sentence.Appeal No.187/2018 Page 2 of 67According to the allegations made in the FIR, registered on 08.06.2016, which were reiterated by her (PW-2) in her statement under Section 164 Cr. PC (Ex. PW2/B) before the Metropolitan Magistrate (PW-12) on 10.06.2016, the incident which became subject matter of the charge of rape (as framed against the Crl.Appeal No.187/2018 Page 3 of 67 appellant) had occurred on the day of the Holi festival in 2016 (described in the charge-sheet as 23.03.2016).By all accounts, including the material gathered during investigation, also medical examination of the prosecutrix by Dr. Smita Datta (PW-4) and Dr. Chhavi Gupta (PW-5), as indeed the version of her father (PW-3), the prosecutrix was a girl who was major having attained the age of consent on the crucial date.Appeal No.187/2018 Page 3 of 67Appeal No.187/2018 Page 4 of 67 the gynaecologist (PW-4) in her clinical notes recorded at 1.40 a.m. on 06.06.2016 (Ex. PW4/A) also indicated that the prosecutrix had been "changing statement" and had also admitted that she had taken a pill on the previous day, it not being the case that any medicinal tablet was administered forcibly.The prosecutrix herself confirmed to the examining doctor that the pregnancy was the end-result of coitus in which she was engaged about two months' prior to this visit to the hospital, the excessive bleeding resulting in the mis-carriage (described as incomplete abortion) being apparently an event triggered by consumption of the pill.During the treatment, part of the placenta and detached cord with membrane were removed from the uterus, the said biological exhibits having been handed over by PW-4 to the IO on her formal request (Ex. PW4/C), the same described in the proceedings as "product of conception" having been deposited initially in the Malkhana (vide Ex. PW11/A), as proved by the Moharrar (Malkhana) ASI Jal Singh (PW-11), and would eventually reach the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), the result of examination whereof is inconsequential on all important issue of consent.Appeal No.187/2018 Page 4 of 67Appeal No.187/2018 Page 5 of 67 was reportedly not in a condition to give her statement.He returned and lodged DD entry no.63B, keeping the matter pending.He paid another visit to the hospital on the next day and tried to record the statement of the prosecutrix but was told by her that she would give her statement only after her father had reached the hospital.The matter was thereafter inquired into by PW-13, the investigating officer.Appeal No.187/2018 Page 5 of 67As per the endorsement (Ex. PW13/A), the prosecutrix was then still under treatment as an indoor patient in the same hospital.In her version in the FIR, the prosecutrix stated that on the date of the Holi festival in 2016 (23.03.2016), she was alone at home in the evening hours when the appellant, her Chacha (younger brother of her father), came there at about 5.30 p.m. She told the IO in the FIR that the appellant had tried to force himself on her without her consent and would not deter even though she had refused to cooperate.She stated that, out of modesty and fear, she had not disclosed this incident to anyone.She further stated that she had become pregnant on account of the said sexual intercourse and when she had disclosed the pregnancy to the appellant, he had asked her to abort.She also stated that on 05.06.2016 in the morning, the appellant had brought some pill which she had been asked to consume stealthily.She stated Crl.Appeal No.187/2018 Page 6 of 67 that she had started bleeding immediately thereafter and had disclosed the facts to her mother who took her to the hospital.It was further recorded in her statement forming the basis of the FIR that she had discarded and thrown out all the clothes which she was wearing at the time of the sexual intercourse because they had become soiled.Appeal No.187/2018 Page 6 of 67On the request (Ex. PW12/A) of the investigating officer (PW-13), the prosecutrix (PW-2) was examined under Section 164 Cr.The said statement has been proved by the Metropolitan Magistrate (vide Ex. PW2/B), it also having been referred to during the deposition of the prosecutrix (PW-2) at the time of her court testimony.In the said statement (u/s. 164 Cr. PC), the prosecutrix reiterated that she had become pregnant on account of sexual intercourse in which she had been engaged by her Chacha (the appellant), she stating that this was without her consent.She further added in the said statement (before the Metropolitan Magistrate) that after the alleged event on the day of the Holi festival, the appellant had subjected her to forcible sexual intercourse two or three times in a week and further that she had been kept under fear so as to deter her against disclosure.As indicated earlier, the appellant was put to trial on charges being framed for offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) & (f), 506 and 313 of IPC.In the case as set out by the prosecution on the Crl.Appeal No.187/2018 Page 7 of 67 basis of evidence noted above, the version of the prosecutrix, as indeed that of her father who only was examined additionally (her mother conspicuously not being a witness) was most crucial.She explained that the family (including her) were living in a servant quarter at the fourth floor level made available by her employer in his residence in a government departments' colony and on the day of the Holi festival at about 5.00 p.m., while other members of the family were away, she being alone at home, the appellant had come and established physical relation with her, this being followed by such physical intimacy two or three times subsequently, all along with her consent.She deposed that the appellant had not extended any threats to her.She stated that because of the (consensual) physical relationship, she had become pregnant and that she had aborted her pregnancy willingly by consuming some medicine.She confirmed the prosecution version that the bleeding which was triggered had brought the knowledge of her state of pregnancy to her mother who had taken her to the hospital where she was admitted for treatment for three days.She was confronted with her statement (Ex. PW2/A) on the basis of which FIR had been registered and also her statement (Ex. PW2/B) before the Magistrate, in answer to which she stated that she had become confused and was not in a fit state of mind and on that account had alleged the use of force and absence of consent.The prosecutrix was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor, but nothing in support of the charge could be brought out against the appellant in such exercise.She reiterated, during her cross-examination, that Crl.Appeal No.187/2018 Page 8 of 67 physical intimacy leading to pregnancy was out of her own free will and with her consent, there being no duress exercised at any stage.Appeal No.187/2018 Page 8 of 67PW-3, the father of the prosecutrix, is in no position to prove facts as may render the charge believable.He only deposed about learning the facts concerning involvement of the appellant leading to pregnancy of his daughter based on information that he had gathered from his wife (i.e. the mother of the prosecutrix).It has already been noted that the mother of the prosecutrix has not been examined.It may be added here that, even if she were to be examined, her version would not aid or assist the prosecution case in bringing home facts beyond what has been testified by the prosecutrix.The testimony of PW-3 on the crucial aspects is thus nothing but hearsay.In his statement under Section 313 Cr. PC, the appellant while denying the evidence of the prosecution showing his complicity in the crimes with which he has been charged claimed innocence and attributed false implication to some dispute involving him on one hand with the Naani (maternal grandmother) and Mausi (maternal aunt) of the prosecutrix, on the other.The reasoning for such conclusion, as articulated in the impugned judgment, may be extracted as under :-Had the physical relation established by the accused would have been with the consent of the prosecutrix, she would not levelled allegation Crl.Appeal No.187/2018 Page 9 of 67 against accused in her statement Ex. PW1/A recorded at the hospital where she was got admitted by her mother and thereafter during the course of investigation she reiterated the allegation against the accused in her statement u/s. 164 Cr.PC recorded on oath.Appeal No.187/2018 Page 9 of 67Needless to mention that the statement u/s. 164 Cr.PC recorded by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate after ascertaining the voluntariness of making the statement by the victim which completely rules out possibility of prosecutrix being not in a fit state of mind at the time of giving the said statement.The explanation for leveling the allegation against the accused in both the statements given by the prosecutrix that she was not in a fit state of mind at the time of giving her said statements is not only incompatible with the sequence of event right from the incident, and recording of her both the said statements, she being taken to hospital for treatment but also not plausible and does not appeal to the reason.Hence, unbelievable.Keeping in mind her entire narration which she had given by her on oath, it become apparently clear that had PW2 Prosecutrix not been aggrieved by the offence committed by the accused with her, she would have not given statement alleging that accused committed rape upon her to the police at the very first instance which lead the registration of present FIR and that for the similar reason she reiterated the entire facts in her statement recorded by Magistrate u/s. 164 Cr. PC.Father of the prosecutrix who has been examined as PW3 is witness of hearsay fact.In his statement u/s. 313 Cr. PC, accused had stated that he has been implicated falsely due to dispute between him and Naani and Mausi of prosecutrix.Appeal No.187/2018 Page 10 of 67 prosecutrix being niece would level false allegation against the accused / real uncle.Appeal No.187/2018 Page 10 of 67PP for the State as she did not support the case of prosecution on any point.Further, there is no explanation by the accused in the statement u/s. 313 Cr. PC on the fact that why he had given abortion pills to the prosecutrix.Simply he has stated that it is incorrect.Rather he had submitted that he has been implicated falsely due to dispute between him and Naani and Mausi of prosecutrix.Further, Naani and Mausi of the prosecutrix has not been examined in defence evidence.Submission of ld. counsel for accused that prosecutrix was consented for sexual intercourse with the accused is not acceptable because even if prosecutrix consented accused being uncle / guardian of prosecutrix was duty bound to take her to her father despite that he did not bring the prosecutrix to her father and indulged himself in sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix which leads her pregnancy thereon accused has also extended threat not to disclose anything to any person.In the present case consent of the prosecutrix also corroborate the case of prosecution.It does not make any difference if the prosecutrix was consenting for sexual intercourse with accused.The reasoning set out for such conclusion, Crl.Appeal No.187/2018 Page 11 of 67 as extracted above, appears to be more a case of moral judgment than a judgment based on facts and law.Appeal No.187/2018 Page 11 of 67The Crl.Appeal No.187/2018 Page 12 of 67It appears that the factum of she having become pregnant with a child having been exposed to her parents on account of bleeding, the prosecutrix was constrained to share background facts with them.For some reasons, she chose to take the position of innocence and thus coined the theory of use of duress which led to the present prosecution.The reluctance on her part to give her version to police for two days, particularly when she first wanted to consult the father, throws up the possibility of some external influence having coloured the story.But, her court testimony demonstrates that her conscience would not allow her peace and consequently she opted to reveal the truth at the trial owning up to her pro-active and consensual participation in the physical intimacy.Her deposition on oath at the trial has to be taken as the evidence which must be the basis of findings on facts, it being unfair on the part of the trial court to treat the FIR and the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as the material which controls the conclusion.The prosecutrix has admitted on oath that she had consumed certain medicinal tablets out of her own free will and that there was no intimidation exercised by the appellant.There has been no effective investigation carried out as to the nature of medicinal preparation which was consumed by the prosecutrix, not the least drawing a nexus between consumption of Crl.Appeal No.187/2018 Page 13 of 67 such medicinal preparation and the bleeding resulting in pre-mature termination of pregnancy.Appeal No.187/2018 Page 13 of 67This case, however, has given rise to certain concerns about the directions for payment of compensation to the prosecutrix by the trial court and the action taken thereupon by the legal services authority.This calls for further consideration and appropriate directions.As has been noticed earlier, the Additional Sessions Judge while awarding punishment by order on sentence passed on 06.01.2018 directed the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) to pay to the prosecutrix compensation in the sum of rupees one lakh referring in this context to considerations such as age, status of prosecutrix, her education, mental trauma and future prospects.Such directions were given on the application moved by the counsel for Delhi Commission for Women (DCW).When the above discussed nature of evidence that had been adduced by the prosecution at trial came to be referred in the context of application - Crl.M. (Bail) 285/2018 - for interim suspension of sentence, this Court, by order dated 19.11.2018, had also called for a report from DLSA and issued a restraint order against release of the compensation in the meanwhile.On 03.12.2018, the report dated Crl.The subsequent inquiries by DSLSA, under the directions of the Court, revealed that the said amount was withdrawn by the prosecutrix almost immediately after its remittance into her account.Appeal No.187/2018 Page 14 of 67Appeal No.187/2018 Page 24 of 67However, as far as the final compensation amount is concerned, 75% (seventy five percent) of the same shall be put in a fixed deposit for a minimum period of three years and the remaining 25% (twenty five percent) shall be available for utilization and initial expenses by the victim/dependent(s), as the case may be.(2) In the case of a minor, 80% of the amount of compensation so awarded, shall be deposited in the fixed deposit account and shall be drawn only on attainment of the age of majority, but not before three years of the deposit.Appeal No.187/2018 Page 25 of 67Provided that in exceptional cases, amounts may be withdrawn for educational or medical or other pressing and urgent needs of the beneficiary at the discretion of the SLSA/ DLSA.(3) The interest on the sum, if lying in FDR form, shall be credited directly by the bank in the savings account of the victim/dependent(s), on monthly basis which can be withdrawn by the beneficiary.INTERIM RELIEF TO THE VICTIM-- The State Legal Services Authority or District Legal Services Authority, as the case may be, may order for immediate first-aid facility or medical benefits to be made available free of cost or any other interim relief (including interim monetary compensation) as deemed appropriate, to alleviate the suffering of the victim on the certificate of a police officer, not below the rank of the officer-in-charge of the police station, or a Magistrate of the area concerned or on the application of the victim/ dependents or suo Crl.Appeal No.187/2018 Page 26 of 67 moto.Provided that as soon as the application for compensation is received by the SLSA/DLSA, a sum of Rs.5000/- or as the case warrants up to Rs. 10,000/- shall be immediately disbursed to the victim through preloaded cash card from a Nationalised Bank by the Secretary, DLSA or Member Secretary, SLSA.Provided that the, interim relief so granted shall not be less than 25 per cent of the maximum compensation awardable as per schedule applicable to this Chapter, which shall be paid to the victim in totality.Appeal No.187/2018 Page 26 of 67A learned single Judge of this court while dealing with the issues of payment of compensation to the victims of motor accidents, had issued certain guidelines, inter alia, by order dated 13.02.2017 in FAO 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi & Ors vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors., and extended the benefit thereof for purposes of securing the corpus of compensation disbursed to victims of Railway accidents by order dated 21.04.2017 in FAO 22/15, titled Geeta Devi vs. Union of India, Crl.Appeal No.187/2018 Page 27 of 67 2019 SCC Online Del 8919, specifying the staggered manner in which the benefit is to be afforded such that dispensation is more beneficial.Appeal No.187/2018 Page 27 of 67In the wake of the judgment dated 06.01.2018 passed against the appellant herein and the direction for payment of final compensation of rupees one lakh by the impugned order of sentence, an inquiry was conducted by Secretary of DLSA (Central) under the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme.It has been reported by the Member Secretary, Delhi State Legal Services Authority that the final compensation of rupees three lakh was awarded to the prosecutrix of the case at hand pursuant to order dated 20.02.2018 of the District Victim Compensation Committee which reads thus :-20.02.2018 Central District Legal Services Authority received Judgment dated 06.01.2018 passed by Sh.Ramesh Kumar-II.ASJ/SFTC-02 Central, THC, Delhi for considering the final compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the victim.Pursuant to the receipt of the aforesaid Judgment, an enquiry was conducted by the Secretary, DLSA (Central) as per Section 357A(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC).During the inquiry, victim deposed that :I am victim in the present case.I have studied upto 10th class.My father is doing a private job and earning about Rs.6,000/- per month.My mother is a housewife.I have two brothers and two sisters.Appeal No.187/2018 Page 28 of 67The inquiry was conducted by Secretary, CDLSA, in exercise of power conferred vide a letter and corrigendum issued by teh DSLSA viz. Letter bearing Ref.Legal Aid Wing / DSLSA/VCS 2011 / 2013/6296 dated 25.09.2013 and its corrigendum bearing Ref.Though the court has recommended an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lacs Only) as Final Compensation but after going through the relevant documents and the gravity of the case, the committee after considering all the aspects, has decided to award additional compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs Only) i.e. the total amount of Final Compensation is of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs.Three Lacs Only) should be paid to the victim for her rehabilitation.The aforesaid amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs Only) may be disbursed by the Delhi Crl.Appeal No.187/2018 Page 29 of 67 State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA), Patiala House Courts as per Rule 12 of the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme, 2015 i.e. 25% be made available immediately and 75% of the amount ( in case of minor 20% be made available immediately and 80% of the amount be kept in FDR till Majority but not before 3 years of the deposit) shall be deposit in terms of rule 12 of the scheme and in terms of judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Geeta Devi vs. Union of India (FAO 22/2015, decided on 21.04.2017) and Sachindra Mishra Vs.Sunita and Others [WP(C) No.7398/2016, decided on 04.05.2017] for payment of compensation amount to the beneficiaries in a phased manner as follows :-Appeal No.187/2018 Page 29 of 67Rs.15,000/- 57 Crl.Appeal No.187/2018 Page 30 of 67 Investments of the above FDR(s) would be subject to the following conditions :-1. Rs.10,000/- 362. Rs.10,000/- 373. Rs.10,000/ 38Appeal No.187/2018 Page 30 of 67The bank shall not permit any joint names other than that of beneficiary in the above said saving bank account as well as the FDR without the permission of this Authority.The liberty is given to the beneficiary to approach his Authority for pre-mature release of the FDR(s) in the event of need for withdrawal of amount for educational medical other pressing and urgent needs of the beneficiary, in exceptional cases.Interest accruing on the said deposit shall be deposited in the said account of the beneficiary.Copy of this Order be forwarded to DSLSA, Patiala House Courts in a sealed cover with a request to immediately disburse the compensation amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs Only) to the victim and send an intimation to this Authority.Copy of the Order be also sent to the Ld.Concerned Court for information and record.Appeal No.187/2018 Page 31 of 67Copy of the Order be also forwarded to the SHO, PS Pahar Ganj, in a sealed cover, for information and assistance of the victims.Copy of this order be also forwarded to the Branch Manager, Karnataka Bank, Overseas, New Delhi (Account No.5422500100864401 & IFSC Code- KARB0000542).Copy of the bank passbook be attached with the intimation to be sent to the Bank.Noticeably, the District Victim Compensation Committee while adopting the above decision to grant compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs) to the prosecutrix took note not only of the judgment of conviction rendered on 06.01.2018 but also referred to afore-quoted provisions of (Part II of) Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme, 2018 as indeed the decisions in cases of Geeta Devi (supra) and Sachindra Mishra (supra).To put it simply, the decision of the District Victim Compensation was to disburse the amount of compensation in phased manner - twenty five per cent (25%) immediately and the balance in the form of twenty-two fixed deposit receipts, the maturity proceeds of the first of which was to come in hands of the prosecutrix only on the elapse of thirty-six months.Noticeably, the District Victim Compensation Committee, while directing final compensation to be paid as aforesaid on 20.02.2018 did not ascertain as to whether any appeal had been preferred against the judgment of conviction by the person who was alleged to be the offender of the crime.Noticeably further, the amount of compensation in entirety was made over to the banker of the prosecutrix by a communication dated 31.03.2018, sent under the signatures of Member Secretary, DSLSA, pursuant to communication Crl.Appeal No.187/2018 Page 32 of 67Further, from the facts reported by the Member Secretary, DSLSA, by his submissions dated 17.09.2019 and 10.10.2019, it is clear that banker to the prosecutrix credited the entire amount in her saving bank account and permitted its immediate withdrawal without any restriction, this against the directions of the District Victim Compensation Committee in its order dated 20.02.2018 and the communication dated 15.03.2018 of the Secretary, Central DLSA.The letter dated 31.03.2018 was addressed by DSLSA only to its own banker, the decision to pay in phased manner not being reflected therein.It is also clear that the concerned authorities in DLSA or DSLSA were not alive to such manner of disbursement, in breach of its decision and communication, till these facts came to light during the hearing on the appeal at hand.On 14.10.2019, this court observed thus :Appeal No.187/2018 Page 33 of 67 entire amount was allowed to be credited in favour of prosecutrix and withdrawn immediately by her.Appeal No.187/2018 Page 33 of 67The Member Secretary, DSLSA, by his further report dated 11.10.2019, has indicated that an advisory has been issued on 10.10.2019 to all the Secretaries of District Legal Services Authority to ensure that the disbursement to the beneficiaries is made in a phased manner and, for this, compliance reports are to be called for from their bankers.In view of the court, such advisory may not be sufficient inasmuch as it should in first place be the responsibility of the banker of DSLSA to secure proper compliance, if necessary by requisite follow- up.During the course of hearing on the appeal, under directions from the court, DSLSA has compiled and collated data respecting the cases in which interim compensation had been granted over a calendar year (2017 having been chosen by DSLSA) and the present status of such cases.As per the statistics presented, the DSLSA had paid, in 2017, interim compensation in as many as 247 criminal cases of various districts of Delhi.From out of them, 175 cases are stated to be still pending trial, 33 having resulted in closure of the proceedings either upon conviction or for other reasons such as abatement, abscondance or the case having been sent untraced.The remaining 39 cases, which is quite a substantial portion of the entire lot, are reported to have resulted in acquittal.The ratio of cases resulting in acquittal, particularly where the finding of the court is that no crime was committed (as shown by some of the judgments) seems to be too high to be ignored.The figures which have been presented give rise to further cause of concern as to the possible abuse of the funds made available by the State for purposes Crl.Appeal No.187/2018 Page 34 of 67The learned counsel for DSLSA sought time to come up with further report.In both, the respective accused have been acquitted.In the first mentioned case, such directions have been given Crl.Appeal No.187/2018 Page 35 of 67 because the prosecutrix was found to be poor and in need of financial help from the court.In the second, the compensation has been ordered to be paid to the child born out of the physical relationship between the prosecutrix and the accused who, in the opinion of the trial court, would suffer the stigma of being called illegitimate Aside from the report called for, by directions in the order dated 14.10.2019, the Member Secretary, DSLSA shall also make a further report on the following aspects:-Appeal No.187/2018 Page 35 of 67(i) Steps, if any taken, under the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme, for recovery of compensation (interim or final) in all such cases as have ended in acquittal at the trial court or in appeal.(ii) Steps, if any taken, under the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme, for recovery of compensation (paid to the victims) from the person(s) found guilty for the crime.(iii) The details of payment of compensation, if any made, in the wake of directions by afore-mentioned judgments dated 20.08.2018 (FIR no. 172/2016 of police station Lahori Gate) and 26.04.2019 (FIR No. 142/2016 of police station Safdarjung Enclave), along with copies of all relevant documents including the order(s) of Victim Compensation Committee, communication to the concerned bank etc.A report in light of above directions, and in the directions in the order dated 14.10.2019, must be filed well in advance before next date of hearing with copy of the opposite parties.Appeal No.187/2018 Page 36 of 67Copies of the judgments of the other cases which have ended in acquittal (as mentioned in above quoted proceedings of 14.10.2019 Crl.Appeal No.187/2018 Page 37 of 67 and 21.10.2019) were also submitted and, upon perusal, it has been noticed that the findings returned in some of them are that no offence as alleged had been proved to have been committed.The case at hand would add to the said list, such result being reached at the stage of first appeal.It is essential to take note of some facts respecting a few of the other above-mentioned judgments.Appeal No.187/2018 Page 37 of 67Six of the above-mentioned other cases involved allegations, inter alia, of the offence of rape or of penetrative sexual assault (or its attempt) punishable under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).Each of these cases have resulted in the accusations constituting such offences being disbelieved and the respective accused being acquitted.The brief facts and particulars may be summarized thus :-(a).In Sessions case no.58830/2016, arising out of FIR no.1148/2015 of police station S.P. Badli, leading to the judgment of acquittal dated 22.10.2016 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge -01 (North), the accused was put on trial on charge for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(i) IPC & 4 POCSO Act, the prosecutrix having been described as a girl aged fifteen years.The prosecutrix herself discredited the prosecution case by deposing that there had been no physical relationship established with her.(b).In Sessions case no.59294/2016, arising out of FIR no.434/2016 of police station Bhalswa Dairy, leading to the judgment of acquittal dated 08.01.2019 Crl.Appeal No.187/2018 Page 38 of 67 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge -01 (North), the accused was put on trial on charge for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(f)(i), 506(II) IPC & 6 POCSO Act, the prosecutrix having been described as a girl aged eleven years.The testimony of the material witnesses i.e. victim (PW-1) and her mother (PW-2) as to commission of offences was found "not reliable and trustworthy".Appeal No.187/2018 Page 38 of 67(c).In Sessions case no.44621/2015, arising out of FIR no.196/2015 of police station Bhajan Pura, leading to the judgment of acquittal dated 16.02.2017 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge -01 (North-East), the accused was put on trial on charge for offences punishable under Sections 376, 506 IPC & 6 POCSO Act, the prosecutrix having been described as a girl aged seven years.The accusations and the evidence led about commission of offences were disbelieved, the conclusion being that the prosecution had failed to prove its case.(d).In Sessions case no.53675/2016, arising out of FIR no.1009/2016 of police station Mangol Puri, leading to the judgment of acquittal dated 19.03.2019 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge -01 (North- west), the accused was put on trial on charge for offences punishable under Sections 376, 323, 506 IPC & 6 POCSO Act, the prosecutrix having been described Crl.Appeal No.187/2018 Page 39 of 67 as a girl aged less than three years.The evidence was found to be not credible, the conclusion being that the prosecution had failed to prove commission of any offence.Appeal No.187/2018 Page 39 of 67(e) In sessions case no. 361/2017, arising out of FIR no. 295/2017 of police station Bhalswa Dairy, leading to the judgment of acquittal dated 23.10.2017, rendered by Additional Sessions Judge-01 for North District, the accused was put on trial on charge for offences punishable under Sections 376 IPC and 6/10 POCSO Act, the prosecutrix being described as his own minor daughter.At trial, the prosecutrix and her mother deposed that false charges had been leveled on advice of some NGO to force the accused to give up alcohol.The offence was held not proved.(f).In Sessions case no.14/2017, arising out of FIR no.323/2016 of police station Sonia Vihar, leading to the judgment of acquittal dated 20.04.2018 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge -01 (North-East), the accused was put on trial on charge for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and 6 POCSO Act, the prosecutrix having been described as a girl who had not attained majority.The evidence captured in the judgment shows it to be a possible case of elopement, the prosecutrix having testified that she had gone with Crl.Appeal No.187/2018 Page 40 of 67 the accused of her own volition, having stayed with him though there being no physical relationship established.Appeal No.187/2018 Page 40 of 67As per the data presented in tabular form, DSLSA had granted interim compensation in all the above mentioned six cases to the prosecutrix, it being in the sum of Rs.30,000/- each in the first and last mentioned matters (i.e. FIR nos.1148/2015 and 323/2016) given on 27.02.2017 and 24.10.2017, the amount in other four cases being Rs.50,000/- each granted by orders dated 27.02.2017, 31.05.2017, 07.06.2017 and 22.06.2017 respectively.There are five cases involving, inter alia, the charge of rape, each levelled by an adult woman, accusing the respective accused brought to trial of having subjected her to sexual intercourse on the false promise of marriage.These cases have also similarly resulted in acquittal, the finding returned at the end of respective trial being that the physical intimacy was consensual.The brief facts and particulars are as under :(a).In Sessions case (number not given), arising out of FIR no.1601/2015 of police station Seema Puri, leading to the judgment of acquittal dated 04.02.2019 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge-02 (Special Fast Track Court) for Shahdara District, the accused was put on trial on charge for offences punishable under Sections 376, 506, 313, 406 IPC, the prosecutrix having been described as a receptionist in a clinic, she allegedly having been approached by the accused during his visits at her workplace.The prosecutrix herself testified that Crl.Appeal No.187/2018 Page 41 of 67 she had entered into physical relationship with her own consent and free will, there being no force applied thereby disproving the charge.Appeal No.187/2018 Page 41 of 67(b).In Sessions case no.2605/2016, arising out of FIR no.150/2016 of police station Sunlight Colony, leading to the judgment of acquittal dated 27.10.2018 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge (Special Fast Track Court) for South-East District, the accused was put on trial on charge for offences punishable under Section 376 IPC, the prosecutrix having attributed physical intimacy after formal engagement (for marriage) with the accused.The trial court held that the charge for offence had not been proved, the evidence showing that the relationship was consensual.(c).In Sessions case nos.231/2014 and 2232/2016, arising out of FIR no.1036/2014 of police station Govind Puri, leading to the judgment of acquittal dated 26.07.2017 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge (Special Fast Track Court) for South-East District, the accused was put on trial on charge for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 384 IPC, the prosecutrix having been described as a college student who had befriended the accused, he having subjected her to forcible physical relationship.As per the judgment of the trial court, there was no medical evidence available in corroboration, the testimony of the Crl.Appeal No.187/2018 Page 42 of 67 prosecutrix about commission of offences being disbelieved.Appeal No.187/2018 Page 42 of 67(d).In Sessions case no.19/2016, arising out of FIR no.1049/2013 of police station Mehrauli, leading to the judgment of acquittal dated 31.07.2018 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge (Special Fast Track Court) for South District, the first accused was put on trial on charge for offences punishable under Sections 376, 354B, 506, 509, 34 IPC (the other charged for sharing common intention), the prosecutrix having been described as a married woman whose husband had abandoned her and the daughter, the accused having allured her to be in sexual intimacy, she delivering a daughter as a result.The trial judge concluded that the relationship was consensual, no offence having been committed.(e).In Sessions case no.35/2017, arising out of FIR no. 73/2017 of police station Saket, leading to the judgment of acquittal dated 01.11.2018 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge (Special Fast Track Court) for South District, the accused was put on trial on charge for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 313 IPC, the prosecutrix having described the accused as a neighbour who had proposed marriage to her and thereafter had established physical relationship on false promise of marriage.It was proved at the trial that the Crl.Appeal No.187/2018 Page 43 of 67 prosecutrix was married to another person and had two children from out of such wedlock, the claim of death of her husband being not substantiated.Crucially, it was held that the physical intimacy was consensual, there being no occasion for false promise of marriage.Appeal No.187/2018 Page 43 of 67Interim compensation was granted by DSLSA in all the above mentioned cases by orders dated 22.05.2017, 30.05.2017, 04.07.2017, 13.09.2017 and 24.10.2017, the amount disbursed to the prosecutrix in each being Rs.35,000/-, Rs.25,000/-, Rs.50,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- respectively.There are two cases which also need notice, each involving allegations of use of duress or conceit, the prosecutrix in each being an adult woman, the evidence having been disbelieved, the accused being consequentially acquitted :(a).In Sessions case no.52647/2016, arising out of FIR no.1105/2015 of police station Mangol Puri, leading to the judgment of acquittal dated 07.02.2019 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge (Special Fast Track Court) for North West District, the accused persons were put on trial on charge for offences punishable under Sections 376(2), 498A, 506, 34 IPC, the allegations (of rape) primarily being against the father-in-law (one of the accused), he having allegedly forced himself upon her with the suggestion that she could conceive from physical intimacy with him since she had failed to do so with her husband (also an Crl.Appeal No.187/2018 Page 44 of 67 accused).The trial court disbelieved the evidence and rejected the charge of use of force, deceit, fraud and absence of consent.Appeal No.187/2018 Page 44 of 67(b).In Sessions case no.1553/2016, arising out of FIR no.419/2014 of police station Jaitpur, leading to the judgment of acquittal dated 07.10.2017, rendered by Additional Sessions Judge (Special Fast Track Court) for East District, the accused was put on trial on charge for offences punishable under Sections 376, 328, 323 IPC, the prosecutrix having alleged that the accused had taken advantage of her when she had contacted him in some context, subjecting her to forcible sexual intercourse after administering some intoxicant.The trial court held that the evidence was not worthy of reliance, the commission of offences not being proved.In both the above mentioned cases, DSLSA had granted interim compensation in the amounts of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- by orders passed on 23.01.2017 and 03.03.2017 respectively.In yet another case, the charge was brought, inter alia, of offences of rape and outraging the modesty, the prosecutrix being a maid-servant in household of one of the accused.The Sessions case no.216/2015 arising out of FIR no.507/2015 of police station Rani Bagh ended in acquittal by judgment dated 02.06.2018 of Additional Sessions Judge (Special Fast Track Court) for North West District since the prosecutrix herself disowned the accusation explaining some Crl.Appeal No.187/2018 Page 45 of 67 pressure.The DSLSA had earlier granted Rs.50,000/- to her by order dated 08.09.2017 as interim compensation.Appeal No.187/2018 Page 45 of 67Two other cases, in particular, stand out as stark examples of most irresponsible manner in which the jurisdiction to grant compensation under the cover of Section 357A Cr.PC has been exercised.These facts need to be noticed a little more elaborately.Sessions case no.62/2016 had come up before the court of the Additional Sessions Judge (Special Fast Track Court) for South District on the basis of charge-sheet submitted pursuant to investigation in FIR no.142/2016 of police station Safdarjung Enclave.The accused was put on trial on the charge for offence under Section 376 IPC.The prosecutrix had alleged that she had befriended the accused who was working as a driver in the same household where she had been engaged as a cook.She attributed proposal of marriage by the accused, he having established physical relationship with her after promising marriage, having moved in to start living with her as her husband.The trial ended in judgment of acquittal passed on 26.04.2019, the testimony of the prosecutrix as to commission of offence having been disbelieved.It appears that the evidence also showed that due to the physical intimacy with the accused, the prosecutrix had given birth to a child.While acquitting the accused of the charge for the offence of rape, finding the testimony of prosecutrix unworthy of reliance, the trial judge proceeded to direct compensation to be given by DLSA to the child, setting out its reasons as under :-As per the allegations proved in this case, one female child was born on 04.09.2016 out of the Crl.Appeal No.187/2018 Page 46 of 67 sexual intercourse committed between the prosecutrix and Rajesh Kumar.Although, the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of offence of rape as defined in Section 375 Cr. PC against Rajesh Kumar but facts cannot be lost sight of that a female child has been born in the course of relationship between the prosecutrix and Rajesh Kumar and the said child will suffer the stigma of being called illegitimate.It is also to be noted that the prosecutrix is a poor person who is making a living by working as domestic help.In the circumstances, I will be failing in my duty if no order is passed for the welfare of the child and to protect her future.Appeal No.187/2018 Page 46 of 67It may be mentioned here that as per the report of DSLSA, by an earlier order dated 23.05.2017 it had granted interim compensation of Rs. one lakh to the prosecutrix.Mercifully, as confirmed by the report dated 30.10.2019 of Member Secretary, DSLSA no further payment of compensation in this case has been made pursuant to directions of the court of sessions as quoted above, the matter being still pending before District Victim Compensation Committee.Yet, Crl.Appeal No.187/2018 Page 47 of 67 the interim compensation which was granted earlier remains what may now be classified as wrongful gain to the prosecutrix.Appeal No.187/2018 Page 47 of 67The facts of Sessions case no.100/2017, decided by Additional Sessions Judge-02 (Central) - same judge as had rendered the judgment under appeal herein - are even more glaring.It had arisen out of charge-sheet laid after conclusion of investigation into FIR no.172/2016 of police station Lahori Gate.The accused against whom she levelled allegations leading to the said prosecution was found at the trial to be the brother of the wife of younger brother of her second husband.She alleged that he had taken her to a guest house on some pretext and having administered to her some substance in a soft drink had committed forcible sexual intercourse without her consent.She, however, deposed at trial that the accusations were false, levelled under pressure from her second husband because he had some enmity with the accused.She denied that she had ever been taken by the accused to any such place or having subjected her to forcible sexual intercourse.But, having done so it held and directed as under :-Since prosecutrix has been examined and her appearance reveals that she is from very poor family and needs financial help from the Courts.Copy of this order be sent to the DLSA, Central District, Delhi for necessary action.(emphasis supplied)It may be mentioned here that earlier, by order dated 06.10.2017, the DSLSA had paid Rs.50,000/- as interim compensation to the prosecutrix.Shockingly, the District Victim Compensation Committee, by its order dated 18.09.2018, awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. three lakh to the prosecutrix on the basis of above-quoted directions of the court of sessions.Copy of the order dated 18.09.2018, as submitted with report dated 30.10.2019 of Member Secretary, DSLSA reveals a mechanical approach.In the said statement before the Committee the prosecutrix described herself as the "victim".The appeal had been submitted through jail visiting advocate of Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee on 05.02.2018 and came up before the Crl.(b).In the event of an accused being found guilty, and convicted, the money paid as compensation from the Victim Compensation Fund under Section 357A Cr.PC may be recovered from him.(v).For ensuring that there is a possibility of the amount to be recovered back from the victim in the eventuality mentioned above, suitable safeguards in the form of appropriate documentation (undertaking, indemnity bond or such like other measures) shall be evolved and adopted by DSLSA for future use.Appeal No.187/2018 Page 66 of 67(vi).The data of 2017 has been referred to in this judgment only by way of illustration.The Member Secretary, DSLSA shall arrange for an appropriate scrutiny of all such past cases where interim compensation was awarded (including those of 2017 noted earlier) and take necessary measures for recovery in accordance with law of such amounts as have been wrongfully paid.(vii).	['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,889,801	Mr. M. Karpaga Vinayagam, learned Amicus Curiae supported thejudgments of the High Court.The prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows: 3 In the night between August 30 and 31, 1994 at about 12.30 fivepersons of Sheo Pal's family were gunned down in his house in villageSaloni within the area of police station Bahadurgarh, Ghaziabad.Fourothers were injured, out of whom Neetu also succumbed to his injuries lateron.This massacre was reported at the police station on the same night at2.55 A.M. by one of the survivors, Smt. Bala, PW 1 widow of deceasedShiv Singh.With the registration of case police came into action and theInvestigating Officer promptly rushed to the place of occurrence andrecorded the statements of Smt. Bala, Neetu and Km.Guddi who all hadreceived injuries in the course of ghastly incident.Inquest proceedings wereheld in respect of dead bodies of five persons, namely, Sheo Pal Singh, Smt.Kunti Devi, Shiv Singh, Manjeet and Khushal who were reported to havebeen shot dead by the assailants while asleep inside their house.Their deadbodies were sent for postmortem examination.The investigating OfficerShri Ram Babu Tiwari, P.W.9 also pr-epared site plan, Ex.Ka 48 aftermaking spot inspection of the place of occurrence.Injured Neetu was sentfor medical examination.Under the order of the Investigating Officer S.I.Shri D.K. Sharma collected samples of blood through memo Ex. Ka 26 fromnear the dead body of Kunti Devi.Similarly, samples of blood werecollected from near the dead bodies of other deceased persons through 4 memos Ex. Ka.The bed sheet lying on the cot of deceasedShiv Singh was also taken into possession through memo Ex. Ka.Theelectric bulbs which are alleged to be giving light at the time of incidentwere also inspected and Memo Ex. Ka.32was prepared.The pieces of blood stainedbandh of cot of deceased Manjeet and Khushal were also taken intopossession through memo Ex. Ka.The Investigating Officer also foundempty cartridges, bullet and wads at the scene of occurrence.They were alsotaken into police custody through EX.He also interrogated Madhuand Rikku and other villagers.A raid was made on the house of accusedMukesh, Sattan and Guddu but they were not found.During investigationcomplicity of other accused persons also came to light that they had hatchedconspiracy for the commission of the crime in question.Some of theaccused persons were arrested while others surrendered in court and aftercompletion of investigation charge sheet was prepared against all theaccused persons who had been either arrested by him or has surrendered incourt and also against Upendra alias Guddu, Pappu, Dheeraj and Devendrawho were then still absconding.A case wasproceeding in court at Hapur some time before the present incident and thepolice had raided the house of accused Mukesh.Mukesh and Guddu, cameto the house of Sheo Pal Singh and gave threats to them saying that they hadnot done good by getting his house raided.The accused persons were thusbearing enmity with Sheo Pal and others.6 It was further alleged in the report lodged by Smt. Bala that in thenight between 30/31 August, 1994 at about 12.30 A.M. Mukesh and Gudduof her own village carrying country made pistols with them and accusedSattan of village Lohari also having a country made pistols alongwith 4-5unknown persons who were also having weapons like pistols, Dalkati, Lathietc.entered into her house.At that time electric bulbs were emitting lightinside and out side the house.The family members of her Jeth, Sheo palSingh were sleeping on cots outside the house.She herself (Smt. Bala) wasresting inside the house, while her husband Shiv Singh was sleeping on theroof.The accused persons after making entry into the house immediatelystarted hurling abuses by name to her Jeth Sheo Pal Singh saying that hewas acting as an informer to police, hence he and his family would beeliminated completely.Hearing it Sheo Pal got up and started running buthe was chased by accused Mukesh and Sattan and was shot dead in the Gherof Devendra.Mukesh and Sattan then said that entire family should befinished and thereafter accused persons killed Kunti Devi, wife; of Sheo Pal,Khushal son of Sheo Pal and Manjeet son of Shiv Singh.They also injuredNeetu son of Sheo Pal, Guddi, daughter of Sheo Pal Singh and baby Kapilabout 3 years old son of' Shiv Singh.Mukesh and Sattan with his associatesclimbed over the roof and murdered her husband Shiv Singh on the cot on 7 which he was sleeping.On hearing the sound of firing, villagers wereawakened and when they tried to come near the first informant's house,accused persons made indiscriminate firing and said that if any one dared tocome nearer he would be shot dead and further that if anyone of them wouldgive evidence he would meet the same fate as that of deceased persons.Onthe threats given by accused persons villagers retreated to their houses andclosed their doors.The firing incident caused a panic in the village and themiscreants left the scene of occurrence brandishing their weapons.Before adverting further it may be relevant to place the followingpedigree in order to show that all the deceased and injured persons weremembers of same family.HUKUM SINGH ! ! _____________________________________________ Sheo Pal Shiv Singh (Deceased) (Deceased) Wife Kunti Devi Wife Smt. Bala (PW1) (Deceased) (Injured) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ____________________ 8 1 Manjeet Kapil 1 (Deceased) (Injured) 1 1 1 _________________________________________ Khushal Guddi Neetu (Deceased) (Injured) (Injured and died later on) From the above pedigree it would be evident that all the ninemembers of family of Hukum Singh were present and sleeping in theirhouses when this ghastly incident occurred.Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench ofthe Allahabad High Court by which two Criminal appeals filed by accusedSattan, Uppendra, Hari Pal son of Kiran Singh and Hari Pal son of RamCharan (Criminal Appeal No. 2140 of 1999) and Criminal Appeal No. 2237of 1999 filed by accused Kripal, Brij Pal, Ram Pal and Devendra.A reference under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (inshort the `Code') for confirmation of death sentence in respect of theaccused appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 2140 of 1999 before the HighCourt was made.So far as Sattan, Upendra, Hari Pal son of Kiran Singhand Hari pal son of Ram Charan are concerned they were sentenced to twoyears R.I. each under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in shortthe `IPC'), 10 years R.I. under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC anddeath sentence in respect of offence punishable under Section 302 read withSection 149 IPC.The appellants in the Criminal Appeal No.2237 of 1999were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 120 B IPCalongwith appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 2140 of 1999 accusedMukesh, Dhirendra, Rakesh, Naresh and Pappu also faced trial.Out of themPappu and Naresh died during the pendency of trial while Mukesh, Rakeshand Dhirendra absconded and trial so far as they are concerned wereseparated.The CriminalAppeal No.2237 of 1999 was allowed and conviction ofBrijpal, Ram Pal and Devendra was set aside.So far as Criminal AppealNo.2140 of 1999 is concerned the conviction as recorded was maintained.Death sentence imposed was altered to life sentence.In the present appeals 2 State has questioned alteration of the death sentence to life sentence inrespect of appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 2140 of 1999 and the acquittalas recorded in Criminal Appeal No. 2237 of 1999 as maintained; Whileupholding the conviction of accused Sattan and Upendra directed acquittalof Hari Pal son of Kiran Singh and Hari Pal son of Ram Charan.According to learned counsel for the State the only appropriatesentence in a case of this nature was death sentence and the High Courterred in altering it to life sentence after upholding the conviction.Later on accused Pappu alias Amarjeet andRajveer were also arrested.It was also revealed that accused Upendra alias 5 Guddu was in jail after having been arrested in a case under Gangster Act.Similarly, accused Dheeraj was in jail in connection with case Crime No.628 of 1993 under Section 307 I.P.C.Smt. Bala (PW.1) who is alleged to have herself received injuriesduring the course of incident got the first information report Ex. Ka.Guddi, her niece.Four were of Shiv Singh'sfamily and rest belonged to Sheo Pal's family.All of them sustainedinjuries.Smt. Bala, Baby Kapil and Km.Guddi survived but beforestatement of Guddi could be recorded at the trial she was also murdered.Baby Kapil was a child of about three years old.Thus the prosecution wasleft with no alternative except to examine at the trial Smt. Bala, the solesurviving member of the above two families.At the trial from the prosecution side in all nine witnesses wereproduced.Smt. Bala (PW 1) widow of deceased Shiv Singh corroboratedthe facts stated by her in the FIR and further added that the assailants were 9 ten in number, out of whom she identified Mukesh, Guddu, Rakesh, Naresh,Pappu, Sattan, Haripal son of Kiran Singh, Haripal son of Ram Charan,Dhirendra alias Dheeraj.She further stated that Rakesh and Dhirendra werehaving Balkati and rest had country made pistols.She also testified thatSheo Pal, his wife Kunti Dcvi, his son Khushal, her Husband Shiv Singhand her son Manjeet were murdered on the spot by the assailants with theirrespective weapons, Neetu son of Sheo Pal, Km.Guddi, Baby Kapil and sheherself also suffered injuries at the hands of the accused persons.She furtherstated that had the matter between accused and deceased persons been notgot compromised by accused Kripal, Rajveer, Devendra, Brij Pal and RamPal, the incident in question would not have occurred.In this way it wassuggested that the aforesaid accused persons hatched a conspiracy with theactual assailants to get the entire family of Sheo Pal and Shiv Singh wipedout.She is the only eye witness examined at the trial.As noted above, the trial court found the evidence of the witnesses tobe credible and cogent and directed conviction and imposed death sentence,so far as the Sattan, Upendra, Hari Pal son of Kiran Singh and Hari pal sonof Ram Charan are concerned.It also found that the accusations relating toSection 120B of the Act have been established so far as the Kripal, Brij Pal, 10 Devendra are concerned."(i) that number of casualties cannot be sole criterion for awardingdeath sentence;(ii) that though in a criminal case compromise was filed, the policehowever at the instance of deceased Sheo Pal raided the house of accusedMukesh and Guddu alias Upendra and this excited the accused to committhe alleged crime;No specific roles have beenascribed.The case at hand falls in the rarest of rare category.The depraved actsof the accused call for only one sentence that is death sentence. 27The above position was highlighted in Bantu v. The State of U.P.[2008(10) SCALE 336]Murder of six members of a family including helpless women andchildren having been committed in a brutal, diabolic and bristly manner andthe crime being one which is enormous in proportion which shocks theconscious of law, the death sentence as awarded in respect of accused Sattanand Guddu was the appropriate sentence and the High Court ought not tohave altered it.So far as the acquittal of the Hari Pal son of Kiran Singhand Hari Pal son of Ram Charan are concerned, the High Court has notedthat the evidence so far as their involvement is concerned was not totallyfree from doubt.The High Court have analysed the factual scenario indetail to direct the acquittal.We find no reason to differ from theconclusions of the High Court.The acquittal as directed stands affirmed.	['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
188,980,602	Initially, each partner, invested a sum of Rs.25,000/- and later, it was enhanced to Rs.50,000/-.Petitioners are Managing Partner and Assistant Managing Partner respectively of the said firm.The complainants expressed their intention to withdraw from the firm and gave a letter to such effect.This revision arises against the order of learned Judicial Magistrate II, Namakkal, passed in Crl.M.P.No.1883 of 2009 in C.C.No.37 of 2009 on 19.01.2010, dismissing the discharge petition filed by petitioners u/s.239 Cr.P.C.The prosecution case is that complainants, petitioners and 10 others were partners in a partnership firm viz., Sri Venkateswara Finance, Namakkal.The complainants have also requested the petitioners to return their capital along with profit.However, the petitioners have failed to meet the demand.Upon complaint and direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., a case was registered in Crime 3 of 2003 on the file of the second respondent.Upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet informing commission of offences u/s.406, 420 r/w 120-B and 506(ii) IPC has been laid and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.37 of 2009 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate II, Namakkal.In such case, petitioners have filed Crl.M.P.No.1883 of 2013 seeking discharge.The Court below, under orders dated 19.01.2010, dismissed such petition.Hence, this revision.Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) and learned counsel for second respondent.Each of them initially contributed Rs.25,000/-; subsequently enhanced to Rs.50,000/-.The acquisition is that the accused, Managing Partner and Assistant Managing Partner respectively, did away with the profits and failed to account therefor.In the case of dispute between partners, they would have to work out their rights before the civil forum.7.This Criminal Revision Case stands allowed and the order of learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Namakkal in Cr.M.P.No.1883 of 2009 in C.C.No.37 of 2009 stands set aside.The petitioners/accused are discharged from the case in C.C.No.37 of 2009 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Namakkal.15.12.2015Index:yes/noInternet:yesgmTo1.The Judicial Magistrate II, Namakkal.2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Namakkal.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.R.C.No.218 of 201015.12.2015	['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,889,816	The facts giving rise to the prosecution case may briefly be stated as follows: One Bhag-wandas Khatri was living in house No. 730 known as "Bachhes Latif's House' as a tenant of the Custodian of Evacuee Property on a rent of Rs. 4/- per mensem.It appears that he, in violation of the terms of the tenancy, sublet a portion of the premises occupied by him to certain other persons.A notice Ex.On that date the accused appellant put up a note Ex.P. 20 before the Assistant Custodian in which he expressed the opinion that he was not inclined to believe that the premises were worth only Rs. 4/- per mensem.He, therefore, suggested that the persons occupying the premises should be required to execute separate rent notes, each promising to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 4/- per mensem.The Deputy Custodian ordered thereon that separate rentdeeds may be executed and that 'fair rent may be drawn'.About a week prior to the incident in question the accused along with certain police constables went to the house of Bhagwan das and called upon him to pay up the arrears of rent and to vacate the premises.On a request being made by Bhagwandas for time being granted to him, the accused agreed to postpone action for about a week and the matter ended there at least for the time being.A receipt Ex.P. 13 was drawn up and signed by Puttusingh a clerk in the office.The case for the prosecution is that! Bhagwandas had been told by a chaprasi in the Custodian's office named Pannalal that the accused expected to be paid a bribe of Rs. 50/-.Bhagwandas approached Hukumchand, the President of the Sharnarthi Association in order to consult him as to what he should do in the matter.Later on Pannalal's advice both Hukumchand and Bhagwandas paid a visit to the Custodian's office on 13-9-1955 in order to settle the matter.After some initial bargaining between the parties, the accused, it is alleged agreed to accept a bribe of not less than Rs. 35/- on condition that the occupants of the premises should execute separate rent-notes, each agreeing to pay a rent of Rs. 1/- per mensem.Seven five rupee notes, which were produced before the Anti-corruption Officer by Bhagwandas, were after their numbers had been noted down in the presence of Panchas, handed over to Bhagwandas for being paid to the accused.The accused accompanied by P.W. 9 Bhonsley, a lower-division clerk in the office of the Custodian, Puttusingh another clerk in the same office and his chaprasi Pannalal went in a car to Bhagwandas's house.Hukumchand was also picked up from his own shop by the accused.On reaching Bhagwandas's house five rent-notes Ex.P. 1 by Shivdayal, P/3 by Nanakchand, P/5 by Dularam, P/15 by Bhagwandas and P/17 by Bodraj were executed.A sum of Rs. 5/- was realised on the basis of these rent notes under receipts ExS P/1, P/4, P/6, P/17 and P/22... Bhagwandas then took the accused, the chaprasi Pannalal and Hukumchand to the first floor of his house for tea.Bhonsley was also called upstairs by the accused.The case for the prosecution is that in the nresence of all these persons Bhagwandas offered Rs. 25/- in currency notes to the accused.The accused protested that the amount was less than what had been agreed upon.Hukumchand thereupon suggested that another five rupee note be given to the accused, which Bhagwandas did.The accused put the currency notes in his spectacles case.On the morning of 14-9-1955 Bhagwandas presented an application Ex.The anti-corruption officer was waiting outside Bhagwandas's house when the accused arrived there, and as soon as the accused emerged from the house, he was stopped by the Anti-corruption Officer and the six five rupee notes were recovered from his spectacles case in the presence of panch witnesses,The accused was, on the facts stated above, prosecuted and tried for an offence Under Rule 161 I.P.C. with the result already noted above.The accused in his statement Under Rule 342 Cri.P.C. admitted having gone to Bhagwandas's house about a week prior to the incident and to have called upon him to vacate the premises.He also admitted the fact that he paid a visit to Bhagwandas's house on the morning of 14-9 1955 and got separate rent-notes executed by the tenants.The facts that six five rupee notes and one one-rupee note (belonging to himself were recovered from his spectacles case was also not denied by him.His plea, however, was that a sum of Rs. 5/-was paid to him by Bhagwandas in respect of the receipts passed in favour of the tenants named above, A further sum of Rs, 1/4/- was according to him, paid by Bhagwandas to him for the purpose of stamps to be affixed on the receipts.A sum of Rs. 24/- was, according to the accused, paid by Bhagwandas on 14-9-1955 to him as arrears of rent under receipt Ex.P. 13/-.His version on this point is that though Bhagwandas had come to the office on 13-9-1955 and had offered to pay the arrears of rent forthwith he (the accused) insisted on separate rent notes from the occupants of the house being obtained before payment of the arrears of rent was accepted.The receipt Ex.P. 3/, though it was drawn up on 13-9-1955, was according to the accused, not handed over to Bhagwandas on that day.It was only after separate rent-notes had been executed on 14-9-1955 that the accused accepted payment of Rs. 24/- under that receipt and passed it on to Bhagwandas.The accused examined five witnesses in his defence Of these D.W. 5 Puttusingh stated that Bhagwandas had come to the Custodian's office on 13-9-1955 and offered to pay a sum of Rs. 24/- towards the arrears of rent due from him Puttusingh thereupon prepared the receipt Ex.P. 13 and put his own signature thereon.Just at this time Baijnath chaprasi Came and told him not to receive payment of the money from Bhagwandas as a warrant had already been issued against him.Puttusingh there upon went to the accused in order to inquire from him as to what he should do.He was told by the accused not to receive payment from Bhagwandas on that day, Puttusingh further went on to say that on the next day he accompanied the accused to Bhagwandas's house where he was required to draw up five receipts in the name of the various occupants of the house.The accused thereafter took from the witness those receipts as also the receipt Ex.P. 13 and told him that he would go upstairs in order to inspect the site and would himself recover the money due under the said receipts, The accused thereafter went to the first floor of the house and on his return told Puttusingh that everything had been satisfactorily done.The trial Court held this version of the accused to be false in view of the facts that Puttusingh under schedule Ex, D/l deposited Rs. 70/- on 15-9-1955, wherein it was shown that the sum of Rs, 24/- had been recovered on 13-9-1955 and that Puttusingh did not alter the date on Ex.It; was also observed by the learned Special Judge that if the version given by the accused were true a sum of Rs. 30/4/- instead of Rs. 30/- ought to have been seized from his person.Reliance was also placed by the learned Special Judge in convicting the accused on his conduct In going to the first floor of the house in order to receive payment of rent under receipts which had already been drawn up in the pohar of the house.It is the case for the prosecution itself than Shri Bhonsley, a clerk in the Custodian's office, was called by the accused himself to the first floor before the money was paid to him by Bhag-wandas.Hukumchand was actually picked up by the accused while he was on his way to Bhagawandas's house.One is led to think whether it would be natural for the accused to collect all this evidence against himself unless he was sure that Shri Bhonsley was as much interested in the acceptance of a bribe as he himself was.Hukumchand on his own showing is a busy body.He accompanied Bhagwandas to the accused's office, tried to haggle with him for the amount of the bribe to be paid.The learned Special Judge ought to have taken into account the possibility of these two refugees having themselves laid a trap for the accused who had made things hot for Bhagwandas.P. 13 and the separate rent-notes.P. 14 dated 14-9-1955 to the Anti-Corruption Officer.Two of the executants of the rent-notes deposed that they paid the amount to the accused, while one of them deposed that he paid one rupee to Pannalal Chaprasi.Puttisingh was not called upon to explain as to why he did not correct the date on Ex.	['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
188,986,547	After due consideration, both the applications are allowed.Arguments heard.This is first bail application filed by the applicant under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail.The accused/applicant was arrested by Police Station - Jhabua in Crime No.- 254/2016 under sections 354, 354-C, 354-D of IPC and sections 7 /8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. According to the prosecution story, the present applicant outraged the modesty of the prosecutrix who is 16 years of age.There is allegation of staring and stopping the prosecutrix.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecutrix was known to the present applicant and the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case.Learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application.The application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed.It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.30,000/- and one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard during trial.He is further directed that on being so released on bail, he would comply with the conditions enumerated under section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously.Certified copy as per rules.(ALOK VERMA)	['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
188,993,214	The petitioner is permanent resident of Village Ner, Police Station Shahpur, District Burhanpur.It was alleged that the 2 W.P. No. 781/2018 criminal acts of the petitioner are seriously affecting the law and order and against the petitioner no person is coming forward to lodge a report and give evidence in police station and, therefore, the public tranquility and peace of Burhanpur City is likely to be seriously effected due to the act of the petitioner.Therefore he requested respondent No. 2 to pass an order under Section 5(b) of Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam 1990 (herein after referred to as the 'Adhiniyam') against the petitioner regarding his externment.On the basis of the said report, respondent No. 3 has initiated criminal case against the petitioner and started proceedings against him for externment.In furtherance thereto, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 8 of the Adhiniyam on 13.02.2017 calling him to show cause about his involvement in the criminal activity since 2006 3 W.P. No. 781/2018 till date.On the basis of these criminal activities why an order of externment should be passed against him.2 W.P. No. 781/20183 W.P. No. 781/2018The petitioner has filed reply to the said show cause notice and denied the allegations made in the said show cause notice.He stated that the report submitted by respondent No. 4 is baseless.The police on the basis of false and frivolous facts has registered an offence against the petitioner and most of the criminal cases have already been finally adjudicated.Along with the reply, the petitioner has filed an affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of the C.P.C. The petitioner has further alleged that the respondents neither given any opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examin the aforesaid witnesses nor produced any adverse material to establish the charges against him.Thereafter, respondent No. 4 passed an order of externment dated 24.07.2017 by exercising the powers given under Section 5(b) of the Act from District Burhanpur and contagious Revenue District Khandwa, Khargone, Harda, 4 W.P. No. 781/2018 Badwani and directed him to went out from the aforesaid area.Being aggrieved by that orders, the petitioner has filed the present petition.4 W.P. No. 781/2018Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the orders dated 08.12.2017 and 24.07.2017 are illegal and bad in law.He submits that respondent No. 2 without considering all the facts and circumstances as well as law wrongly dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.He further submits that the allegations made against the petitioner does not comes under the provisions of Section 3(b) and 5(b) of the Act, therefore, the order of externment is not legally just and proper.The offences mentioned in the impugned order of respondent No. 3 are old offences which has been registered since 2006 to 2009 and these offences are simple in nature and out of most of the 5 W.P. No. 781/2018 offences finally decided by the competent Court by acquitting the petitioner.In some criminal cases, the petitioner has been acquitted because of compromise with the complainant party.No offences of any serious nature has been ever lodged against the petitioner.5 W.P. No. 781/20186 W.P. No. 781/2018On the basis of the said report, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner has filed reply to the said show cause notice.7 W.P. No. 781/2018 On the basis of the material available on record, it is prima facie made out that the petitioner had engaged in commission of offence and causing apprehension and threat to other persons and property of public.After considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, the District Magistrate has passed an order of externment against the petitioner under Section 5 (b) of the Adhiniyam.Against the said order, an appeal was preferred which was also dismissed.The respondents have stated that before passing the impugned order, a show cause notice was issued and after following the due procedure, impugned order has been passed.He relied on the judgement passed by this Court in the case of Guddu @ Amit Sahu Vs.7 W.P. No. 781/2018The petitioner filed reply to the said show cause notice along with an affidavit.Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed the present petition.From perusal of the record, it reveals that as many as 10 cases have been registered against the petitioner under the various Acts.Out of 10 cases, the petitioner has been convicted in respect of Crime No. 296/2006 which has been registered against the petitioner under Sections 147, 148, 294, 323, 336, 324 and 506 of I.P.C.. In such case the petitioner was convicted for imprisonment of one year.Thereafter on 03.02.2017 a criminal case was registered against the petitioner under Sections 153-A, 431, 432, 447, 143 of the IPC vide Crime No. 56/2017, which is pending under investigation.9 W.P. No. 781/2018Section 5 of the Act of 1990 provides for removal of persons about to commit offence.The Section 5(b) gives the powers to the Magistrate to pass an order of externment if there are reasonable grounds for believing that such person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of an offence involving force or violence or an offence punishable under Chapter XII, XVI or XVII or under Section 506 or 509 of the Indian Penal Code or in the abetment of any such offence, and when in the opinion of the District Magistrate witnesses are not willing to come 10 W.P. No. 781/2018 forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property.10 W.P. No. 781/2018(ii) In the opinion of the District Magistrate, witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the 11 W.P. No. 781/2018 safety of their person or property.11 W.P. No. 781/2018In the present case it is required to be seen whether these two conditions are fulfilled.In offences which has been registered prior to 03.02.2017 the petitioner has been acquitted and in some cases he was convicted.12 W.P. No. 781/2018Hence, in absence of any 13 W.P. No. 781/2018 existence of material to show that witnesses are not coming forward by reason of apprehension to give evidence against the petitioner in respect of the alleged offences, an order u/s 5 (b) of Adhiniyam, 1990 cannot be passed by the District Magistrate as held in the case of Ashok Kumar Patel Vs.State of M.P. (Supra) by the Division Bench that for a passing an order of externment against the person both the conditions mentioned under section 5 (b) (i) and (ii) have to be satisfied.13 W.P. No. 781/201814 W.P. No. 781/2018	['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
195,201,214	[Order of the Court was made by C.T.SELVAM, J] Petitioner is the wife of the detenu Raghu S/o.The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:Police Station and Crime No.1.M7 Manali New Town Police Station, Crime No.117/2018448, 342 and 384 IPC @ 147, 148, 448, 342, 384, 506(ii) IPC & 25(3)(i) Arms Act 1959Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present writ petition has been filed.Amidst several grounds raised, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the detaining authority while noticing that the detenu is in remand in the ground as well as in the adverse cases and has filed a bail application in Crime No.339 of 2018 before learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai and the same was dismissed and filed another bail application before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.11020 of 2018 and the same is pending and no bail applications have been moved in the adverse cases, he had informed that the relatives of the detenu were taking efforts to move bail applications in the adverse cases to take him out on bail and therefore, there was a real possibility of his coming out on bail and if he comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.Though the detaining authority has informed of an effort by the relatives to move bail petition for the release of the detenu, there is no material to support such contention.We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submissions and also perused the records.C.T.SELVAM, JandM.NIRMAL KUMAR, Jgm Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the second respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Raghu S/o.Kalyani, made in No.265/BCDFGISSSV/2018 dated 27.04.2018, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.	['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
195,204,429	➢ Baskar (A1) and Ramesh (A3) are brothers and they are the cousins of Pandurangan (P.W.2), who is the husband of Usharani.http://www.judis.nic.in 3 ➢ The house of Baskar (A1) and Ramesh (A3) is behind the house of Usharani.➢ Elangovan (A2), Ramachandran (A4), Raju (A5) and Kamala (A6) are members of one family, i.e., Kamala (A6) is the wife of Elangovan (A2); Ramachandran (A4) and Raju (A5) are the sons of Elangovan (A2) and Kamala (A6) and their house is on the eastern side of the house of Usharani.➢ Usharani's family was having boundary dispute with the family of Elangovan (A2), Ramachandran (A4), Raju (A5) and Kamala (A6).http://www.judis.nic.in 4 3 The facts leading to the filing of this criminal appeal, including the prosecution story, are succinctly stated as under:Accordingly, the Surveyor and the Village Administrative Officer measured the property and said that the Poovarasan tree (portia tree) found on the boundary, should be removed by Elangovan (A2) and only thereafter, his boundary can be properly determined.Ignoring the directions of the Surveyor, when Elangovan (A2) and his family members were laying the boundary stones, Usharani insisted that the portia tree should be removed first and only thereafter, the boundary stones shall be fixed.During this melee, Baskar (A1) and Ramesh (A3) who were already having grievance with the family of Usharani, joined the fray.3.2 While so, it is alleged that Kamala (A6) exhorted the others to hack Usharani, pursuant to which, Baskar (A1), Elangovan (A2) and Ramesh (A3) attacked Usharani.When her husband (Pandurangan- P.W.2) and son (Mahendran-P.W.1) rushed to her rescue, they were prevented by Ramachandran (A4) and Raju (A5).Usharani was hacked to death at the place of occurrence by Baskar (A1), Elangovan (A2)http://www.judis.nic.in 5 and Ramesh (A3) and Ramachandran (A4) and Raju (A5) attacked Mahendran (P.W.1) and Pandurangan (P.W.2) and caused injuries to them.3.3 Usharani and the two injured, viz., Mahendran (P.W.1) and Pandurangan (P.W.2) were carried by 108 ambulance to the Government Hospital, Thanjavur, where, they were examined by Dr.J.Sudhakaran (P.W.16), on 20.02.2015 between 3.55 p.m. and 4.05 p.m., who, in his evidence as well in the accident register copy (Exs.P.23 and 24 pertaining to Mahendran-P.W.2 and Panduragan-P.W. 1 respectively), noted the following injuries:statement (Ex.P.1) was recorded by the police, based on which, Baskar (P.W.19), Sub Inspector of Police, registered a case in Cr. No.13 of 2015 under Sections 147,148, 294(b), 341, 324 and 302 IPC on 20.02.2015 at 19.00 hrs.against the accused and prepared the printed FIR (Ex.P.28), which reached the jurisdictional Magistrate on 20.02.2015 at 11.50 p.m. at his residence, as could be seen from the endorsement made therein.3.5 The investigation of the case was taken over by Natarajan (P.W.23), Inspector of Police (who would be referred to as “the I.O.” for the sake of brevity), who went to the place of occurrence and prepared the observation mahazar and rough sketch (Exs.P.30 and P. 31 respectively), in the presence of witnesses Rajkumar (P.W.8) and Samuel Johnson (P.W.9).From the place of occurrence, he seized soil with blood (M.O.13), soil without blood (M.O.14), a pair of slippers (M.O.8) and a bundle of thread (M.O.9) under the cover of mahazar (Ex.P.32).3.6 The I.O. arrested the accused on 23.02.2015 and based on the statement of Baskar (A1) and Ramesh (A3), he recovered twohttp://www.judis.nic.in 7 billhooks (M.Os. 3 & 4) under the cover of mahazar (Ex.P.14).Similarly, on the confession statement of Elangovan (A2), Ramachandran (A4) and Raju (A5), he recovered two billhooks (M.Os. 5 & 6) and a crowbar (M.O.7) under the cover of mahazar (Ex.P.13).He conducted inquest over the body of Usharani and the inquest report was marked as Ex.Sparing anterior skin foid hyoid bone extending from the right side ➢ 3 x 3 x 2 cm laceration in the left thigh ➢ Laceration 2 x 2 x 1 cm in the right cheek ➢ Laceration 3 x 2 x 1 cm left palm eyes closed tongue within mouth.Mouth closed.Internal examination:Stomach empty, congested.Intestine empty congested.Skull opened brain appear pale, lungs congested, Uterus – normal.Opinion as to cause of death The deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrage due to injury to major vessels.The Trial Court is directed to secure the presence of Baskar (A1), Elangovan (A2), Ramachandran (A4) and Raju (A5) and commit them to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence.He despatched the body for postmortem.3.7 Dr. Saranya Devi (P.W.22) performed autopsy on the body of the deceased and in her evidence as well in the postmortem report (Ex.P.29), she has stated as follows:“External injuries:➢ Cut wound involving entire neck.”http://www.judis.nic.in 8 3.8 After examining witnesses, collecting various reports and completing the investigation, the I.O. filed final report in P.R.C. No.41 of 2015 before the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvaiyaru.3.9 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.108 of 2016 and was made over to the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur, for trial.The Trial Court framed the following charges:Charge No. Array of accused Provision of law under which charged 1 A1 to A5 S. 148 IPC 1 A6 S.147 IPC 2 A1 to A3 & A6 S.294 (b) IPC 3 A1 S.302 IPC 3 A2, A3 & A6 S.302 read with S.149 IPC 4 A4 & A5 S.302 read with S.149 IPC 5 A4 & A5 S.341 IPC 6 A4 & A5 S.324 r/w 326 IPC (2 counts) When questioned, the accused pleaded “not guilty”.3.10 To prove their case, the prosecution examined 23 witnesses, marked 43 exhibits and 14 material objects.On behalf of the accused, neither any witness was examined nor any documenthttp://www.judis.nic.in 9 marked.When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, they denied the same.10,000/- in default to undergo 1 year imprisonment.Elangovan (A2) S.148 IPC 1 year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo 3 months imprisonment S.302 IPC Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo 1 year imprisonment.http://www.judis.nic.in 10 Name of the accused Provision of law under Sentence which convicted Ramesh (A3) S.148 IPC 1 year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo 3 months imprisonment S.302 IPC Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo 1 year imprisonment.Challenging the said judgment, all the six accused are before this Court.4 Heard Mr. N. Anantha Padmanaban, learned counsel representing Mr. A. Sivasubramanian, learned counsel on record for the appellants and Mr. R. Anandharaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.5 Poyyamozhi (P.W.10), Taluk Surveyor and Murali Kumar (P.W.11), Village Administrative Offcer, Perumbuliyur Village, where, the occurrence had taken place, have stated in their evidence that Elangovan (A2) submitted an application to the District Collector on the Grievance Day stating that there is boundary dispute between him andhttp://www.judis.nic.in 12 his neighbour Pandurangan (P.W.2) and requested the Revenue authorities to come to the spot for measuring his property and for fixing the boundary stones; hence, they came to Elangovan's (A2's) property on 20.02.2015; at that time, the family members of Elangovan (A2) and the family members of Usharani were present; they measured the land in Survey No.269/28 and at that time, they found a portia tree in the boundary of the land and so, they directed removal of the said tree and advised Elangovan (A2) to lay the boundary stones thereafter.The incident took place after Poyyamozhi (P.W.10) and Muralikumar (P.W.11) left the place around 1 p.m. 6 As regards the incident in question, we have the evidence of Mahendran (P.W.1), Pandurangan (P.W.2), Prabhu (P.W.3), Vignesh (P.W.4) and Mathi (P.W.5).7 Mahendran (P.W.1) has stated in his evidence that after the Surveyor and the Village Administrative Officer left, Ramachandran (A4) and Raju (A5), sons of Elangovan (A2), started laying the boundary stones without cutting the portia tree; on seeing this, his (P.W.1's) mother Usharani objected to it; at that time, Kamala (A6), the mother of Ramachandran (A4) and Raju (A5) and the wife ofhttp://www.judis.nic.in 13 Elangovan (A2), abused Usharani and exhorted her sons to attack her (Usharani), pursuant to which, Baskar (A1) and his brother Ramesh (A3) who are the owners of the adjacent property and against whom, their (P.W.1's family) have been waging a litigation, joined the fray; Baskar (A1) and Ramesh (A3) brought a billhook each from their house and saying “Why should the tree be removed just because this woman says?”, came to attack his (P.W.1's) mother Usharani; Elangovan (A2) said that only if that lady (Usharani) is got rid of, everything will be alright; then, he took a billhook that was already lying there and attacked Usharani on her right cheek; when Usharani tried to defend the attack, she sustained injuries in her left hand and cheek; Ramesh (A3) hacked her on her back; Baskar (A1) hacked her on her left neck; when he (P.W.1) and his father Pandurangan (P.W.2) were rushing to the rescue of Usharani, Raju (A5) held him (P.W.1) and Ramachandran (A4) held his father Pandurangan (P.W.2) and restrained them; Raju (A5) attacked him (P.W.1) with a billhook and he (P.W.1) sustained injuries on his left shoulder, left leg, right leg and head; Ramachandran (A4) hacked his father Pandurangan (P.W.2) with a billhook on his head, nose and fore arm; thereafter, all the accused fled and his mother (Usharani) was lying dead; so, 108 ambulance was called and they were taken to the hospital; while he was at thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 14 hospital, the police came there and recorded his statement.The statement given by him was marked as Ex.He identified the blood- stained shirt and lungi (M.O.1 series) that were worn by him and the blood-stained lungi (M.O.2) that was worn by his father Pandurangan (P.W.2).He also identified the billhook (M.O.3) used by Baskar (A1), billhook (M.O.4) used by Ramachandran (A4), billhook (M.O.5) used by Ramesh (A3), billhook (M.O.6) used by Elangovan (A2), crowbar (M.O.7) that was found in the place of occurrence, one pair of slippers (M.O.8) used by his mother Usharani, a bundle of thread (M.O.9) found in the place of occurrence used for marking boundary and saree (M.O.10), jacket (M.O.11) and inskirt (M.O.12) worn by his mother Usharani.He also stated that he gave a statement to the Magistrate and the said statement was marked as Ex.8 Pandurangan (P.W.2), the father of Mahendran (P.W.1) and the husband of Usharani, has stated in his evidence that Baskar (A1) and Ramesh (A3) are living behind his house; Elangovan (A2) is living in the eastern side of his house; he (P.W.2) had boundary disputes with the accused; on 20.02.2015, the Surveyor and the Village Administrative Officer came to the place of occurrence for measuring Elangovan's (A2's) land; after measuring, they directedhttp://www.judis.nic.in 15 Elangovan (A2) to remove the portia tree on the boundary and thereafter, lay the boundary stones; however, after they left, the sons of Elangovan (A2), viz., Ramachandran (A4) and Raju (A5), tied the measuring thread and started laying the boundary stones; at that time, his wife (P.W.2's wife) Usharani objected saying that they should first remove the portia tree and then only, lay the boundary stones in that place, for which, Kamala (A6), the wife of Elangovan (A2), abused Usharani and asked her sons to attack her (Usharani); at her instance, Baskar (A1) and Ramesh (A3), who also had boundary disputes with him (P.W.2), jumped into the fray armed with billhooks by saying “Why should the tree be felled at the instance of these people” and rushed towards his (P.W.2's) wife; at that time, Elangovan (A2) hacked Usharani on her right cheek with a billhook; Ramesh (A3) cut her on her back with a billhook; Baskar (A1) attacked her with a billhook; when he (P.W. 2) went to prevent the attack, Ramachandran (A4) and his brother Raju (A5) prevented him and his son (P.W.1) from going to the rescue of Usharani and they also started attacking them with billhooks; Usharani died on the spot; thereafter, all the accused ran away as the incident was witnessed by his neighbours Kannan, Prabhu (P.W.3), Vignesh (P.W.4) and Mathi (P.W.5); he (P.W.2) was taken along with his son (P.W.1) by ambulance to the hospitalhttp://www.judis.nic.in 16 by Muruganandham and Kaliyamurthy.He identified his lungi (M.O.2).He also identified the billhooks (M.Os. 3,4 and 5) used by Baskar (A1), Raju (A5) and Ramesh (A3) respectively.9 Prabhu (P.W.3), Vignesh (P.W.4) and Mathi (P.W.5) who are the other eyewitnesses to the incident, have also corroborated the evidence of Mahendran (P.W.1) and Pandurangan (P.W.2).10 Mr. Anantha Padmanaban, learned counsel for the appellants made the following two principal submissions:11 Admittedly, the family of Usharani was having boundary disputes with their neighbours.In fact, Dr. Saranya Devi (P.W.22) has been specifically asked in the cross-examination as to whether she noticed any other injury on Usharani's body apart from the four injuries in her body, for which, she has answered in the negative.When an unlawful assembly mounts a physical attack, it is not necessary for the eyewitnesses to say with precision, as to who all attacked and where they attacked.If a billhook had been used by Ramesh (A3) to hack Usharani on her back, definitely, there would have been an injury on her back.2 AIR 1955 SC 216http://www.judis.nic.in 23 ➢ Ramachandran (A4) is convicted under Section 341 IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment.➢ Ramachandran (A4) is convicted under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.➢ Ramachandran (A4) is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.➢ Raju (A5) is convicted under Section 341 IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment.➢ Raju (A5) is convicted under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.➢ Raju (A5) is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.http://www.judis.nic.in 24 ➢ The aforesaid sentences shall run concurrently.[P.N.P.J.] & [B.P.J.] 26.03.2019 cad Index : Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking orderhttp://www.judis.nic.in 25 To 1 The II Additional District and Sessions Judge Thanjavur 2 The Inspector of Police Maruvur Police Station Thanjavur 3 The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras 4 The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai 5 The Record Keeper Vernacular Records Section Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Maduraihttp://www.judis.nic.in 26 P.N.PRAKASH, J.and B.PUGALENDHI, J.	['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,952,057	Both theappeals were directed against the judgment of learned SessionsJudge, Bhatinda holding that each of the accused persons wereguilty of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC').The two appellants inthe two connected appeals faced trial along with one Bant Singh whowas acquitted by the trial Court.Detailed reference to the factualposition is not necessary in view of the conclusions of the High Courtin the two appeals.Firstly it was submitted that there was considerable delay inlodging the first information report and secondly there wasconsiderable unexplained delay in sending the report to the ElakaMagistrate.It was concluded by the High Court that these factorsapart from the fact that the evidence of the so called eye-witnesswas not credible and cogent and also the medical evidence wasclearly at variance with the ocular version rendered prosecutionversion vulnerable.3. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that thefactors which have weighed with the High Court to direct acquittalcannot be maintained.Learned counsel for the respondent accusedon the other hand supported the judgment.Though it cannot be laid as a rule of universal application thatwhenever there is delay in lodging the FIR and/or there is delay in despatching the report to the Elaka Magistrate and/or the medicalevidence is at some variance with the ocular evidence.Theprosecution has to fail in the instant case the combined effect of thethree factors leave no manner of doubt that prosecution has failed toestablish the accusations.The appeal is accordingly dismissed.	['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,952,160	The prosecution case is as follows:There were rival unions in the colliery town of Majari situated in Chadrapur district in the State of Maharashtra.The colliery was owned before its nationalisation by private owners who employed a work force of about 1200 to 1600 men.In 1973 they were nationalized.Before that a union of the workers was established which was affiliated to INTUC.Accused No. 1 was its founder President while the deceased Pawar was its Vice-President.There were other members of the Committee also.The workers used to pay some subscriptions to the Union.It appears that a section of the workmen were dissatisfied with the running of the union and disputes arose and that the deceased Pawar was heading group of those workers who raised that dispute.Consequently, there was a rift between the President, A-1, Pandey and the deceased, Pawar.There were number of incidents on account of conduct of Pawar speaking against A-1 who was the President.Tension arose in the colliery and the relations became further strained.In that it is alleged that he asked his workers to remain united.The dispute between the two sections led by A-1 and Pawar was also aired at the level of INTUC President.Some workers were prevented from going to their work by means of force and threats and violence.It became necessary to post S.R.P. battalion in the colliery but later they were withdrawn.On 20-11-1973 witness Nizamuddin went to time office to report for duty A-93 was working in the time office and there was exchange of hot words between them.Nizamuddin having suffered the humiliation went to Pawar to whom he owed allegiance and reported the incident to him.Some reports were made by Pawar to the authorities.Thereafter a group of 150-200 persons collected from the side of workshop who were armed with variety of weapons and started throwing stones.A group thus collected proceeded towards the union office shouting slogans.They crossed the railway line and entered the Union office where Pawar was staying.It is alleged that some blows were dealt and Pawar ran away from the Union office into an open space and a crowd of about 120 persons chased him and he was surrounded and was mercilessly beaten resulting in his death.The dead body was carried to the hospital.News was sent to the colliery officers and later police came to know about it.The sub-inspector and other police officers with force proceeded to the colliery.The sub-inspector took up the investigation.He found that number of persons belonging to either group were injured.A report was sent.The crime was registered.An inquest was held over the dead body and the doctor found number of injuries.There are four appellants before us.They along with 118 others were tried for offences punishable Under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149, 452, 427, 337, I.P.C. The trial court convicted 37 of them and acquitted the rest.All of them preferred an appeal to the High Court.A Division Bench of the High Court in a very lengthy judgment having discussed the evidence of the eyewitnesses elaborately, confirmed the convictions and sentences of 8 of them and acquitted the rest.An appeal filed by the State was dismissed by the High Court.Out of the 8 convicted accused Jag Mohan (A-45), Pancham (A-77), S.P. Sinha (A-110) and Suraj Pal (A-115) have preferred this appeal.The injured witness as well as accused persons were treated by the doctor.The accused in general denied the offence.The prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of 5 witnesses.After screening through the evidence the learned Sessions Judge convicted 37 accused but as stated above the High Court upheld the conviction of only 8 out of which 4 are before us as appellants.We have gone through the voluminous judgment of the High Court carefully.The High Court after discussing the evidence of each of the witnesses formulated certain principles based on the ratio laid down in Masalti v. State of U.P. .Before doing so the High Court also noticed that most of the witnesses are highly interested and partisan.The High Court also rejected the pleas of the defence that there was a free fight.Regarding the scope of Section 149 and its applicability the High Court at one stage observed thus:Merely because they were at the place of the incident would not make them members of the unlawful assembly.Therefore, something more than a mere passive attitude, some positive indication of sharing of the common object of the unlawful assembly or the possibility of imputing knowledge of the likelihood of the commission of offence in the course of the commission of the common object of the assembly to that individual, along with his presence at the time of commission of the offence is a requisite for conviction of any person Under Section 149, I.P.C. That is the proper rule to apply and we propose to follow that rule and hold only such persons who are shown to have been members of the unlawful assembly at the time of committing of that offence, to be, vicariously liable.3. Having set out this principle the High Court on the basis of the identification and mention being made by two or more witnesses, thought fit or safe to convict the 8 accused.So far as the common object of the unlawful assembly was concerned the High Court relied upon the evidence of the witnesses who stated that the crowd was raising slogans 'Mardalo Pawar ko' and on the basis of the injuries found on the dead body held that common object was to commit the murder of the deceased.Therefore, the High Court ultimately concluded that the 8 accused who were convicted were members of the unlawful assembly and therefore liable under Section 302 read with Section 149, I.P.C.The learned Counsel for the appellants submits that no specific overt acts are attributed to any one of the four appellants and there is nothing to show that they inflicted any of the fatal blows on the deceased persons and that it is difficult to hold that they were members of the unlawful assembly with the common object of attacking the deceased.In the first instance there was a gathering of 200-300 persons and they started marching towards the union office.The next stage is, even according to the prosecution witnesses only some of them entered into the union office and inflicted some blows on Pawar the deceased who naturally apprehending danger to his life, ran out of the union office and was running to the open space.The evidence of these eye-witnesses shows that these 4 appellants were also in the crowd and they were moving towards the union office.They proceeded to the place where Pawar was staying.These 4 along with some more about 6 or 8 forcibly entered into the union office.Therefore, it is difficult to hold that all the persons who were in the crowd or who were running towards the union office had the common object of committing the murder of the deceased.Taking each stage of the occurrence into consideration and if the same is considered in the background the persons who entered and ran towards the union office and if some of them entered the union office dealt some stick blows it cannot also be held all of them had the common object to kill the deceased.The circumstances show it is only during the third stage by the time of which some of the accused have also received the injuries, unlawful assembly developed a common object of inflicting fatal blows on the deceased and this occurrence took place in the open space while the deceased was running away.Taking all the circumstances into consideration the appellants and the 4 other convicts who are identified among the group of persons who entered in the union office cannot be said to have shared the common object of the group which later surrounded and attacked the deceased.In this view of the matter, we find it difficult to hold that the 4 appellants and the 4 other convicted accused by the High Court shared the common object of committing the murder of the deceased.Consequently we set aside the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 149, I.P.C. Instead we convict them Under Section 326 read with Section 149, I.P.C. and sentence them to undergo 5 years R.I. So far as S.P. Sinha (A-110) is concerned we find from the record that he is aged above 80 years and he was also in jail for about 2 years.Therefore, while convicting him Under Section 326 read with Section 149, I.P.C. we reduce his sentence to the period already undergone.The convictions and the sentences awarded under other charges are confirmed.The appeal is accordingly disposed of.	['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
195,216,706	SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.All the three appellants who are ladies were arrayed as accused alongwith Brij Lal, husband of appellant no. 1 and Dev Raj, husband of appellant no. 3, in FIR no. 198 of 2011 lodged by victim Shriram with Police Station Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur (Himachal Pradesh) for offences under Section 147/148/307 read with Section 149 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The learned Additional Sessions Judge Ghumarwin, Bilaspur accepted the prosecution case against all the five chargesheeted accused in Sessions Trial No. 10/7 of 2012 and imposed the sentence of rigorous imprisonment (RI) for five years and a fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC.RI for six months and a fine of Rs.1,000/- each was also imposed on all the convicts for offence under Section 148 of the 1 Page 1 Crl.A. No.524 of 2016 @ SLP(Crl.)2496/2016 IPC. Accused Brij Lal was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years along with a fine of Rs.3,000/- for offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. In default of payment of fines, further substantive sentences of varying periods were also ordered by the trial court.In appeal the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla by the impugned judgment and order dated 2.1.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 4015 of 2013, affirmed the conviction and sentences as noted above and dismissed the appeal as one without any merit.On behalf of the three appellants a common argument has been advanced that both the Courts below failed to notice and appreciate vital contradictions in respect of overt act alleged against the lady accused persons, the appellants, as mentioned in the initial version of the occurrence contained in the first information report and in the subsequent deposition of the informant Shriram rendered during the trial.The argument has been further elaborated by urging that had the Courts below noticed the vital contradictions, they would have treated the subsequent specific allegations against the appellants as mere exaggerations and improvements fit to be discarded in view of specific role assigned in the FIR only against the two male appellants Brij Lal and Dev Raj, own brothers of the informant.As a further corollary it has been urged that the appellants were, in all probability present merely as on-lookers and hence they did not 2 Page 2 Crl.A. No.524 of 2016 @ SLP(Crl.)2496/2016 merit conviction by holding them guilty of sharing a common object with the assailants of the victim.In other words, as per learned counsel for the appellants the Courts below have erred in fact and in law in applying Section 149 of the IPC against the appellants for convicting them for the offences allegedly committed by the two male accused persons.In order to appreciate the aforesaid submissions and arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants it is not necessary to go into details of all the materials and evidence available on record.In the FIR recorded on the date of occurrence itself i.e. 26.12.2011 but after receiving medical treatment the informant victim disclosed that there was land dispute between him and his brother Brij Lal.It is alleged in the FIR that on the previous day two trees of Khair had fallen down and on the date of occurrence at about 8 o’clock in the morning when the informant wanted the trees to be cut into pieces, allegedly the five accused persons, Brij Lal, Dev Raj and the three appellants came at the spot and started beating him.Brij Lal was having gun which he fired at his left jaw.Dev Raj assaulted with axe at the right arm.The victim came back 3 Page 3 Crl.A. No.524 of 2016 @ SLP(Crl.)2496/2016 to home and was taken to hospital where he gave the statement to police which is contained in the FIR.As PW-1, the victim Shriram deposed on 16.8.2012 in Court giving details of civil dispute/land dispute between him and his brothers.He claimed to have forbidden the accused persons from lifting the pieces of fallen trees and when his orders were ignored, he protested and resultantly suffered a gun shot injury on the left side of his face at the hands of accused Brij Lal.He was then caught by Dev Raj who gave him a kick with his right knee and as a result he fell down.Thereafter Dev Raj caused an injury on his right hand with an axe.Thereafter an obvious improvement has appeared in the deposition of the victim that appellant no. 2 Fullan Devi attacked him with a ‘darat’ (sharp cutting weapon) which hit on his left hand, the other two appellants also gave him beatings with kicks and fist blows.He has specified that blood oozed out only from left jaw and right hand.Dev Raj allegedly run away with the gun.In the next breath he added that Dev Raj ran away from the spot along with the appellants.Only Brij Lal remained at the spot and he further assaulted the victim as a result whereof he fell down.Since son of the victim was away from the village, his two daughters-in-law came to the spot and took him to his house.His son came later and took him on a vehicle to Bilaspur where he was subjected to x-ray and some treatment and then referred to a 4 Page 4 Crl.A. No.524 of 2016 @ SLP(Crl.)2496/2016 hospital at Shimla.But before that his statement was recorded by the police at Bilaspur.The trial court judgment discloses that the defence confronted the victim PW-1 with his earlier statement wherein he had not alleged that Fullan Devi assaulted him with a ‘darat’.But the trial court in para 24 of the judgment misdirected itself by confining the consideration only to the issue as to whether the complainant who was an injured should be relied upon or not.In view of his being an injured witness as proved by the Doctor, the trial court chose to place full reliance on his deposition.The error committed by the trial court was in ignoring the contradiction and subsequent development quo the three appellants herein and its failure to consider whether the complainant should be believed only in part qua the male accused persons and not in respect of the appellants.Page 5 Crl.A. No.524 of 2016 @The medical evidence of PW-17, Dr. Superiya Atwal proves the injury on left side of the face of PW-1 to be a gun shot injury.The second injury was an abrasion on the medial aspect of left hand, 5x1 cm in size.The third injury was a bleeding one on the back of right hand 5x5x1/4 cm in size extending from thumb region to middle finger.The fourth injury was again an abrasion on front of right thigh of 2x1 cm in size.According to Doctor, the injury no. 2 could have been caused with blunt side of ‘darat’, whereas injury no.3 could have been caused by an axe.Injuries no. 2 and 4 were opined as simple in nature.In cross-examination the Doctor admitted that injury no. 2 was possible even by a fall on hard surface.A careful analysis of the injuries as proved by the medical evidence creates a distinct impression that injury no. 2 is not by a sharp cutting weapon like ‘darat’ and besides being simple it may have been on account of fall.The victim, PW 1 has admitted that after receiving gun shot injury he was assaulted by Dev Raj and made to fall.He has also alleged further assault by Brij Lal after the other accused had gone away.Thus as per prosecution case there is no corresponding injury on the person of victim to support the allegation of assault against the lady accused persons, the appellants.Coupled with this fact the initial version also creates a serious doubt that specific allegations against the appellants have been developed later in the course of deposition in Court.Such allegation has come only from PW-1 without support 6 Page 6 Crl.A. No.524 of 2016 @ SLP(Crl.)2496/2016 from any independent witness.In such circumstances and due to lack of convincing medical evidence, the credibility of specific allegations against the appellants required serious consideration by the trial court and also by the High Court while hearing the appeal.Unfortunately for the appellants, such consideration did not take place.A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the High Court did not consider the specific case of the appellants as noted above that they were merely by-standers and specific allegations against them have been added subsequently, contrary to the statement before the police.We find that the High Court erred in not analyzing the evidence of the victim PW-1 as well as the medical evidence with care and caution in the light of specific defence of the appellants that there was no reliable material and circumstances to rope them with the assault upon the victim made by the other accused persons, with the aid of Section 149 of the IPC.On this account the impugned judgment and order therefore stands vitiated not only on facts but also in law.We have given anxious consideration to the allegations against the appellants in the FIR as well as in the evidence that has come during trial.In view of discussions made earlier, we are of the view that the Courts below should not have believed the exaggerated and contradictory deposition of the victim qua the appellants in view of the fact that the parties were having land 7 Page 7 Crl.A. No.524 of 2016 @ SLP(Crl.)2496/2016 dispute from before and even then in the FIR no specific role was assigned to the appellants while specific role was assigned to two co-accused.The medical evidence also does not corroborate the subsequent allegations made by the victim against the appellants.The broad features of the case also reveal that the two male accused were allegedly having a gun and an axe in their hand and they used these weapons only to cause injuries which did not pose any danger to the life of the victim.In such circumstances the women accused could have hardly any reason to unnecessarily get involved into assault so as to cause simple injuries by fists and kicks.For all the aforesaid reasons we find merit in the submission advanced on behalf of the appellants and do not agree with the learned counsel for the State who has sought to support the impugned judgment and order.The conviction and sentence imposed against the appellants are set aside and they are acquitted of all the charges by extending them the benefit of doubt.The appellant no.1 has been exempted from surrendering in this case.The appeal stands allowed.[SHIVA KIRTI SINGH] New Delhi.	['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,952,191	The prosecution case, in a nut-shell, was that Gopa (deceased) was the wife of the appellant and at the material time was living with him in the back portion of Janakalyan Hindu Hotel at Michaelnagar within Police Station Air Port.The hotel was owned by the appellant's sister and its back portion was used for residential purpose of the owner and her relatives.According to the prosecution, for about a month after the marriage the couple lived happily but thereafter, the relation between them became strained because of demand for dowry by the appellant's mother.On 12-5-1982 around 10 a.m., being attracted by the screams of Gopa, some employees of the hotel including Sambhu Sarkar (P.W. 11) and a close neighbour Sm.Sefali Das (P.W. 2), rushed to her room and found her lying there with severe burn injuries all over her body.They, along with the appellant, at once removed her to the R.G. Kar Hospital in a taxi where she was admitted for treatment.Gopa's parents were duly informed and they reached the hospital in the afternoon.When her father Dipak Biswas (P.W. 1) asked her about the cause of her injuries, she replied "Father please let me live.If I survive, I will tell you everything".Next morning, when he again met her she wanted to tell something but he said that the statement should be made before a Police Officer.He then went to Police Station, Chitpur and reported the incident there.The police and the doctor have recorded my statement, read it over to me and I have affixed my thumb impression to it after being satisfied that my statement has been correctly recorded.It may be pointed out that when Sm.Sefali Das (P.W. 2), a close neighbour of Gopa and Sambhu Sarkar (P.W. 11), an employee of the hotel, rushed to her room on hearing her screams, they did not fimd the door closed because, it appears from the evidence that after entering the room they saw Gopa there with burn injuries all over her body.Though conscious, she did not make any allegation against her husband or about the cause of the fire.According to Sm.He came to the hospital with Sub-Inspector Seal (P.W. 4) who, as pointed out already, recorded the dying declaration at 10.25 a. m. It next appears from the evidence of P.W, 1 that after the police had left he again went to his daughter when she told him that her husband had set fire to her body after pouring kerosene oil.It was, however, elicited from the cross-examination of the first investigating officer (P.W. 7) that P.W. 1 did not disclose to him that his daughter wanted to tell him something when he again met her on the following morning (13-5-82) that he told her that if she wanted to say something, the statement should be made before the police or that subsequent to the recording of her dying declaration by the police, she told him that her husband had set fire to her body after pouring Kerosene oil It is thus manifestly clear that the above story was introduced for the first time more than four years after the occurrence.It surpasses our imagination as to why, even after such a statement of his daughter, he did not report the incident to Air Port Police Station.JUDGMENT Sankar Bhattacharyya, J.Bijoy Kumar Sen alias Birju, the appellant before us, was arraigned before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North 24 Paraganas, Barasat, to answer the following charges First - That you, on or about the 12th day of May, 1982 at Michaelnagar, Janakalyan Hindu Hotel, P.S. Airport, did commit murder by intentionally or knowingly causing the death of your wife Smt. Gopa Sen and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.Secondly - That you, on or about the same day of May, 1982 knowing that certain offence, to wit, murder punishable with death or imprisonment for life, had been committed knowingly gave false information, to wit, information that the deceased Gopa Sen had caught fire owing to accidental burst of stove, with the intention of screening yourself from legal punishment and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.On conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant of both the charges and for such conviction, sentenced him to imprisonment for life and to rigorous imprisonment for seven years respectively, with the direction that both the sentences were to run concurrently.This appeal by the appellant seeks to assail the above order of conviction and sentence.Sub-Inspector S.R. Seal (P.W. 4) of the Chitpur Police Station came to the hospital with him and recorded the dying declaration of Gopa (Ext. 2) at 10.25 a.m. in presence of Dr. K. Haldar (P.W. 12).In her dying declaration, she accused the appellant of having set fire to her body during an altercation.Gopa died in the hospital on 15-5-1982 at 7.20 a.m. On 16-5-82, at 9.10 p.m., the recorded dying declaration (Ext. 2) was received at the Air Port P.S. by Sub-Inspector S.K. Roy (P.W. 5) through constable A. Dutta (P.W. 6) of the Chitpur Police Station.Treating it as the first information report, the Airport Police registered a case against the appellant under Section 326/327, I.P.C. and took up investigation.On receipt of the death report of Gopa, the case was converted into one under Section 302/201, I.P.C.On completion of the investigation the police submitted charge-sheet against the appellant, which in the usal course, ended in committalof the case to the Court of Session.In defence, the appellant pleaded innocence and alleged that he had been falsely implicated by his father-in-law.The death of Gopa as a result of burn injuries is not disputed before us and has also been proved by overwhelming evidence.Sefali Das (P.W. 2) and Sambhu Sarkar (P.W. 11) rushed to the appellant's room hearing the screams of Gopa and found her lying inside the room with severe burn injuries all over her body.Dr. N.K. Dey (P.W. 3) who first examined her in the Emergency Ward of the R.G. Kar Hospital on 12-5-1982 around 12.50 p.m., deposed to the effect that her whoje body was burnt by fire.The autopsy surgeon Dr. D.K. Debnath (P.W. 10) also found burn injuries on different parts of her body, as fully detailed in his evidence and was of the opinion that the death of Gopa was due to the effect of the burn injuries which were ante-mortem and homicidal in nature.In support of his opinion that the injuries were homicidal in nature Dr. Debnath gave the following reasons:(1) The victim was found pregnant and (2) the burnt areas showed sooty blackening of the affected parts and the areas involved did not appear to be consistent with suicidal infliction.We are not at all impressed by the reasons given by the autopsy surgeon in support of his opinion that the injuries were homicidal in nature.As regards the first reason, he seems to have been influenced by the thought that a pregnant woman would ordinarily be loath to commit suicide.It is, however, the case of neither party that she committed suicide by burning herself.There could, therefore, be only two possibilities - the injuries were either accidental or homicidal in nature.In cross-examination, Dr. Debnath conceded that there would be sooty blackening of the affected parts also in the case of self-immolation by fire but added that in that case, the parts affected would differ from homicidal burns without, however, elaborating the differences.He further conceded that in a case of death by accidental fire by coming in contact with Kerosene oil there may be sooty blackening of the affected parts.We, therefore, find that the opinion of the autopsy surgeon that the burn injuries were homicidal in nature is not at all dependable and to determine whether the injuries were accidental or homicidal in nature, we have necessarily to look to the dying declaration and other materials appearing from the evidence on record.The only evidence of motive comes from Dipak Biswas (P.W. 1), father of Gopa.According to him he purchased a T.V. set as a marriage present for his daughter but her mother-in-law refused to accept it and instead demanded a sum of Rs. 5,000/-.He, however, paid her Rs. 4,000/- only and kept the T.V. set for himself.His evidence further goes to show that he used to visit his daughter once or twice a month.One day, during one of such visits, he found her visibly perturbed When asked why she was looking perturbed, she at first declined to say any thing but being insisted upon, disclosed that her mother-in-law was demanding the T.V. set also and asked him not to give the T.V. set either to her husband or to her mother-in-law.She also disclosed that of late, she was not receiving good treatment from her husband and mother-in-law.In cross-examination P.W. 1 admitted that in his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was recorded on the night of 16-5-1982 after Gopa's death, he did not disclose to the investigating officer the alleged demand of rupees five thousand or the T.V. set by Gopa's mother-in-law or the alleged payment of rupees four thousand by him to Gopa's mother-in-law instead of the T.V. set.It was also elicited from the first investigating officer (PW 7) that apart from the above omissions which are quite material in nature, P. W. I d id not also disclose during his examination under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code that one day during his visit to his daughter he found her visibly perturbed, that on being asked she at first declined to say anything, that at his instance she ultimately disclosed that her mother-in-law was demanding the T.V. set also, that she asked him not to give the T.V. set either to her husband or to her-in-laws or that she told him that of late, all was not going well and she was not receiving good treatment from them.It would thus appear that the motive for the alleged crime was introduced by the prosecution for the first time during trial which commenced on 28-8-86 that is, a little over 4 years and three months after Gopa's death.Before proceeding to deal with the dying declaration, we may profitably extract below the guidelines set out by the Supreme Court in Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay to test the reliability of a dying declaration.The Supreme Court pointed out that a dying declaration stands on the same footing as another piece of evidence and has to be judged in the light of surrounding circumstances and with reference to the principles governing the weighing an evidence; that a dying declaration which has been recorded by a competent magistrate in the proper manner, that is to say, in the form of questions and answers and as far as practicable in the words of the maker, stands on a much higher footing than a dying declaration which depends upon oral testimony which may suffer from all the infirmities of human memory and human character and that in order to test the reliability of a dying declaration the Court has to keep in view the circumstances like the opportunity of the dying man for observation, for example, whether there was sufficient light if the crime was committed, at night, whether the capacity of the man to remember the facts stated has not been impaired at the time he was making the statement by circumstances beyond his control, that the statement has been consistent throughout if he had several opportunities of making a dying declaration apart from the record of it; and that the statement had been made at the earliest opportunity and was not the result of tutoring by interested parties.24A. The dying declaration (Ext. 2), when translated into Erigilish, reads as under:-My name is Gopa Sen. My age is 20 years.My address is Jana Kalyan Hindu Hotel, Police Station Air Port.I was married about six months back, I had no unity of mind with my husband but I do no know why.On 12-5-82 at 10 A.M. I was in my room with my husband An altercation was going on between me and my husband.Suddenly my husband poured kerosene oil on my body from a kerosene lamp, set fire to my body and closed the door.Out of fear, I started shouting and running.Thereafter, my husband brought me to the hospital(R.G. Kar.) On the way he told me that if anybody asked me about the cause of the fire I should say that the fire was caused by a stove.Earlier, I disclosed the cause of the fire to the doctor as tutored by my husband.Now I have disclosed the truth on being asked again by the police and the doctor about the cause of the fire.Sefali Das (P.W. 2), the relation between Gopa and her husband was quite cordial.She accompanied Gopa to the hospital in the taxi and it appears from her cross-examination that during their journey to the hospital, she asked Gopa as to how she sustained the burn injuries and her reply was that she caught fire from a burning stove while doing some domestic work.Sambhu Sarkar (P.W. 11) deposed to the effect that on 12-5-82, after performing night duty on the previous night, he was lying on a cot in an open space adjacent to the room where the appellant was living with his wife Gopa.Suddenly, hearing a hue and cry, he rushed to the appellant's room and found that Gopa had been burnt by fire.Thereafter, he, along with the appellant and several others, removed her to the R.G. Kar hospital in a taxi.appellant either during her removal to the taxi from her room or during the journey from the hotel to the hospital.Also, we find it difficult to imagine that the appellant would tutor his wife in presence of his neighbour Sm.Sefali Das and his sister's employees Sambhu Sarkar to give out the cause of her injuries as accidental.There could, therefore, be no conceivable reason for him to oblige the appellant by suppressing the truth about four years he had already left his job.In such circumstance the alleged tutoring by the appellant, as appearing in the dying declaration, must be dismissed outright as an afterthought.It is also seen from the evidence of Sambhu Sarkar (P.W. 11) that besides him certain other employees of the hotel rushed to the appellant's room hearing Gopa's screams.Although they were examined by the investigating officer and some of them namely, Sm.Puspa Roy and one Bhola Sengupta were named as witnesses in the charge-sheet, they were withheld by the prosecution without any explanation whatsoever.It would be thus clear that Gopa did not make any allegation against the appellant at the earliest opportunity that is, while she was being removed to the taxi from her room and also during her journey to the hospital in the taxi.On the contrary, during her journey to the hospital, she disclosed to Sm.Sefali Qas (P.W. 2) on her query that the cause of the fire was accidental in nature.We have mentioned already that she was taken to the hospital around 12.50 p.m. and was admitted by Dr. N.K. Dey (P.W. 3).It will appear from his evidence that although the vicitm was conscious she did not disclose the cause of her injuries.It was the appellant who stated that she accidentally caught fire from a burning stove but she did not open her mouth to contradict him.It is also seen from the evidence of Dr. Dey that even after Gopa's admission to the hospital, he tried to ascertain from her a number of times the cause of her injuries but she did not say anything.31. DipakBiswas(P.W. 1), father of Gopa, rushed to the hospital with his wife on the same afternoon on receiving information of the incident.When he asked Gopa about the cause' of the injuries, she did not disclose anything.She merely said "father please let me live.If I survive, I will tell you every thing." On the next day, his father-in-law and mother-in-law also visited the hospital but they were not examined by the prosecution.The mother of Gopa who was present with Dipak Biswas (P.W. 1) in the hospital was not also examined.According to P.W. 1, when he visited his daughter on the next morning she wanted to tell something, but surprisingly enough, without caring to listen what she actually wanted to say, he immediately left for the Chitpur Police Station telling her that her statement should be made in presence of the police.This conduct of P.W. 1 appears to us to be highly unnatural because, he did not even know what his daughter wanted to say.He appears to have presumed that his daughter was going to make a dying declaration against her husband which ought to be made in presence of the police.In fact, he did not lodge any complaint at all accusing the appellant of having committed murder of his daughter.The first information report was recorded at the Air Port Police Station only on 16-5-1982 at 21.10 hours and that too, on the basis of the dying declaration (Ext. 2) which was received from the Chitpur Police Station.We fail to understand why the Chitpur Police Station took three days to send the dying declaration to the Air Port Police Station, although Gopa died on 15-5-1982 at 7.20 p.m.On an ultimate analysis of the evidence, we find that no dying declaration was made by Gopa at the earliest opportunity; secondly, during her journey to the hospital in the taxi she made a dying declaration where she categorically stated that the cause of her injuries was accidental in nature which is totally inconsistent with her recorded dying declaration (Ext. 2); thirdly, in her presence her husband disclosed the injuries to Dr. N.K. Dey as accidental which she did not protest; fourthly, when after her admission Dr. Dey again asked her about the cause of her injury she did not give any reply; fifthly, even when her parents came to see her in the hospitalon the same afternoon and enquired about the cause of her injury, she did not make any allegation against her husband.For the first time after arrival of the police on the next day, she accused her husband of having set fire to her body.Before her dying declaration was recorded her parent's grandfather and grandmother had met her and there was, therefore, ample scope for tutoring her to implicate her husband.That apart, the allegation in the dying declaration that her husband tutored her to say if asked by any one, that she accidentally caught fire from a burning stove has been found to be false.So also her statement that earlier she had disclosed to the doctor the cause of her injuries as tutored by her husband because, we have already seen that she did not make any statement before the doctor.The alleged dying declaration made by her to father (P.W. 1) after her dying declaration (Ext. 2) was recorded by the police cannot also be accepted for the reasons already pointed out above.The statement in the dying declaration that the appellant closed the door of the room after setting fire to her body has not also been substantiated because Sm.Sefali Das (P.W. 2) and Sambhu Sarkar (P.W. 11) who rushed to her room hearing her scream, did not find the door closed nor did they find her husband in or around the room.In his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant stated that he was in the hotel at the time of occurrence.Hearing the screams of his wife, he rushed to his room and found her in flames.In his attempt to save her life, he too sustained burn injuries on his hands and other parts of the body.Thereafter he took her to the hospital where she died.Though the defence did not examine any doctor to prove the injuries of the appellant, it was admitted by Gopa's father (P. W. 1) in cross-examination that while in the hospital he found both palms of the appellant under bandage.Sambhu Sarkar (P.W. 11) also admitted in cross-examination that he found burn injuries on different parts of the appellant's body.This gives the clearest indication that the appellant tried to put off the fire to save the life of his wife.On an anxious consideration of the foregoing facts and circumstances, we find ourselves unable to accept the dying declaration (Ext. 2) as true and dependable.We are inclined to think that the alleged oral dying decleration made by Gopa to her father is nothing but a subsequent embellishment to secure the conviction of the appellant.We have also dismissed the alleged motive for the crime as untrue and nothing but an after thought.The appellant be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case.	['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
155,098,459	MACA No.878/2014 Page 1 of 10The Tribunal held inquiry in the course of which the first appellant examined himself on the strength of his affidavit (Ex.PW1/A) mainly to prove the factum of relationship, death, status and loss of dependency.He took Raju Mandal to Government Hospital, Nithari where the doctors declared him dead.During cross-examination PW2 was cross-examined regarding his residence and he admitted that he had no proof of residence/ stay at the address i.e. Sector-94, jhuggi near Shamshaan Ghat, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar.He denied the suggestion that he had never stayed/ resided at the said address and that is why he could not produce any proof of residence of the said address.He stated that he had not submitted any proof of residence/ working of Raju Mandal which could show that Raju Mandal was working in Delhi or residing in Delhi.MACA No.878/2014 Page 3 of 10PW2 was also cross-examined on not revealing his name and address to the doctor who attended the deceased and not lodging the FIR the same day and during cross- examination PW2 stated that he had not mentioned his name and address to the doctor who attended the deceased Raju for the first time in the hospital.He could not tell the name of the hospital to which the deceased Raju was removed.He denied the suggestion that since he was not with the deceased on 27.2.2008 therefore he had not informed the police regarding the accident on the same day or that he had not removed the deceased Raju to the hospital just after the accident.He denied the suggestion that the deceased Raju was removed to the hospital by the police and he was deposing falsely being the relative of the deceased.Further during cross-examination PW2 stated that he had noted the number of the bus himself as he was going with the deceased.He stated that after the accident he took him to the hospital.He stated that he could not identify the driver then as the bus had left the spot.Thus PW2 could not identify the driver at the time of his cross-examination.PW2 denied the suggestion that he never worked or resided MACA No.878/2014 Page 4 of 10 at Delhi.PW2 stated that he had proceeded from Noida to Delhi at 10 a.m. on 27.2.2008 and reached Delhi at 1.00p.m.and remained In Delhi upto 4.00 p.m. He could not tell what was the route number of the bus which they had boarded from Delhi to Noida.He stated that first of all he took the bus from NT Gate upto Apollo and thereafter he changed the bus for Noida.He admitted that he had not mentioned the route number of the bus in which they had travelled from Apollo to Noida.He stated that he had never enquired about the fact that the bus in question was being driven by the respondent on route No.460 from Badarpur to Minto Bridge and there was no occasion for the driver to take the bus from Delhi to Noida.He admitted that he had never enquired whether the bus in question may go to Delhi to Noida or not.He denied the suggestion that the bus in question had not gone to Noida as the said bus was not permitted to go to Noida as per its permit as the said bus was being run under STA permit.He stated that he had not given any travelling ticket to the police regarding their travel in the bus in question.He denied the suggestion that the alleged accident was never caused by the bus of respondents which was in question.R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):Raju Mandal aged 19 years suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident at about 7.45 PM on 27.02.2008 in the area of Amarpali Chauraha falling within the jurisdiction of police station Sector 39, Noida (U.P.), to which he succumbed on the same day.His parents (the appellants) brought a claim petition seeking compensation under Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal) in Delhi.Noticeably, the bus bearing registration No.DL 1PB 8777 which according to their case was involved in the accident leading to the fatal injuries suffered by Raju Mandal is owned by the first respondent and was driven on the relevant date and time by the second respondent, it having been insured against MACA No.878/2014 Page 1 of 10 third party risk with the third respondent for the relevant period.The first and second respondents, upon notice, filed a joint written statement denying involvement of the bus in the accident.The claimants also examined Parikshan Mandal (PW2) brother-in-law of the deceased Raju Mandal on the basis of his affidavit (Ex.PW2/A).In addition, the claimants submitted certified copies of the first information report (FIR) No.68/2008 registered in the local police station of Sector 39, Noida, U.P. on 28.02.2008 for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) based on the statement of Parikshan Mandal (PW2) and connected documents including post mortem report, copy of the certificate of registration of the bus, proof of identity etc. The claimants made several attempts to call the Investigating Officer of the said FIR to examine him so as to bring on record the evidence gathered during the investigation but the presence of Investigating Officer could not be secured in spite of the processes being sent even through Senior Superintendent of Police.The proceedings recorded by the Tribunal show that since the claimants were unable to get the processes served so as to enforce the attendance of the Investigating officer of the FIR, in the opinion of the Tribunal MACA No.878/2014 Page 2 of 10 sufficient time having been given, the opportunity for evidence was closed.MACA No.878/2014 Page 2 of 10The Tribunal, by judgment dated 21.03.2014, held that the claimants had not been able to prove the involvement of the bus in the accident leading to the death of Raju Mandal.The relevant part of the discussion on this subject appears in (paras 13 to 18 of) the impugned judgment which must be quoted in extenso :Regarding the accident PW1 in his affidavit Ex.PWI/A had deposed that his son met with an accident on 27.2.2008 with Bus N0.DL-1PB-8777 and died.During cross-examination PW1 stated that he had not seen the accident.Thus PW1 had not witnessed the accident taking place.PW2 was examined as an eye-witness of the accident and had deposed that on 27.2.2008 at about 7.45 p.m. he along with his brother in law Shri Raju Mandal was going from Delhi to Noida in Bus No.When the bus reached Amarpali Chauraha, his brother in law was getting down from the bus when the driver with a jerk drove away the bus as a result of which his brother in law fell down and came under the wheel of the bus.He stated that the driver of the bus ran away from the spot.He admitted that at the time of accident he had not furnished any address of the deceased Raju which showed his residence at Delhi.However nothing much turns on that as the deceased could have MACA No.878/2014 Page 3 of 10 been travelling from any place to any other place and it cannot be disputed that the post mortem of the deceased had been conducted at Hospital, District Gautam Budh Nagar.He admitted that FIR in the present case was got registered by him on the next day of the accident.He denied the suggestion that he had not lodged the FIR on the date of accident itself because he was not with the deceased or that he had not witnessed the accident.Thus PW2 stated that he had not mentioned his name and address to the doctor who attended the deceased for the first time in the hospital but more importantly he could not even tell the name of the hospital to which the deceased was removed.Moreover the accident had taken place on 27.2.2008 and the FIR was got registered only on 28.2.2008 and no explanation has been put forth by PW2 for getting the FIR registered the next day.He denied the suggestion that since he had not travelled in the bus in question of the respondent that is why he had not produced the travelling ticket of the bus in question before the police.He denied the suggestion that the deceased may have travelled in the bus in question in Delhi on 27.2.2008 or that since he was not with the deceased he found the ticket of the bus in question in the pocket of the deceased on the basis of which he had lodged the present false FIR with the Noida police involving the bus in question without verifying the facts that the said bus could not go to Noida from Delhi as per its permit.He denied the suggestion that since he was not with the deceased at the time of the accident therefore he could not see the actual offending vehicle or that he had given the number of the bus in question falsely because he could not get the particulars of the actual offending bus which had actually caused the accident or that he was deposing falsely being the relative of the deceased.MACA No.878/2014 Page 4 of 10MACA No.878/2014 Page 5 of 10It is thus seen that PW2 could not even tell what was the route number of the bus which they had boarded from Delhi to Noida and he admitted that he had never enquired whether the bus in question may go to Delhi to Noida or not.He had also not given any travelling ticket to the police regarding their travel in the bus in question.A suggestion was put to PW2 that the deceased may have travelled In the bus in question in Delhi on 27.2.2008 or that since he was not with the deceased he found the ticket of the bus in question in the pocket of the deceased on the basis of which he had lodged the present false FIR with the Noida police which he denied but it is significant that PW2 had neither lodged the FIR the same day, nor could he tell the name of the hospital to which the deceased was removed, nor could he identify the driver, nor could he tell the route number of the bus which he and the deceased had allegedly taken nor he had given the travelling ticket to the police.All this casts doubt on the presence of PW2 with the deceased at the time of the accident.During cross-examination RW1 stated that he is a driver by profession.He stated that he was employed by Manish Kakkar, owner of the bus.The bus plied on route No.460 from Badarpur border to Minto Road.He stated that there were two drivers who were operating the said bus.Other driver was Vijay.He stated that the driver Vijay drove the bus till 3.30 p.m. and then he took over the vehicle and last trip ended at 9.30 p.m. His further cross was deferred.Though the cross-examination of RW1 could not be completed it has been the consistent stand of the respondents that the bus in question was not involved in the accident.It would be argued on behalf of the petitioners that this being a petition u/s. 163A MV Act no rashness/negligence is to be proved on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle.It is true that it is sufficient for grant of compensation u/s. 163A MV Act that there is an accident involving a motor vehicle and as a result of such accident death or permanent disability results to the victim.In the instant case it cannot be disputed that death had resulted and the post mortem report in respect of the deceased is Ex.However it has been specifically MACA No.878/2014 Page 6 of 10 disputed by the respondents that the bus in question was involved in the accident and it would be essential to show that the accident was involving the bus in question in order to fix any liability on the respondents.MACA No.878/2014 Page 6 of 10The petitioners would then argue that once the number of bus in question was mentioned in the FIR nothing further needs to be shown.However that would not be so in the instant case as the involvement of the bus in question is specifically disputed and further the final report filed by the police is on record and in fact the attested copy of the same was placed on record by the petitioners.As per the same the bus bearing No.DL-1 PB-8777 was found not to have come towards Noida.It was further mentioned that the last round of the bus started from Badarpur border at 19.56 and it reached Minto Road at 21.36 and that the accident was not found to have been committed by the said bus.Once the final report filed by the police is on record the same cannot be ignored.Moreover if \he bus had started from Badarpur border at 19.56 there would have been no occasion for it to be at Noida at about 7.45 p.m. i.e. the time of the alleged accident nor would it have been possible for the bus to be at Noida and thereafter reach Badarpur border in time.The copy of the permit and the time table and route of the bus and documents of DTC are also on record though they were not proved.However even otherwise when as per the final report of the police the bus was not found involved in the accident and there are material discrepancies in the testimony of PW2 it cannot be said that the deceased died in an accident involving bus bearing No.DL-1PB-8777."Having heard both sides at length, this Court finds substance in the grievance of the appellants (claimants) that the approach of the Tribunal was not correct.The evidence of PW2 has been disbelieved because he did not lodge the FIR on the same day as of the accident and also for the reasons that he was unable to identify the driver or specify the route number of the bus.It was also noted by the Tribunal that the MACA No.878/2014 Page 7 of 10 witness though claiming that he was travelling with the deceased in the bus, was unable to produce the travelling ticket against which he would have been authorized to be a passenger in the bus.Taking note of the copy of the permit, time table and route of the bus and the other documents connected thereto, the Tribunal concluded that there was no occasion for the bus to be at Noida at the stated time for the accident to have occurred.MACA No.878/2014 Page 7 of 10The FIR shows that it was registered on the basis of the statement of PW2 who affirmed that he was travelling with the deceased in the bus at the relevant point of time.He mentioned the particulars of bus and also narrated the negligent manner in which it was driven by its driver, such conduct having led to the deceased losing balance and coming under the wheels of the vehicle.The evidence on record clearly shows that Raju Mandal had suffered injuries which, in absence of any other theory being propounded, would have occurred in a motor vehicular accident.The injuries suffered in such accident would be on account of an event that would ordinarily have occurred at a public place.It is inconsequential that PW2 was unable to recall such particulars as MACA No.878/2014 Page 8 of 10 route number of the bus.It was not of any import that he was unable to identify the driver of the bus.The driver was not subjected to any identification parade.It has to be borne in mind that the test in such proceedings as at hand is of preponderance of probabilities rather than proof beyond all reasonable doubts.It was unfair to draw adverse inferences on the basis of permit or documents depicting the time table or route of bus, particularly when such material had not been proved by either side.MACA No.878/2014 Page 8 of 10The Tribunal seems to have been persuaded to hold against the case of the claimants also on account of closure report having been submitted by the local police under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with conclusion that sufficient evidence could not be gathered to prove the involvement of the bus in the accident.Such conclusions of the investigating police would undoubtedly be of import and significant to test the veracity of the eye witness examined by the claimants but not without the material on which the said impressions were gathered by the investigating officer.The evidence on which the Investigating Officer reached such inferences has not been shared with the Tribunal.No effort was made by the respondents, including the insurance company which only is now resisting the appeal, the others having suffered these proceedings ex parte, to bring on record the material which would render the word of PW2 incredible.There was no reason why the evidence of PW2 should have been disbelieved.In above circumstances, the appeal is allowed.MACA No.878/2014 Page 9 of 10Thus, the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for further inquiry to address the issue of compensation that deserves to be awarded in the present case.Though the claimants have already led some evidence with regard to the loss of dependency and other factors relevant for computation of compensation, the Tribunal will ascertain, and if so chosen, grant further opportunity to the claimants to such effect.Needless to add, the respondents, including the insurance company, will also be entitled to lead evidence in rebuttal.The appeal is disposed of in above terms.Tribunal's record be returned.R.K. GAUBA (JUDGE) FEBRUARY 11, 2016 VLD MACA No.878/2014 Page 10 of 10MACA No.878/2014 Page 10 of 10	['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
155,100	The abovesaid Sellammal is their mother, aged about 85 years.The 1st respondents was married to their younger brother Srinivasan, who had his homicidal death and the criminal case relating thereto is pending.The 1st respondent lived away from their family and from her husband.JUDGMENT Abdul Hadi, J.This petition is for issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus to direct the respondents to produce the body of Sellammal, the mother of the petitioners, said to be confined in illegal custody by the respondents and set her at liberty.Difference of opinion persisted between nick-named Paltu.Investigation was undertaken on the premises that commission of offence covered under section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'IPC') was disclosed.While the matter was pending before learned SDJM, petitioner No. 2 filed several documents and affidavits stating that she was major and married to petitioner No. 1 and the allegation that she had been forcibly kidnapped was factually incorrect.In spite of notice, opposite party No. 3 has not entered appearance.Mr. D. R. Mohapatra, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that in order to constitute an offence under section 363, IPC, the evidence must show that the person who is alleged to have been kidnapped was at the time of commission of offence a minor under 16 years of age if a male, or under 18 years of age if a female, or that such person was of unsound mind.	['Section 363 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.