id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
155,103,335 |
The prosecution in the instant case was lodged against theappellant herein - Kadamanian @ Manikandan, as well as, against co-accused- I.T. Manian @ Manikanda, for the offences under Sections 201, 302, 376and 404 of the Indian Penal Code.The aforesaid offences were allegedlycommitted by the accused with reference to M. Jayalakshmi.As per the prosecution version, M.Jayalakshmi went missing at 7a.m. on 6.9.2007, having left her residence to answer the call of nature.Name of mywife is Durgadevi.I have one son and a daughter.My native place isKaranthai near Tanjavur.At that time, Shanmugamwho words as Kalasi saw us.We went to share autorikshaw stand and pickedup the share authorikshaw and went to Moolapattaqrai and left the autorikshaw in the work shop.I.T. Mani left for his house.It is not that the appellant had gone to the house of P.W.4 tomake the confession.On the other hand query was made by the daughter ofthe deceased to Susheela, P.W.4 as to the whereabouts of the deceased,meaning thereby the whereabouts of the deceased were not known even to hisdaughter.Since she did not return, a missing person's report was lodged on 7.9.2007by her father P.Matheswaran at Namakkam Kumarapalayam Police Station.Itis also relevant to mention, that in the first information reportregistered on 7.9.2007, the complainant had attached the photograph of M.Jayalakshmi, and had also indicated for her identification, that she waswearing a green colour jacket and saree.It was also expressly mentioned,that she was wearing a nose-stud.Based on the recovery of the dead body, another firstinformation report came to be lodged.On 18.9.2007, the parents of thedeceased – Jayalakshmi, identified the clothing and other artifacts,recovered with the dead body, as belonging to their daughter.The motheridentified her daughter from the photograph of the dead body.The first needle of suspicion with reference to the appellantherein - Kadamanian @ Manikandan emerged from the statement of theinvestigating officer, Arumugam – PW20 dated 21.01.2008, affirming withShanmugam – PW6, that the appellant had been seen close to the place ofoccurrence.The aforesaid extra-judicial confession can beextracted from his statement made by R.V. Alagurajan – PW12, to the police.A relevant portion thereof is being reproduced hereunder:“...My name is Manikandan.I am also addressed as Keda Manian.I have come to Bavani many years back and settledhere.I am engaged in the profession of driving autorikshaw.From1.9.2007 onwards, I am running share autorikshaw bearing registrationnumber T.N. 38 Q 1311 Annamalai of Krishnampalayam taking on hire basisalong with I.T. Mani.One Mubarak take the collection from me every dayand deposit with the owner on two installments.Myself and I.T. Manianhave the habit enjoying the prostitutes who approach bus stand area.Onthe last 8.9.07 when myself and I.T. Manian were operating shareautorikshaw, one woman boarded the share autorikshaw from the bus stand.She did not get down till the last even after other passengers got downfrom the autorikshaw.When asked her name, she innocently told that hername as Jayalakshmi and she was from Komarapalayam.She also told that shedid not have any money.When myself and Mani told her that we will take herto her village for which she agreed.On the way, myself and Mani plannedto enjoy that woman.We came to share autorikshaw stand near bus stand andhanded over the collection to Mubarak and left that place.When Mubarakenquired, Mani told that woman was his relative lady.Then on the way, Ialong went to a brancy shop in Nachippa street and consumed liquor.Thenall three of us consumed food in the nearby Amutham mess.When we came out,it was slightly drizzling.We told that lady that we can leave after therain stops and after passing through public toilet and took her to oldmunicipal ward office.We engaged discussion with that lady and told herto compromise to our desire and asked her to lay with us.She refused andstarted to shout and then we took her to the land on the southern side.There, we tried to remove her blouse and saree, she shouted.That lady wasa strong woman.I got annoyed andpicked up a stick from nearby and inserted twice or thrice in her privatepart.Her shout mellowed down.Mani told that “let us leave”.From not tofind further identification of the lady, I smashed her face with a stone.Mani also picked up another stone and threw it on the face of that woman.We stripped that woman's saree and petty coat and threw them out.We cameto know that she was dead.We thought that the nose pin worn by her woulddisclose her identity.I removed the nose pin and kept it with myself.Then both of us came and picked up the share autorikshaw and left it in theworkshop of the owner at Moolapattarai.On the next day, I came and askedMani whether police made any enquiry with him for which Mani replied innegative.I thought that Mubarak may suspect us and indirectly told Mani,if any one say anything, let us slit the throat.There after, we went tothe vacant plot near the municipality Kalyana Mandapam and put the nose pinremoved from that woman in a plastic bag and concealed it there and thenfor the next 5 days, I did not run the autorikshaw.Therefore, I went tojail in connection with two case in Bavani.I came to know that policewere in search me suspecting me.I was scarred and have to you andsurrender myself.” After R.V. Alagurajan – PW12 had allegedly effectuated thesurrender of the accused – appellant before the Inspector of Police, Erodetown, he had also submitted a letter dated 21.01.2008, at the policestation, which read as under:“I, village administrative officer of 35B Erode town was in my office todayat about 12.30 O'Clock in the afternoon with my assistant Manikkam, KedaManian alias Manikandan, resident of door number 47 Sreenivasapuram, Bavaniappeared before and told that he was involved in the murder of a woman onthe last 8th September near the Erode bus stand and gave a statement and Iam producing him and the statement given by him to you for further action.” Consequent upon the appellant, having been produced before theInspector of Police, the accused-appellant Kadamanian @ Manikandan made aconfessional statement on the same day, i.e., on 22.01.2008, to theInspector of Police, Erode, inter alia affirming as under:“... That woman was a healthy and strong and she pushed me and startedshouting.We got annoyed as we could not do anything as we planned andtherefore, I picked up a stick which was lying there and stabbed herprivate part three times with that stick.Her shouts mellowed down and shebecame semi conscious.I.T. Mani told to leave at that stage.I told himthat it would be dangerous if we leave her like that and she would identifyus and her identity should not be known to any one and therefore, I pickedup the stone which was laying nearby and threw it on her face and assaultedher.Mani also picked up another stone and threw it on her face.We cameto know that she was dead.There was no movement of her.We removed hersaree, petty coat, beads from her neck and kept it nearby and we thoughtwith the nose pic worn by her, her identity would be known easily and thereremoved the nose pin also.Then we came out.On the next day,earlier morning, I boarded a bus from Moolapatrai reached home.On thenext day after noon, I reached Erode share auto bus stand, as if I knownothing met Mani and asked him whether police made any enquiry.He answeredin negative.I told him that some information may come out through Mubarakand if any information is leaked out through some one, we should slitthroat of such person.However, we told him to assess the situation.Itold him that I will not come for next five days and when I left there, Iwent to vacant plot on the south of municipality Kalyanamandapam and putthe nose pin which I removed from that woman in a plastic bag and buried itnear the transformer in that plot.Then I left for home.I was carefulthat no one should suspect me.In the meanwhile on one, there was a quarrelbetween me and my wife as regard to eating of mutton.Neighbor Gobi cameand asked “why are you shouting? How can we live here? And a dispute arosebetween me and him and a case has been registered against me and I was incustody for 13 days.When I came out on bail, I was arrested on a Rowdycase and sent me to custody.When I came out on bail, when I reached toshare auto rikshaw stand for running auto rikshaw, police however came toknow that myself and I.T.Mani have committed the murder of that woman andthe police is in search of us.I thought, if police arrest me, they wouldbeat me and harass and therefore, surrendered before town VAO today.Hehas sent me to you.At that time, I have given this statement.The fact, that the same belong tothe deceased – Jayalakshmi was confirmed by various witnesses includingPW2 – Vedammal, the mother of the deceased.After recording the statementsof the prosecution witnesses, and also, the statement of the accused underSection 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the accused were afforded anopportunity to lead their evidence in defence.Dissatisfied with the order passed by the trial Court dated5.8.2009, both the appellants preferred Criminal Appeal No. 528 of 2009,before the High Court of Judicature at Madras (hereinafter referred to asthe “High Court”).A Division Bench of the High Court, accepted the appealpreferred by accused no.2 – I.T. Manian @ Manikanda, and ordered hisacquittal.The appeal preferred by the appellant herein was dismissed.Although, the sentences awarded by the trial Court, under variousprovisions of the IPC, were by and large maintained, the sentence awardedto the appellant (by the trial Court) under Section 376 of the Indian PenalCode was reduced from 10 years to 7 years.Insofar as the other sentencesare concerned, the appellant was ordered to suffer imprisonment for threeyears for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, he wasconvicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to suffer lifeimprisonment, and for the offence under Section 404 of the Indian PenalCode, he was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for three years.During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellantraised various contentions.The details of the aforesaid confessional statementhave already been recorded by us hereinabove.It was the submission of thelearned counsel for the appellant, that R.V. Alagurajan – PW12 was a starkstranger to the appellant, and therefore, there was no occasion for theappellant, to have made a confessional statement to him.It was the contention of the learned counselfor the appellant, that the nose-stud recovered at the behest of theappellant, weighted only 0.215 mg.It was pointed out, that there arethousands of such nose-pins, and it was wholly improper for the prosecutionto rely on the trumped up recovery of a nose-pin.The more vigorous submission withreference to the nose-pin was, that the case of the prosecution, that theappellant herein, as also, the co-accused had badly mutilated the face ofthe deceased – Jayalakshmi, by crushing her face with stones, and as such,there was no question of the recovery of the nose-pin form a mutilatedface.It was submitted, that if the accused had taken the nose-pin aftermutilating the face of the accused, the nose-pin ought to have hadfragments of skin, bone and blood.However, the nose-pin recovered wasclean and without any human tissue.It was also submitted, that the nose-pin, which was allegedly recovered at the instance of the appellant, wasperfectly in-tact.In this behalf, it was pointed out, that if the face ofthe deceased – Jayalakshmi was crushed with stones, the nose-pin could notbe expected to have retained its original shape.Theappellant feared his arrest with reference to the allegations pertaining tothe deceased – Jayalakshmi, only when the investigating officer, Arumugam –PW20 affirmed with Shanmugam – PW6 on 21.01.2008, that the appellant hadbeen seen, close to the place of occurrence.It is also not a matter of dispute, that R.V. Alagurajan – PW12was the then Village Administrative Officer.In the recovery mahazar dated 22.1.2008, the recovered nose-pin wasdepicted as being imbedded with four white stones.It is thereforeapparent, that the nose-pin worn by the deceased – Jayalakshmi when she hadgone missing, was not any ordinary unidentifiable artifact, but was clearlydifferent from the usual nose-studs.The same was missing from the photograph of thedeceased, after her body was recovered.The nose itself was not mutilated,and was in-tact.No injury whatsoever was found on the nose, in thephotograph of the deceased.It was therefore wholly unjustified, for thelearned counsel for the appellant to have raised the submission, that theabsence of any human tissue on the nose-pin, would lead to the inference,that the nose-pin in question, was not the one belonging to the deceased.Susheela, P.W.4 hasstated that Murugesan was married to the appellant 14 years before theincident.She came in search of his brother Murugesan to the house of thedeceased.Murugesan has told her on 12.5.2005 that appellant hadthreatened to kill him as he was habitual of consuming alcohol.When shedid not receive any telephone call for 15 days from the deceased, she wentto his village.On enquiry she was informed by the appellant that she, hernephew Prakasam and father murdered the deceased and threw his body underthe bridge.Susheela, P.W.4 further stated that the appellant touched herlegs and stated that she would give properties of her father to twochildren and that she should not inform the police.The police showed her the photograph, shirt and slippers and askedher to identify the same.She identified them to be of her brother.Shehas further stated to have gone to police station after 5 days withphotograph of deceased.In the cross-examination, she has also stated thatshe had signed the agreement for sale of land executed by the accused.Making confession to such an inimical person is most unlikely.During the courseof recording his testimony, R.V. Alagurajan – PW12 was subjected tovigorous cross-examination.His testimony however remained unshaken.Resultantly, the trial Court, as also, the High Court, concluded that theextra-judicial confession was genuine.We endorse the above determinationat the hands of the trial Court and the High Court.It is therefore apparent, that the arrest of the appellantat the behest of R.V. Alagurajan – PW12, has also been clearly established.The afore-stated nose-pin has been identified by the members of the family of thedeceased, as the one that was actually worn by the deceased, when she wentmissing.Since the nose-pin was recovered at the instance of theappellant, from a remote place under an electric transformer, no one butthe appellant could have been aware of its location.Its recovery wastherefore suffient, along with the other evidence referred to above, toclearly implicate the appellant.It was contended, that itwas improper and unjustified, for the High Court, to have convicted theappellant, and acquitted the co-accused, on the same evidence.(s) for permission to file additional documents and exemptionfrom filing O.T. and office report)Date : 31/08/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
155,144,652 |
On the complaint lodged by Anna Mayil, Inspector of Police, All WomenPolice Station, Thirumangalam Taluk Circle, Madurai, initially a case inCrime No.386 of 2017 was registered on 21.11.2017 for the offences underSections 341, 294(b), 333, 324, 506(ii), 307 of the Indian Penal Code andSection 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 against Karuppasamy and Karmegam and thereafter, the same was altered into one under Sections 341, 294(b), 333, 324, 506(ii), 307 of the Indian PenalCode and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 r/w 201, 212, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, adding nine other personsas accused.It is the case of the prosecution that Karuppasamy and Karmegam were in inebriated state and when the Inspector of Police was on rounds, she foundthem causing disturbance to the public.When the Inspector of Policequestioned the duo, they seem to have indiscriminately attacked the policeparty and escaped.During the course of investigation, the police learnt thatthe duo are Army Personnel and intimation was sent to the concerned Army Command.On the directions of the Army Command, the duo surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai on 07.12.2017 and were takeninto custody.After 34 days of incarceration, they were granted bail inCrl.M.P.No.7089 of 2017 on 09.01.2018 by the learned First AdditionalDistrict and Sessions Judge, Madurai.It appears that, during the course of investigation, the police haverecovered the Indian Armed Forces Identity Card of Karuppasamy (A-1) and hisLeave Certificate and both these documents have been produced before thelearned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam.The petitioner filedCr.M.P.No.497 of 2018 under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure forreturn of the Army Identity Card and the Leave Certificate, which has beendismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam on 09.02.2018,aggrieved by which, the petitioner has filed the present Criminal RevisionCase.4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedGovernment Advocate (Criminal side) for the respondent.The Trial Court has dismissed the petition for return of the twodocuments on the ground that those two documents are required to establishthe identity of the accused during trial, since these documents wererecovered at the place of occurrence by the police.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that thepetitioner will not dispute his identity nor dispute the fact that theIdentity Card and the Leave Certificate were recovered at the place ofoccurrence, as contended by the police.If that is so, the petitioner is directed to file an affidavitbefore the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam that(a) he will not dispute the fact that he is an Army Personnel issuedwith Identity Card No.C994134 ; No.14928819A;(b) he will not dispute the place of recovery of both the documents, asprojected by the police.Thereafter, the Trial Court is directed tohand over the original Indian Armed Forces Identity Card with Neck Rope,bearing No.C994134; No.14928819A, Leave Certificate No.1428819ANK to the petitioner on his executing a bond for Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousandonly) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of thelearned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam.The petitioner shall give anundertaking that he shall produce the documents before the Trial Court as andwhen required.The Trial Court shall mark the certified photocopies of thetwo documents during trial as secondary evidence.In the result, the order dated 09.02.2018 in Cr.M.P.No.497 of 2018on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam, is set asideand the Criminal Revision Case is allowed to the extent indicated above.1.The Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam.2.The Inspector of Police, Thirumangalam Police Station, Thirumangalam, Madurai District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
155,152,456 |
1 High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Indore Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.13403/2019 (Shankar s/o Naku Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh) Indore, Dated 05.04.2019 Mr. Dayanath Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant.After arguing for some time on the merits of the matter, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the bail application with liberty to renew his prayer after recording the Court statement of the prosecutrix.Prayer allowed.With the aforesaid liberty, Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.13403/2019 is dismissed as withdrawn.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge Pithawe RC Digitally signed by Ramesh Chandra Pithawe Date: 2019.04.05 17:13:54 +05'30'
|
['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
155,170,635 |
(i) In the event of arrest of Applicant No.1 in connection with C.R.No.355 of 2018, registered with Mulund Police Station, Mumbai, he may be released on his furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/-, with one or more sureties in the like amount;::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2018 23:58:35 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2018 23:58:35 :::complainant and other witnesses;(vi) Anticipatory Bail Application stands disposed of.(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2018 23:58:35 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2018 23:58:35 :::
|
['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,551,720 |
JUDGMENT A.K. Shrivastava, J.Feeling aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 9-10-2000 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur.In brief, the case of prosecution is that on 1-8-1998 Asharam S/o Achchhelal and Ramesh s/o Chatra were going to Jangal to graze the cattle and when they reached nearby Khirka at 7.00 in the morning, they met with one Shankar Yadav who also joined them as he was also grazing the catties.When they were on the way In between village Khirka and Gonkhar, nearby atop-dam they met appellant and four other persons, Appellant and these four persona wrongfully restrained them.Appellant was having a lathi and other co-accused persons were having double barrel gun, 'Ballam' and 'Farsa' and on the point of these weapons, appellant carried these persons in the Jangal and through Shankar Yadav sent message to send lump sum amount of Rs. 50,000/-.The message was also sent that in case the lump sum amount is not sent, these two persons would be killed.The family members of Asharam and Ramesh on receiving the message, along with inhabitants of the village went to the Jangal, but they did not find Asharam and Ramesh, eventually, a written report was lodged by Achchhelal who is father of Asharam in the Police Station.In the written report it has been specifically stated that appellant was having lathi and other accused persons were having double barrel gun, 'Ballam' and 'Farsa' and a demand of Rs. 50,000/- for each abductee has been made.The police on the basis of FIR, registered a case under Section 365, IPC.Police-party succeeded in arresting the appellant, as a result of which a charge sheet was submitted against the appellant in the competent Court which, on its turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions from where it was received by the trial Court for trial.Learned trial Judge on perusing the averments made against the appellant framed charge punishable under Section 364A, IPC and further framed charge punishable under Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act. Needless to emphasise, the appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded complete innocence.His defence is of maladroit implication.In order to bring home the charges, prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses and placed Ex. P. 1 to P. 9, the documents, on record.Though in the statement recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. the appellant set up the defence of false implication, but did not adduce any evidence in support of his defence.Learned trial Judge, after appreciating and marshalling the evidence, came to hold that the appellant did commit the offence for which he was charged and, eventually, convicted him and passed the sentence which we have mentioned hereinabove.In this manner, present appeal has been filed by the appellant assailing judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against him.It has been submitted by Shrl A.K. Chourasia, learned Counsel for the appellant, that if the police statement of abductees namely Asharam and Ramesh Ex. D. 2 and D. 3 is considered in proper perspective and on the touch-stone of the evidence which has been given by Asharam and Ramesh In the Court, it would reveal that appellant has been falsely implicated because in their police statement it has been specifically stated by these two persons that police party arrived in the Jangal and on seeing the police party, appellant and other accused persons fled from the spot and in this manner they were released.However, when these two witnesses examined as P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 in the Court, they have totally deviated from the stand which they have taken in their police statement Ex. D. 2 and D. 3 and, therefore, this serious infirmity puts deep dent on the veracity of the case of prosecution which goes to the root of the matter.K. Modh, learned Dy.After three days, on account of heavy showers in the night, they got the chance to run away, as a result of which they came out from the grip of these accused persons, The police statement re corded under Section 181, Cr.P.C, of per sons Ex. D. 2 and D. 3 when confronted to these two witnesses, It has been specifically denied by them that police party did arrive to the Jangal and on seeing the police party accused persons ran away by releasing the abductees.According to us, this is a seri ous Infirmity which has arrived in the statement of these two witnesses.Had there been any truth in regard to the story put-forth by the prosecution in Ex. D. 2 and D. 3 that police party came in the Jangal and on seeing the police party the accused persons ran away, definitely these two witnesses would have said in the Court in that regard.This serious infirmity goes to the root of the matter and put a deep dent on the story set up by the prosecution.Apart from this, according to abductees, they were beaten by appellant and other co-accused persons, but, when they were examined by P.W. 9-Dr.Anil Jain, no injury was found on the person of the abductees.Apart from this, if we scan the evi dence, particularly para-4 of P.W. 1-Achchhelal who submitted written report (Ex. P. 1) in the Police Station and on the basis of which FIR (Ex. P. 4) was registered, it is gathered that when his son Asharam arrived at home, on the next morning he went to Police Station to inform that his son has come along with Asharam.At this junc ture, at the cost of repetition we will not hesitate to mention that indeed, it is the case of prosecution that police party went to the Jangal to get these persons released and in fact on seeing the police party the accused persons fled.If the story as put-forth by prosecution is true then what was the occasion to produce Asharam and Rarnesh in the Police Station when they were released from the grip of accused persons on the efforts being made by the police party.Thus, for the reasons stated hereinabove, we have no option except to allow this appeal by setting aside the Judgment passed by learned trial Court.Accordingly, this appeal succeeds and Is hereby allowed.
|
['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
93,600,220 |
No one appears on behalf of the respondent no.10 even in the revised call.The petitioner claims to be a social worker and the resident of Village Madawara, Tehsil Meharauni, District Lalitpur.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the State-respondents.
|
['Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
93,605,755 |
Heard on the question of admission.Appeal is admitted for final hearing.Record be requisitioned.The respondent is represented through their counsel and therefore, no further notice is required.Also heard on I.A. No.9069/2019, which is an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence filed by the appellants - Kamal S/o Pannalal and Dinesh S/o Pannalal.The present appellants have been convicted and sentenced by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tarana, District Ujjain vide its judgement dated 31.10.2019 passed in S. T. No.113/2018 as under :-Learned counsel for the appellants submits that substantive 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE Cr.A. No.9580 of 2019 (Kamal & another vs. State of MP) jail sentence of the appellants have been suspended by the Trial Court till 09.12.2019 and the appellants were on bail throughout trial.Learned Public Prosecutor for the State was also heard.The substantive jail sentence of the appellants - Kamal & Dinesh are suspended subject to their depositing the fine amount (if not already paid) and furnishing a personal bond to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) each with one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before this Court/Registry on 10.12.2019 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf.List for final hearing in due course.(Shailendra Shukla) Judge gp Digitally signed by Geeta Pramod Date: 2019.11.20 16:51:47 +05'30'
|
['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
93,606,207 |
In the wake of daily dairy no. 12/A (Ex.PW-3/A) recorded at 11 a.m. in police station Mayapuri, on the ^sis of input received from police control room on the wireless network, about a^.person suspected to be involved in pick pocketing being beaten up by public persons in front of Mayapuri Petrol Pump, Head Constable Narpal Singh (PW-4) went to the place of incjdent with Constable Mahender Singh (PW-6).They statedly came across Satpal Mehta (PW-2) on the basis of whose statement (Ex.PW-2/A), first information report (FIR) no. 232/1998 was registered (Ex.PW-3/B) for offences under Sections 379/411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).It is alleged by the prosecution that the appellant had stolen Rs. 300/-, in the form of three currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/- each along with one visiting Crl.A. 288/2002 Page I of4 card from the first informant and when he protested the appellant had extended threats to him by whipping out a knife (Ex.P-1).The appellant is acquitted.The police also seized the said knife vide formal proceedings (Ex.PW-2/D) to which PW-2 was an attesting witness.A separate FIR no. 233/1998 was registered for the offence under Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act. Two reports (charge-sheets) were submitted in due course based on the evidence gathered during investigation into the said FIRs.Both 'C. charge-sheets came to be clubbed together for the appellant to be put on trial in the court of sessions on the charge for offences under Section 397/392/411 IPG and 25 and 27 of Arms Act.The trial culminated in judgment dated 24.12.2001, whereby the appellant was held guilty and convicted on the charge for offences under Section 397 IPG and Section 27 Arms Act. By order dated 02.03.2002, the trial judge awarded rigorous imprisonment for seven years on the first count and rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 1,000/-on the second count.The appeal at hand was submitted to assail the said judgment and order on sentence. ,Having heard the arguments on both sides and having gone through the record, this Gourt finds a glaring gap in the evidence adduced by the prosecution.Going by the documents which were prepared during the police proceedings, including the statement of the first informant (PW-2) and the seizure memos, by the time the police officials had reached the spot, the recoveries had already been effected.In the FIR, the first informant was not clear as to who had taken the search of the person apprehended leading to recovery of his Crl.A. 288/2002 Page 2 of4 money and the visiting card of which he had been relieved forcibly during the bus journey.He vaguely talked of such recoveries having been made from the right side pocket of the trouser of the appellant who had been caught on the spot and thereafter given beatings by the public at large.He was not forthcoming about the role of the driver or conductor of the bus (plying on the route no. 753) in which the incident had taken place.No public person who was engaged in the r- apprehension of the appellant was examined or identified.During the evidence for the prosecution at the trial, PW-4 only spoke about he having met PW-2, who was holding on to the appellant when he arrived at the place where the incident had occurred.He would not even speak about the presence of the bus or its route.From the allegations in the FIR to the effect that the passengers in the bus had left the scene it may be assumed that the bus and its crew had stayed back.It is, however, admitted that the statements of the driver or conductor were not even recorded.Be that as it may, PW-4 also testified that it was PW-2 who had handed over to him the knife (Ex.P-1) and the three currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/- each, along with one visiting card.It is clear from this narration that the police officials had not taken the search so as to lead to the recoveries.The averments in the FIR that the said money and visiting card has been recovered upon search of the right pocket of the trouser of the appellant, thus, have not been proved.6. PW-2, in contrast, was totally hostile to the prosecution.He would not even identify the appellant as the person who had been CriA. 288/2002 .Page 3 of4 apprehended nor would state the sequence of events leading to he being arrested by the police, not the least of any facts about the recovery.He was declared hostile and subjected to cross-examination.During the cross-examination, the prosecution itself suggested to him, and he lapped it up as a correct fact, reiterating that the police had recovered the knife, the money and the visiting card.This obviously cannot be believed as it was never the case for the prosecution since beginning.For the above reasons, the evidence of PW-2 cannot be acted upon.In the facts and circumstances,-tllere is no evidence worth the name proving the acts of conimission or'omission on the part of the appellant leading to robbery; oi^'possessiph;JpfThe prosecution in these circurnistances cannot succeed.The impugned judgment and order onsenienbe rare set aside.He shall be^releasedsfq^^ from custody.These directions be communicated--to.Siiiip'0rihlerid^^ Jail forthwith.R.K. GAUBA,J.DECEMBER 18, 2018 nk Crl A. 288/2002 Page 4 of 4Crl A. 288/2002 Page 4 of 4
|
['Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
93,608,379 |
The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 2nd respondent passed in C.M.P.No.37/Goonda/Salem City/2013 dated 14.07.2013The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:-Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law1.Ammapet Police Station,Crime No.458 of 2012Sections 457 & 380 IPCThe reason for coming to such conclusion is that in a similar case registered in Crime No.246 of 2012 for offences under Sections 341, 392 r/w 397, 427 and 506(ii) IPC on the file of Salem Town Crime Police Station, bail was granted by this Court vide order dated 19.11.2012 in Crl.By inferring that there is a likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail, the detaining authority has taken a decision on 14.07.2013 to detain the detenu on the presumption that the relatives of the accused are taking steps to bail him out without any valid material in support thereof and passed the impugned order of detention in mechanical manner.Thus, for the reasons stated herein-above, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained.Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, S.Arunkumar, S/o.Shanmugasundaram, made in C.M.P.No.37/Goonda/Salem City/2013 dated 14.07.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.The above named detenu, who is detained in the Borstal School, Pudukkottai, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.The Commissioner of Police, Salem City, Salem.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras V.Dhanapalan, J.and G.Chockalingam, J.arHabeas Corpus Petition No.2353 of 201311.03.2014
|
['Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
9,360,860 |
The case of the prosecution was that on 06.11.2008 at about 10.00 a.m., when the de facto complainant was engaged in construction of a compound wall using labourers, the accused obstructed them and abused the de facto complainant in filthy language as also threatened him with dire consequences.A case in Crime No.217 of 2008 on the file of first respondent was registered.Upon completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet informing commission of offence under Sections 294(b), 341 and 506(i) IPC, the case was tried in C.C.No.340 of 2008 on the file of learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vannur, Villupuram District.Before the trial Court, the prosecution examined five witnesses and marked five exhibits.None were examined on behalf of the defence nor were any exhibits marked.On appreciation of materials before it, the trial Court, under judgment dated 29.01.2010, convicted all the accused for offences under Section 294(b) IPC and A1 and A2 for offences u/s.341 and 506(i) IPC and sentenced them to pay fine of Rs.500/- each i/d.1 week S.I. for offence u/s.294(b) IPC, fine of Rs.500/- each i/d 1 week S.I. for offence u/s.341 IPC and fine of Rs.2,000/- each i/d 3 month S.I. for offence u/s.506(i) IPC.Hence, this revision.In acquitting the accused, the appellate Court found that PW-1/de facto complainant has not mentioned in the complaint about the previous enmity between him and the accused, whereas in the cross-examination, he has admitted that there was a dispute over the very same property and a civil suit is pending.Hence, the appellate Court found the contention of the defence that the de facto complainant constructed the compound wall in the place belonging to the Panchayat and when the same was questioned by A1 and A3, in the capacity of former Panchayat President and Ward Member, the present complaint has been filed on false allegations, tenable.There were discrepancies in the complaint of PW-1 and his evidence.Persons viz., Raja, Murali and Pandiyan, who are eye witnesses to the occurrence, have not been examined.As regards the charge u/s.294(b) IPC, the appellate Court found that there were contradictions in the complaint of PW-1 and his evidence regards the words used by the accused.When the occurrence was said to have taken place in a public place, non-examination of independent witnesses was fatal to the prosecution case.PW-2, an alleged eye witness to the occurrence, deposed of the accused 1 and 3 having threatened the de facto complainant.PW-2 has not deposed that all the accused threatened the de facto complainant.Though it was the prosecution case that the complaint preferred by PW-1 has been taken as a petition owing to which there was a delay in registering the First Information Report, the said contention was found untenable by the appellate Court as PW-5, Sub-Inspector, deposed to having conducted investigation initially and thereafter, having registered the First Information Report, which was indicative of the fact that the police was hand-in-glove with the de facto complainant.In the result, this Criminal Revision stands dismissed.1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram.2.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vannur, Villupuram District.3.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Aurovil Police Station, Vannur, Villupuram District.4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.C.T. SELVAM J.,vsmCrl.R.C.No.606 of 201015.12.2015
|
['Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
93,616,457 |
Heard with the aid of case diary.This is third application under section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.4/2016 registered at Police Station Nainpur, District Mandla for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 353, 333 & 186 of IPC.The earlier applications of the applicant were dismissed as withdrawn.As per the prosecution case, on 02.01.2016, the police arrested the applicant in crime no. 510/15 registered at P.S. Nainpur, District Mandla for the offence punishable under Sections 294,307, 323/34 of IPC, Section 25/27 of Arms Act and Section 3(1)(x)and (3)(2)(5) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, thereafter, when the members of police force i.e., Head Constable Mahesh Yadav, Head Constable Mannu Lal, Constable Than Singh were taking applicant to the Police Station in police vehicle bearing registration No.MP03A2110, on the way, between Village Baiswahi and Surajpur, applicant pushed constable Mahesh Yadav and jumped from the vehicle and when constable Mahesh Yadav tried to catch him, he assaulted him in his head by stone, due to which, he sustained injuries on his head and died .On that, police registered Crime No.04/2016 for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 353, 333, 186 of IPC against the applicant.Earlier, this Court vide order dated 31.01.2017 directed the Trial Court to decide the applicant's case within six months but even then S.T.No.62/2016 is still pending.Learned Trial Court did not try to dispose of his case early, so the applicant be released on bail.Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that applicant committed murder of police constable so he may not be released on bail.It appears from the report of Sessions Judge, Mandla that the Trial Court has already recorded the statements of Ten prosecution witnesses and statements of seventeen witnesses are yet to be recorded.Only on the ground that applicant is in custody since 03.01.2016 and the trial is still pending, the applicant is not entitled to get the bail.The facts of the case cited by the applicant passed in the case of Roopa @ Ramroop (supra) do not match with the present case.(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE (ra)
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 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.
|
93,618,592 |
During the investigation police recovered the prosecutrix and on the basis of her statement, the aforesaid offence has been registered against the appellant.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is a youth aged about 23 years and he has falsely been implicated in the present crime.It is further submitted that the prosecutrix is having love affair with the appellant and she had gone with the appellant on her own accord and remained in the company of the appellant for a considerable period and she made physical relationship with the appellant on her own will.The conclusion of the trial will take sufficiently long time.Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the appellant prays for grant of bail to the 2 CRA-4631-2020 appellant.Learned panel lawyer for the State has oppose the bail application by contending that at the time of the alleged incident the prosecutrix was minor aged about 15 years and 5 months and according to her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., the appellant made physical relationship with her will.However, the prosecutrix is minor and her consent is immaterial, therefore, the prima facie case is made out against the appellant for the offence under section 376 of I.P.C. as well as Section 5(L), 6 of POCSO Act. Hence, the panel lawyer prays for rejection of the application.After considering the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.(S.K. AWASTHI) JUDGE ajit Ajit Kamalasanan 2020.09.24 16:11:53 +05'30'
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
57,078,981 |
[Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.] The petitioner is the mother of the detenu, who, vide impugned Order of Detention dated 05.12.2018 passed by the 2nd respondent by invoking Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, in branding the detenu as ''Goonda'', came forward to file this Habeas Corpus petition.A perusal of the grounds of detention would disclose among other things that the detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:Crime No. Section of law Date of occurrenceChengalpattu Town 379 IPC 03.02.2017 Police Station Cr.Chengalpattu Town 379 IPC 03.02.2017 Police Station Cr.The detenu who belong to the same Village came to his shop and demanded money at knife point and when he triedhttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 to flee away, he was waylaid and slapped on his cheek by the detenu.Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition stands allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in No.
|
['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
570,807 |
2) That at that time discussions were held between Harbir Singh and myself and during the discussions he revealed that he had been instrumental in helping some of my relatives to sell land in the same village Pakki Tibbi and the antecedents of Harbir Singh appeared to be clean.3) That during the discussions I informed him that since I was residing in Delhi it had become difficult for me to manage my property and that both I and my brother Vijay Kumar who had expressed his desire to me to sell his share were interested to sell our share of the property.4) That I informed Harbir Singh that before any discussions I would like to consult my brother and requested Harbir Singh to visit me in February 1989 when my brother would be visiting Delhi for a few days.5) That I informed my brother and Harbir S'ngh again visited me when my brother who had been from Port Blair was also present.6) That Harbir Singh repeated his earlier representations which were made to me on an earlier occasion in the presence of my brother.That Harbir Singh also repeated his earlier representations that he had several persons would be willing to buy my share and my brothers share and induced my brother and me to believe that since and also that it would he difficult to sell and do any registry it would he both expedient as well as in our interest to appoint Harbir Singh as our General Attorney, his intentions at that time appeared to he bonafide.JUDGMENT Jaspal Singh, J.(1) The petition is for the quashing of the First Information Report bearing No.2598 dated January 2, 1992 relating to offences under sections 405, 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Rajinder Nagar Police Station., New Delhi.It may also be mentioned that during arguments the First Information Report was sought to be quashed only on the ground that the dispute was of civil nature.(3) Before I come into grip with the arguments advanced, it would be profitable to reproduce the First Information Report itself as it holds the key to the entire matter. "FIRST Information Report (2598) (First Information of a cognizable Crime reports under section 154 Cr.P.C.) Police Station - Rajinder Nagar District Central Dated 2-1-1992 at 2.40 P.M. U/S 409/420 I.P.C. 161, New Rajinder Nagar New Delhi.The S.H.O.,P.S. Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi, Sub- Registration of a case u/s 405,409, against Harbir Singh s/o Iqbal Singh c/o 357, St. No.4, New Suraj Nagri Abohar, Distt.Ferozepur (Ph.).Sir, I Kiran Mehra d/u S.Om Parkash Mehra r/o 161, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi and as a duly confirmed attorney of my brother S./ Vijay Mehra Presently at Port Blair state as under:- (1) That both my brother and myself are 1 /4 share holders each of land measuring 187 K 17M in Khewat No. 88 Khatauni No.s 180 and 181 and 2 marlas under Khewat No. _____situated in V.Pakki Tibbi', Teh.Mukthsar, Distt.Faridkot (Pb) and that in Nov. 1988 Harbir Singh s/o Iqbal Singh visited me at any residence and introduced himself as an agriculturist/ landowner in the vicinity of my immovable property and said he had a customer and whether I and my brother were interested in selling our aforesaid property.That Harbir Singh further induced us to believe that he would get a photo copy of Attorneys when executing for the purpose of Assessing any corrections before any preliminary negotiations which would be required to be done and that the original power of attorneys of my brother and me, till such time and final deal would be final and concluded with our assent and then when the occasion would so arise the original power of attorneys would be handed over to Harbir Singh for effectuating the requisite acts to conclude any proposed transaction of sale and was further agreed that on the conclusion of any sale transactions the entire sale considerations received by Harbir Singh for my and my brothers behalf would immediately be remitted by him to us at Delhi.A photocopy of the power of attorney executed by my brother was sent to me and the original was kept by him and is still in his possession until date.In view of the said assurances and representations made to me and my brother by Harbir Singh that in .... ..inducing me to give him the photocopies of our respective G.P.A. whilst the originals were not given by us and are still in our possession.That thereafter Harbir Singh visited me at Delhi on a number of occasions representing that he had offers for sale from some outstanding purchasers.I was shocked and surprised when one Singh visited me at my residence and informed me that Harbir Singh had sold both my brother's and my share in the said land on the basis of a G.P.A. to Smt. Guro w/o Dhian Singh r/o V.Pakki Tibbi, Muktsar (Pb.) vide sale deeds dated 21st March, 1989 for a sum of Rs.l,46,875.00 for each share.It becomes necessary to mention that G.A. was cancelled by me on 3.3.1989 and by.The said Harbir Singh has thus cheated my brother and myself and had thus committed breach of trust which we had refused in him in good faith.
|
['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
57,084,808 |
3 The applicant was working as Godown Keeper of the Government Godown at Dhanora.The stock in the said godown was to be stacked in rows and lines.The stock was recorded in the Stock Register and the Thappi (Stack) Register.4 The case of the prosecution is that the Sub Divisional Officer - Shri Sanjay Daine (PW 11) personally inspected the Government Foodgrain Godown, Dhanora between 30.3.2000 and 6.4.2000 and verified the stock and stack register in the presence of Naib Tahsildar Shri Paul.Inspection revealed that the stock was not consistent with the stock and stack registers and PW 11 Sanjay Daine accordingly prepared an inspection report (Exh. 26) and forwarded the same to the Collector.DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT :10.07.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT:12.07.2018 Heard.2 The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gadchiroli by judgment and order dated 8.4.2008 in Regular Criminal Case 64 of 2002, was pleased to convict the applicant - accused for offence punishable under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2018 01:43:22 ::: 2 short) and to award sentence of rigorous imprisonment of three years and to payment of fine of Rs. 7,000/-.The applicant is invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court being aggrieved by the concurrent convictions and sentence.::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2018 01:43:22 :::5 Presumably, on the basis of the said report Exh. 26, the Additional Collector, Gadchiroli directed the Tahsildar Shri::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2018 01:43:22 ::: 3 Satish Samarth to lodge report at Police Station, Dhanora in respect of the misappropriation of foodgrains worth Rs. 54,000.36/-.Initially, offences punishable under section 409 of the IPC and section 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act were registered against the applicant - accused.Investigation ensued and upon completion thereof, the applicant and two others were chargesheeted for offences punishable under section 409, 109, 468, 477-A, 511 read with section 34 of the IPC and section 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. However, the learned trial Court framed charge only for offences punishable under sections 409 and 468 read with section 34 of the IPC.6 The contours of the revisional jurisdiction are too well entrenched and recognized to warrant an elaborate discussion.I am afraid, that in the teeth of the evidence on record, to which I::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2018 01:43:22 ::: 5 will refer in paragraphs to follow, the judgment cited is of little assistance to the applicant.::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2018 01:43:22 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2018 01:43:22 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2018 01:43:22 :::8 The prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses to bring home the charge.The most important witness is PW 11 Sanjay Daine who inspected the godown and noticed the shortage of the foodgrains.The tenor of the cross-examination of PW 11 - Sanjay Daine would suggest that the factum of shortage was not seriously disputed and suggestions were given that the shortage could be due to several reasons and do not necessarily indicate misappropriation.10 The shortage noticed by PW 11 - Sanjay Daine, and which evidence has remained unshattered despite the suggestions that the shortage could be due to reasons other than misappropriation, is thus:::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2018 01:43:22 :::1 2 3 4 5 6neither entrustment nor misappropriation is proved so as to attract section 409 of the IPC, I have scrutinized the evidence to satisfy my conscious that the offence is proved beyond reasonable doubt.The applicant was in charge of the godown and the stock and stack registers are proved to be in his handwriting.The first ingredient, that there should be entrustment is proved beyond reasonable doubt.The next question is whether the applicant - Godown Keeper is proved to have misappropriated the foodgrains which were found short.The answer would have to be in the affirmative.The applicant did not dispute, and indeed could not have disputed, the quantity of the foodgrains recorded by him in the stock and stack registers.In the cross-examination of PW 11::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2018 01:43:22 ::: 7 Sanjay Daine, there was no serious attempt to dispute that there was a shortage.The attempt was to demonstrate that the shortage could be due to several reasons such as loss in transportation or stacking, reduction of water content, due to rodents, birds etc. or due to certain scattered bags not taken note of.The suggestions are denied.The applicant - Godwon Keeper who was in charge of the godown was expected to bring on record material to reasonably create a doubt about the misappropriation case of the prosecution, which the applicant failed to do.In this view of the matter, there is no reason why this Court should exercise revisional jurisdiction to disturb the concurrent findings of the Courts below.::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2018 01:43:22 :::13 The bail bond of the accused is cancelled and he is directed to surrender to serve the sentence.JUDGE RSB::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2018 01:43:22 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2018 01:43:22 :::
|
['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
570,958 |
1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 26-9-96 passed by IIIrd Addl.Sessions Judge, Mandsaur presided by Shri Shashikiran Tamrakarin S. T. No. 123/94, offence Under Section 302/34 I.P.C. whereby P.W. 12 A.S.I. Mewalal Dube is recalled for further examination, in spite of the fact that P.W. 12 was examined and cross-examined by the defence and on 22-8-96 prosecution closed their evidence, petitioners are filing this revision petition.BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS :He made reference to the certified copy of the order sheet of the relevant dates in that S. T.Certified copy of the order sheet shows that on 22-8-96 the Addl.
|
['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.
|
571,010 |
The charge against them was under Section 302 r/w 149 IPC.They were jointly tried with Giani Ram and Dharo.Chandan Singh who was the fifth person to form the unlawful assembly was absconding and was, therefore, not available at the time of the trial.Giani Ram and Dharo have been acquitted and the appellants who were then convicted under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC are before us in this appeal.The victim of the assault was one Sardara.The appellants and Sardara belonged to the village Kulsi within the jurisdiction cf the police station Bhadurgarh in Rohtak District.The relations between Sardara and the appellants were far from cordial.It appears that on 24-7-1968 the appellant Sultan had applied to the Police Sub-Inspector, Bhadurgarh to take action against Sardara under Section 107 Criminal Procedure Code.Along with Sardara he had also complained against Bhim Singh, P.W. 3 and others.On 4-8-1968 at the intervention of other respectable villagers the parties settled their differences and thereafter the chapter proceedings were dropped.Some four days before the murder i.e. on 14-5-1969 the marriage of the sons of one Parshada, the deceased brother of Sultan, was to take place.Appellant Chatru is Sultan's other brother.For the purposes of the Ghurchari ceremony, a procession consisting of women and children was taken out in the village and the procession was to terminate near the village tank.While the procession was moving forward with the usual tom-tomming Sardara happened to come there with his bullocks.Owing to the noise the bullocks shied and so Sardara asked the processionists to stop the noise.Thereupon the procession was abandoned and the police went back.This was resented by the appellant Sultan and the other members of the family who must have regarded it as an ill-omen.Four days later on 18-5-1969 Bhim Singh left his village at about 7-15 A.M. for Ashodha a neighbouring village in a bullock-cart.He was taking with him wheat for being ground and paddy to be husked.After he had gone a little distance, he saw Sardara following him in his cart in which Mukhtyar Singh, P.W. 4 and Ram Singh, P.W. 5 were also seated.The latter two were also taking some wheat of their own for being ground at Ashodha.The two carts were going to Ashodha one behind the other.When they came near Arawala pond within the limits of village Ashodha, the appellants along with their sons Giani Ram and Dhare and the absconding Chandan Singh came there on bicycles.According to the prosecution Sultan was armed with a gun and his brother Chatru was armed with a pistol.The other three were armed with Gandasas.They kept aside their bicycles and came in front of Sardara's cart.They told Sardara that he had broken up the Ghurchari procession which made their life difficult and they would not leave him now.On seeing this Bhim Singh, P.W. 3 Mukhtyar Singh, P.W. 4 and Ram Singh, P.W. 5 got down from their carts and started imploring the appellants and others not to put their design into effect but Sultan asked them to move away and immediately fired his gun which hit Sardara in his chest.The second shot was fired by Chatru from his pistol which hit Sardara on the left clavicle in between the left shoulder and the neck.Sultan refilled his gun and fired the third shot and this hit Sardara above the abdomen on the left side.Sardara who was in the cart lay down with his head on the bags in the cart.JUDGMENT D.G. Palekar, J.The appellants Sultan and Chatru who have come to this Court by special leave have been sentenced to death by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak and the death sentence has been confirmed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh.At this stage the other three companions of the appellants are alleged to have got up into the cart and each one of them gave a blow with the Gandasas on the back of the head of Sardara and on the left lumber region.The prosecution witnesses ran towards a nearby village and thereafter all the five assailants got on their bicycles and proceeded towards the side of village Bherai.The three prosecution witnesses then went to village Kulasi and informed Jailal, the father of Sardara, about the occurrence.Jailal took them to the village Sarpanch Bani Singh.On the suggestion of Bani Singh, P.W. 12, Bhim Singh, P.W. 3 went to the Police Station Bhadurgarh on a bicycle and lodged his report Ext. P.A. at about 11.00 A.M.Dalip Singh, P.W. 17, the Assistant Sub-Inspector recorded the first information report and proceeded to the scene of occurrence.Sultan was arrested on the night between 19th and 20th May, 1969 at a place between Kulsi and Ashodha villages.The further investigation was taken over by Sub-Inspector Moti Lal, P.W. 15 to whom Sultan made a disclosure statement on May 25, 1969 which led to the recovery of a broken gun concealed in the heap of 'pural' behind the Kotah in the field.Chatru was arrested on May 26, 1969 and is supposed to have made a disclosure statement on 31-5-1969 which led to the recovery of a country made pistol concealed in the fodder room of hi? house.Near the scene of offence Dalip Singh P.W. 17 had already recovered three empty cartridges.These cartridges along with the gun and the pistol were sent to the Ballistic Expert, Mr.Mr. Sinha who was at that time Asstt.Director of the Forensic Science Laboratory Chandigarh was examined in the Trial Court and also by the High Court under Section 428 Criminal Procedure Code.The evidence of Mr. Sinha was not treated as of much consequence in the present case because there was clear evidence of eye witnesses that a gun and a pistol had been used.Three shots had been fired and three empty cartridges had been found at the place soon after the offence.The Sessions Court and the High Court accepted the evidence of Bhim Singh, P.W. 3, Mukhtyar Singh, P.W. 4 and Ram Singh, P.W. 5 as thoroughly reliable.The Sessions Court agreed with their evidence that the deceased had been also hit with Oandasa, but since even one person armed with a Gandasa was quite capable of inflicting three injuries it gave the benefit of doubt to Giani Ram and Dhare and convicted the appellant under Section 302/ r/w Section 34 IPC.The appellants were sentenced to death.The conviction and sentence have been confirmed by the High Court.There is no longer any dispute that the deceased Sardara had received three gun shot wounds.Dr. P.N. Chabra who performed the post mortem examination noted in all six injuries the first three of which are described as follows :(1) Penetrating lacerated wound 1" x 1 1/4" on the left upper abdomen near the lowest cartilage.It was abdominal cavity deep.(2) Penetrating lacerated wound 1 1/4" x 1" on the left chest, fifth intercostal space 4" from the sternum.It was chest cavity deep.(3) Penetrating contused wound 1" x 1" just above the left inner eavicle.It was directed to the right.All these three wounds were gun shot wounds and according to the Medical Officer, injuries Nos. 1 & 2 were individually sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.Both the courts have accepted the evidence of P.W. 3 Bhim Singh, P.W. 4 Mukhtyar Singh and P.W. 5 Ram Singh, especially, as they were corroborated by the actual injuries caused.According to them injuries 1 and 2 referred to above have been caused by Sultan by firing his gun and injury No. 3 near the left inner clavicle was caused by the shot fired by Chatru from his pistol.It is true that P.W. 3 Bhim Singh was one of those against whom Sultan had made his complaint for action under Section 107 Criminal Procedure Code.But we also know that the dispute was later compromised and there was no particular reason for Bhim Singh to give a false story.So far as the other two witnesses are concerned namely Mukhtyarsingh, P.W. 4 & Ramsingh P.W. 5 nothing tangible has been suggested why they should have falsely implicated the appellants.There has been practically no delay at all in filing the first information report.Before the same was filed the three witnesses had gone to Jailal; the father of the deceased Sardara, to inform him about the occurrence and it is admitted by Bani Singh, P.W. 12 the Sarpanch of the village that Jailal had come to him with Bhim Singh, Mukhtyar Singh and Ram Singh and told him about the occurrence.Immediately Bani Singh along with others went to the spot indicated and found Sardara lying dead in the cart.He remained near the cart along with the Sarpanch of Ashodha who had come there, in the meantime.At about 12.00 noon according to Bani Singh, the police arrived on the spot.Bani Singh further says that three empty cartridges which were lying at the scene were attached.The evidence of Bani Singh is also accepted as substantially true which only goes to show that the first information must have been lodged very soon after the occurrence.Both the courts have believed that the appellants were armed with fire arms, Appellant No. 1 with a gun and Appellant No. 2 with a pistol and that while the appellant No. 1 fired two shots form his gun, appellant No. 2 fired one shot from his pistol.It is not possible for us to reappreciate the evidence especially when there is no case made out for the same.
|
['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.
|
57,105,198 |
The applicant remained admitted in District Hospital.Case Diary is perused.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.This is first application, under section 438 of the Cr.P.C., for grant of anticipatory bail.Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No.99/2019 registered at Police Station Unnav, District Datia for the offence punishable under section 457 of the IPC.Allegations against the applicant, in short, are that on 27/8/19, at about 10 PM, when complainant was sleeping, applicant entered into his house through roof by removing roof-tiles and when complainant woke up, he fled away.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated due to previous enmity.A cross-case was registered at Crime No.98/2019 for the offences punishable under sections 323, 294 and 506 read with 34 of the IPC.
|
['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
57,107,268 |
1 High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Indore Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.10817/2020 (Shantilal s/o Babulal Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh) Indore, Dated 18.03.2020 Mr. Deepak Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant.Mr. Gaurav Kumar Verma, learned Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant / State of Madhya Pradesh.However, after arguing for some time on the merits of the matter, learned counsel for the applicant seeks leave of this Court to with- draw the bail application.Prayer allowed.Accordingly, Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.10817/2020 is dismissed as withdrawn.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
571,081 |
Onbeing questioned Vyas told her ,(Kusum) that he had nevermarried her, as the whole affair was a sham.Kusum allegedthat she had become pregnant as a result of the cohabitationbut in view of her serious heart ailment Vyas took her to aclinic where under medical advice and oncertificate .granted by Vyas an abortion was caused to saveKusum's life.The complaint was filed on November 1, 1963 and Kusum wasexamined by the Presidency Magistrate.Vyas was thensummoned to Court.On November 29, Kusum unfortunately diedof a heart attack.Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated'August 25, 1964 of the Bombay High Court in CriminalRevision.N. N. Keswani,if or the appellant.K. L. Hathi andrr.H. Dhebar, for respondent No. 1.K. Rajendra Chaudhuri and K. R. Choudhuri, for respondentNo.The Judgment of the Court was delivered byHidayatullah, J. In this appeal, by special leave, againstthe judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay, August25, 1965, the appellant Ashwin Nanubhai Vyas is an accusedbefore the Presidency Magistrate's 4th Court at Girgaon,Bombay.The case was started on the complaint under S. 198,Code of Criminal808Procedure of one Kusum Vithal Abhyankar, who charged himwith offences under ss. 417, 493 and 496 of the Indian PenalCode.Kusum's complaint was that Vyas went through a shammarriage with her, before a person who posed as an Officerfrom the office .of the Registrar for Marriages.Subsequently, Vyas abandoned her and married another.Vyas then filed anapplication for revision in the High Court at Bombay and bythe judgment and order now impugned his petition forrevision was rejected.
|
['Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
57,109,867 |
In the wake of unprecedented and uncertain situation due to outbreak of the Novel Corona Virus (COVID-19) and considering the advisories issued by the government of India, this application has been heard and decided through video conferencing to maintain social distancing.The parties are being represented by the respective counsel through video conferencing, following the norms of social distancing/physical distancing in letter and spirit.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant has filed this first application u/S 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Mow, District Bhind in connection with Crime No.100/2020 registered in relation to the offence punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.It is argued that the FIR has been lodged with a considerable delay despite of the fact that family members of the deceased have accompanied at the time of funeral.Despite of the same they have not lodged the FIR within time.It is argued that incident is of 18.2.2020 and the statements were recorded on 15.04.2020 with a considerable delay.Even from the statements recorded there are only omnibus allegations against the 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.It is argued that all the other family members have already been enlarged on bail.There was repeated demand of dowry from the deceased and her family members which have been stated in the statements of father and mother.He has prayed for rejection of the application.THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE van SMT VANDANA VERMA 2020.08.13 15:18:16 -07'00'
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
57,110,008 |
Heard on these first applications for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the applicants in connection with Crime No.118/2020 registered at Police Station Mandhata, District Khandwa for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 294, 323 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The case of the prosecution is that, on 08.05.2020 when the complaint Manoj (mentally retarded) was sitting in front of his house with his family members namely Dagdu, Majru, Krishna, etc., at that time the applicants armed with iron rod and sticks came there and attacked them.As a result of which Manoj, Dagdu and Krishna sustained injuries and they were taken to hospital where injury of Manoj was found to be serious in nature while injuries of Dagdu and Krishna were simple in nature.On postmortem of the deceased, it was found that the cause of death was due to drowning.Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants have not committed any offence and have falsely been implicated in the crime.It is further submitted by the applicants that the applicant Rahul has lodged an 2 MCRC-20494-2020 FIR bearing Crime No.117/2020 against the complainant party for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 294, 323, 506 and 34 of IPC.They are ready to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by all terms and conditions imposed upon them.There is no chance of their absconding or tampering with the evidence.In view of the aforesaid, prayer has been made to enlarge the applicants on bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application.The injuries of other injured persons were also found to be simple in nature.Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the facts as pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicants, allegations made against the applicants, period of their incarceration and also looking to the exigency of Covid-19 disease, in the opinion of this Court, the applicants deserve to be released on bail.Consequently, these first applications for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicants, are allowed.It is directed that the applicants shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount each to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.In view of the outbreak of 'Corona Virus disease the applicants shall also comply with the rules and norms of social distancing.The Jail Authority shall ensure the medical examination of the applicants by the jail Doctor before their release.The applicants shall not be released, if they are suffering from 'Corona Virus disease'.For this purpose appropriate tests will be carried out.If it is found that the applicants are suffering from 'Corona Virus disease', necessary steps will be taken by the concerned authority by placing them in appropriate quarantine facility.These applications stand allowed and disposed of.Certified Copy as per rules.(MOHD.FAHIM ANWAR) JUDGE taj Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 2020.09.09 16:51:59 +05'30'
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
57,112,189 |
The allegation is that in the year 1995, the second and third petitioners along with their deceased brother Nirmal Bang had approached the second respondent and requested him to invest in shares and do trading through them.They represented to the second respondent that they were registered brokers of NSE and BSE and it was represented that it would be profitable for the second respondent to get associated with them.On the basis of the representations made by the second and third petitioners and their deceased brother (Nirmal Bang), the second respondent agreed to invest.According to the case made out in the complaint, the second respondent started investing from the year 1995 and numerous transactions in huge amounts running into Crores of rupees were made.It is alleged that the second and third petitioners along with their brother Nirmal Bang were also the Directors of Bama 4 of 30::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:55:20 ::: 5 crwp-3123.14 Securities Limited.The said Company was also trading in shares.Reliance is placed on contract notes which are annexed to the complaint by way of illustration.It is alleged that on 26 th February, 1998 the petitioners had bought on behalf of the second respondent, 1,09,700 shares of BFL Software at the rate of Rs.86/-.A copy of the statement of the said transaction has been annexed as Exhibit - B to the complaint.It is alleged that in addition to the aforesaid shares, the petitioners were holding other shares on behalf of the second respondent.Details of the said shares are annexed as Exhibit - C to the Petition.::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:55:20 :::4 The second respondent stated in the complaint that BFL Software was taken over by a foreign company and therefore, price of the shares of BFL Software Company went up.When the second respondent contacted the petitioners to know the status of his shares which were lying with the petitioners and to discuss about the future course of action in trading, the petitioners showed an indifferent and evasive attitude.It is alleged in the complaint that on 11 th October, 1998 the second respondent filed a complaint with the Commissioner of Police at Mumbai a copy of which is annexed as Exhibit-E to the 5 of 30::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:55:20 ::: 6 crwp-3123.14 complaint.The material averments in the complaint are in paragraphs 7 to 11 of the pages 32 and 33 which read thus :-::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:55:20 :::The complainant thus decided to put his foot down and demanded the accused to hand over all his shares which the Accused had purchased on his behalf in the course of the trade and which the accused were holding on his behalf.The Accused instead of returning the shares back to the complainant threatened the complainant with dire consequences if he ever demanded my shares from them.The complainant was thus constrained to file a complaint before the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai narrating the facts and requesting for appropriate action as per Law.Annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit E is the copy of the complaint dated 11.10.98 filed before the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai.The matter was sent before the General branch, Crime Branch, C.I.D., Mumbai for investigation.Surprisingly no investigation came to be carried out at the instance of General Branch, Crime Branch, C.I.D., Mumbai and without even registering any crime the Inspector of Police, General branch, Crime Branch, C.I.D., Mumbai wrote a letter to me dated 29.06.99 stating that no action was feasible in the matter and that I may redress my grievances in arbitration before Board of Bombay Stock Exchange or National Stock Exchange.Annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit F is the copy of the letter dated 29.06.99 of the Inspector of Police, General branch, Crime Branch, C.I.D., Mumbai.Aggrieved by the approach of the Inspector of Police, General branch, Crime Branch, C.I.D., Mumbai, the complainant pursued the matter with higher officers and made various complaints to them.Annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit G Colly are the copies of the complaints.The accused above named have together conspired and have committed serious criminal offences and a huge fraud running in crores of rupees.The accused have in connivance with each other and with dishonest intentions, since inception, induced the complainant to part with his hard earned monies by representing him that they would invest the said amount in shares.However, inspite of repeated requests and reminders, the accused have not given delivery of those shares as well and have sold off the said shares and appropriated profits generated to their own use.He pointed out that thereafter the second respondent kept quiet and only on 22nd March, 2010 he addressed a letter to the Joint Commissioner of Police-Crimes alleging cheating and threatening by the second and third petitioners by describing them as Bang Brothers of M/s. Nirmal Bang.He pointed out that on 13 th April, 2010 the office of 8 of 30::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:55:20 ::: 9 crwp-3123.14 the Additional Commissioner of Police, Economic Offence Wing forwarded the complaint by the second respondent to the Deputy Commissioner of Police.We have perused the annexures to the complaint.The first complaint filed by the second respondent was on 11 th October, 1998 addressed to the Commissioner of Police.The second respondent stated therein that he has been cheated and frauded by the said Nirmal Bang over a deal in shares at Mumbai.There is no reference to second and third petitioners in the said complaint.DATE ON WHICH SUBMISSIONS WERE HEARD : 16th MARCH, 2017 DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED : 5th MAY, 2017 JUDGMENT (PER A.S. OKA, J.):-1 By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C"), a prayer is made for quashing the order dated 23 rd December, 2013 passed by the learned Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, 47th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai on a complaint filed by the second respondent.By the said order, action under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C was ordered to be taken.There is also a prayer for quashing the First Information Report (FIR) registered with MRA Marg Police 2 of 30::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:55:19 ::: 3 crwp-3123.14 Station for the offence punishable under Section 409 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered on the basis of the impugned order.However, investigation was ordered to be continued.We may note here that on 4th November, 2015 an order was passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 38 th Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbai which reads thus :-::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:55:19 :::"ORDER BELOW EXH.1 IN NOTICE NO.40/2015 As I am passing this order just below this notice itself, I need not reproduce its contents.2] Perused the petition and the documents along with.Issue notice to the Investigating Officer that, if the offences of forgery as contended in this notice application are made out, he may take appropriate action in accordance with the provisions of law, in the course of his investigation, and do the needful."2 By order dated 16th December, 2015 this Court permitted amendment to be carried out for incorporating a reference to the aforesaid order and accordingly, amendment has been carried out.::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:55:19 :::a Director of a Company SIYA Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. The said company was engaged in the business of trading and investment of shares.In the complaint it was alleged that the first petitioner - Company was formerly known as M/s. Nirmal Bang and the second and third petitioners are the Directors of the first petitioner - Company.The complaint was then being pursued by the Office of the Addl.Commissioner of Police, Economic offences Wing, Mumbai and on 13.04.2010 the complaint was 6 of 30::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:55:20 ::: 7 crwp-3123.14 marked to the Dy.Commissioner of Police, Zone-1, Mumbai for necessary action.::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:55:20 :::The matter if of a serious nature and of wide repercussions.The were holding the shares in trust for the complainant and being the sub-brokers, they were agents of the complainant.The shares belonging to the Complainant are worth about sixty crores which had been entrusted to the accused above named and which the Accused are holding in their capacity as a broker.The Accused above named have committed the offence of criminal breach of trust under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code.Till date no Crime has been registered in the matter by the Economic Offences Wing despite the matter warranted for a prompt and effective investigation by the Economic Offences Wing as the fraud committed is in crores of rupees."5 A prayer was made in the complaint praying that an order under Sub-Section (3) of Section 156 of the Cr.P.C be issued directing the concerned officer of Economic Offence Wing to register a crime.The impugned order passed on the complaint reads thus :-7 of 30::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:55:20 ::: 8 crwp-3123.14 "Complainant is present considering the allegation herein, police is directed to investigate into the matter U/s.156(3) of CRPC and report within (illegible) days."::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:55:20 :::6 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners invited our attention to the complaint dated 11 th October, 1998 addressed by the second respondent to the Commissioner of Police.He pointed out that the allegations of cheating and fraud have been made in the said letter only as against the said Nirmal.He pointed out that an enquiry was made into the said complaint addressed to the Commissioner of Police and by a letter dated 29 th June, 1990, the Inspector of Police, General Branch, Crime Branch, C.I.D., Mumbai informed the second respondent that no action can be taken on the basis of his complaint and he may redress his grievances by resorting to arbitration proceedings.He pointed out that on 25th September, 2002 another complaint was addressed by the second respondent to the Joint Commissioner of Police, Mumbai.In the said complaint, he urged that the second and the third petitioners threatened to kill him on the same day.Hence, the order and the FIR registered on the basis of the order be quashed and set aside.::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:55:20 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:55:20 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:55:20 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:55:20 :::He pointed out that there is a material on record to show that business of M/s. Nirmal Bang and Nirmal Bang Securities Pvt. Ltd. was controlled by the entire family of Nirmal Bang as well as the second and third petitioners who are his brothers.He submitted that there are two letters on record to show that Nirmal Bang Securities Private Limited delivered the shares to the second respondent which show that assets and liabilities of M/s. Nirmal Bang were taken over by M/s. Nirmal Bang Securities Pvt. Ltd. on its incorporation.He invited our attention to various letters placed on record and the statements of account.By a letter dated 29th June, 1999, the Inspector of Police of General Branch, Crime Branch, C.I.D, Mumbai informed the second respondent that no action is feasible on the basis of his complaint and therefore, he may take recourse to arbitration before the Stock Exchange.He kept mum and after three years and three months, on 25 th September, 2002, he lodged another complaint with the Joint Commissioner of Police, Mumbai.In that complaint, he made allegations against the second and third petitioners who were the brothers of Nirmal.Serious allegation was made in the said complaint that on 25 th September, 2002 when the second respondent met the second and third petitioners near Oberoi Tower at 7.00 pm, three unknown persons joined the second and third petitioners and all of them threatened him by telling him that if he demands his dues, he would be killed.It is not his case that on 25 th 24 of 30::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:55:20 ::: 25 crwp-3123.14 September, 2002 he immediately went to a Police Station and tried to lodge a complaint.After filing the said complaint, the second respondent did nothing for more than 7 years.On 22 nd March, 2010 he filed a complaint with Shri Rakesh Maria, Joint Commissioner of Police in which he stated that he was to receive shares worth more than 60 Crores from Bang brothers (second and third petitioners).17 From the letter dated 13th April, 2010 forwarded by the office of the Additional Commissioner of Police, Economic Offences Wing, CID, Mumbai to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone - I, it appears that complaint made by the second respondent was forwarded to the said officer.::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:55:20 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:55:20 :::There is no explanation as to why he waited till June 2013 to file the complaint on which the impugned order has been passed.There is a gross unexplained delay in approaching the Court.::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:55:20 :::19 If averments made in the complaint are taken as correct, on 26th February 1998, the accused bought on behalf of the second respondent 1,09,700 shares of BFL.20 Thus, on 11th October, 1998 for the first time, the second respondent addressed a complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai in which the allegations were made only against Nirmal.On 29th June, 1999 he was informed that no action can be taken on the basis of the complaint and he should take recourse to arbitration.He did not approach either the Court of law or higher police officers.As stated earlier, for the alleged incident of 25 th 26 of 30::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:55:20 ::: 27 crwp-3123.14 September, 2002, the second respondent addressed a written complaint to the Joint Commissioner of Police, Mumbai without approaching the concerned Police Station.Thereafter, for a period of seven years or more, the second respondent took no steps till 22 nd March, 2010 when he addressed a complaint to Shri Rakesh Maria, Joint Commissioner of Police.A copy of the communication to that effect was forwarded even to the second respondent which is annexed to the complaint.It is not the case made out in the complaint that thereafter the second respondent complained about the delay in investigation or that he approached any higher police officials.Three years and two months thereafter, he filed the complaint before the learned Magistrate.::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:55:20 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:55:20 :::But for the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate, the Police could not have registered the FIR.Therefore, as the impugned order is completely illegal, the FIR registered on the basis of the same in the year 2014 deserves to be quashed.Even by ignoring the illegality associated with the impugned order of the learned Magistrate, at such a 28 of 30::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:55:20 ::: 29 crwp-3123.14 belated stage, the prosecution of the petitioners will be nothing but an abuse of process of law.::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:55:20 :::23 It appears that an application was made by the second respondent on 31st October, 2005 before the Metropolitan Magistrate contending that apart from Section 409 of the IPC, the offences under the other Sections were also attracted.On the said application, the learned Judge passed an order dated 4th November, 2015 issuing notice to the Investigating Officer by observing that if the offence of forgery as contended in the application are made out, the Investigating Officer may take appropriate action in accordance with law in the course of the investigation.On the face of it, the said order was unwarranted and illegal and the learned Magistrate had no power to issue any such direction during the course of investigation to the police officer.24 We make it very clear that we are not adjudicating upon the rights and liabilities of the parties.25 Accordingly, the Petition must succeed and we pass the following order :-29 of 30::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:55:20 ::: 30 crwp-3123.14 ORDER::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:55:20 :::(iii) All concerned to act upon an authenticated copy of this order.(SMT.ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J) (A.S. OKA, J) 30 of 30::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:55:20 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:55:20 :::
|
['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
57,123,642 |
"A PCR call was received at PS: Shahadra Delhi vide DD No. 64-B that a young boy was stabbed in the Gali No.3, Kaardampuri Extension Delhi.The PCR call was marked to ASI Shiv Charan who alongwith Head Ct.Luv Raj reached the spot and found that injured Rashid s/o Abdul Qayyum who was stabbed during quarrel was already removed to hospital.A large crowd was gathered at the spot.Ct, Deepak who was on patrolling duty came at the spot, ASI Shiv Charan deputed Ct.Deepak for the safety and protection of the scene of crime and he rushed to the hospital.He reached at GTB Hospital where he met Mohd. Saleem and Mohd. Ansar who stated that their younger brother Rashid died due to stab injuries inflicted on him.ASI Shiv Charan inspected the dead body of Rashid.Rashid was declared dead by the doctor.ASI Shiv Charan made enquiries from Mohd. Saleem and his statement was recorded at the GTB Hospital.Mohd. Saleem gave his statement that his brother Rashid (now deceased) was running general store situated at Gali no.Near Goldline Public School, Kadampuri Extension, Delhi.At about 9:00 p.m. , he alongwith his elder brother Ansaar Ahmed were present at their shop at Gali Crl.One boy came to their shop and told that someone is quarrelling with Rashid.Thereafter, he alongwith his elder brother run towards the Rashid's shop, after reaching the spot, they saw that Tayyab, Qayyun and Javed and their maternal uncle Mohd. Rafiq were quarrelling with their brother over money matter and told that they would not pay their debt to Rashid.Rashid insisted for the same.At the same time, Tayyab brought one knife from their house and shouted that you all three caught Raship and he will kill Rashid and pay all his debts.Rafiq, Qayyam and Javed caught hold of Rashid and Tayyab and stabbed his with knife on the right side of abdomen.Rafiq was holding an iron rod and when he tried to free his brother Rashid, Rafiq also assaulted his on his right hand with iron rod.Blood was oozing out from the abdomen of Rashid and Rashid fell down on the ground.He and his brother, took injured Rashid to GTB Hospital in a TSR.On the way, Rasid who was in pain, uttered that Tayyab, Qayyum, Rafiq and Javed tried to kill him and they are not doing right.Their clothes were blood stained.At GTB Hospital, Rashid was declared brought dead by the Doctors.% KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.By this appeal filed under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C."), the appellant seeks to challenge the impugned judgment and order on sentence dated 28.07.2010 and 03.08.2010, respectively, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, has convicted the appellant for committing an offence punishable under Sections 302/323/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860(hereinafter referred to as "IPC") and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life together with imposition of fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of Crl.A. No.1061/2010 Page 1 of 27 fine, the appellant was directed to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one year.The appellant was also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for committing an offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC.Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.He stated that Rashid was murdered by Tayyab with knife and Rafiq, Qayyum and Javed caught hold of him with intention to kill him.Thereafter ASI, Shiv Charan made his endorsement on the statement of Mohd. Saleem for registration of the case and rukka was sent to PS Shahadra through H.C. Omender who got the FIR registered."A. No.1061/2010 Page 2 of 27To bring home the charges, the prosecution in all examined 17 witnesses.In their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied their complicity in the crime and pleaded that they were falsely implicated in the case.In defence, the accused persons had examined Crl.A. No.1061/2010 Page 3 of 27 3 witnesses.A. No.1061/2010 Page 3 of 27Based on the evidence led by the prosecution and the defence, the learned trial court did not find that the other accused persons had shared common intention with the present appellant - Tayyab, in inflicting the stab injuries on the person of the deceased.So far as the present appellant is concerned, the learned trial court held him guilty for committing an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC taking a view that the nature of injuries inflicted by the appellant were sufficient to cause death and the same were not as a result of sudden fight and the appellant also acted in a cruel manner and used a deadly weapon in the commission of crime.Learned trial court also held that the case of the appellant would fall under Section 302 of IPC and not under Section 304 (Part I) IPC.At the outset, Mr. G.S. Singh, counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that he does not wish to challenge the conviction of the appellant and will confine his arguments to challenge the order on sentence.Assailing the impugned order on sentence, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even as per the prosecution case, a sudden fight had taken place between the complainant party on the one hand and the accused persons on the other hand and in such a sudden fight the injuries sustained Crl.A. No.1061/2010 Page 4 of 27 by the victim proved fatal and ultimately resulted his in death.Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that as per the admitted case of the prosecution, the deceased was running a kirana shop and at the time of the alleged incident, a quarrel arose between the parties because the accused persons refused to return back the money to the deceased - Rashid.In fact, the accused persons clearly told the deceased that they would not be paying any outstanding amount in respect of the purchases made by them from his shop.During this sudden quarrel, the accused asked the other co-accused persons to catch hold the deceased and in the meanwhile he went to his house to bring a knife.Since the house of the appellant, perhaps was near to the Kirana Shop, the appellant immediately returned with a knife (Chhura) and inflicted a stab injury on the right side of the abdomen of the deceased.A. No.1061/2010 Page 4 of 27The contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant was that, in the sudden fight, even one of the accused - Rafiq had also received injuries and he was medically examined on 22.12.2006 and as per his MLC Report (Ex.PW-6/DA), he had suffered sharp injuries on his person.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Rafiq could not lodge any report because of his immediate arrest in the present FIR.Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that due to refusal of the police to register the cross Crl.A. No.1061/2010 Page 5 of 27 FIR, Mohd. Rafiq had filed a private complaint which is still pending consideration before the concerned Magistrate.Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the recovery of weapon of offence, at the instance of accused, was not believed by the learned trial court and the learned trial court clearly held that the recovery of the weapon of offence was effected from an open area accessible to public, thus it cannot be said that the recovery was effected from the place within exclusive knowledge of the accused.Therefore the recovery of weapon of offence made at the instance of the appellant did not inspire confidence.Contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant was that with the said finding of the learned trial court, the appellant cannot be associated with the weapon of offence produced by the prosecution in their evidence, sketch of which was proved on record as Ex.A. No.1061/2010 Page 6 of 27APP submitted that the Appellant had inflicted four injuries to the deceased, one of which was on the vital part of the body of the deceased, inflicting incised wedge shape stab wound of size 2.5 x 0.3 cms placed in right lumbar region 9 cms below the right costal margin in almost mid clavicular line and 102.5 cms from right heel in an oblique fashion.Learned APP for the State invited the attention of this court to the post mortem report proved on record as Ex.PW-5/A and the testimony of PW-5 who had conducted the post mortem of the deceased.Learned APP further argued that it was a well-designed and thoughtful act as the appellant had rushed to his house to bring a knife and thereafter had inflicted four stab injuries on the body of the deceased.Learned APP further submitted that there was a clear intention on the part of the appellant to murder the deceased and had it not been so, then the appellant would not have inflicted stab injuries on such a vital part of the body of the deceased.Based on these submissions, learned APP submits that exception IV of Section 300 IPC is not attracted to the facts of the present case and the offence committed by the appellant squarely falls under Section 302 of IPC and the appellant has been rightly sentenced by the learned trial court for life imprisonment.A. No.1061/2010 Page 7 of 27We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by them.We have also gone through the record of the learned trial court, and Crl.A. No.1061/2010 Page 8 of 27 scrutinised the material on record.A. No.1061/2010 Page 8 of 27In the present case, we have to first analyse as to whether the prosecution has succeeded to prove that the injury caused by the appellant was with intention of causing such bodily injury, which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and therefore, falls under clause thirdly of Section 300 IPC.Salim and PW-4,Mohd.Ansar Ahmed are the eye witnesses of the crime.One child came to him and informed that a quarrel was taking place between Rashid and some other persons.On this he, alongwith PW-4 proceeded to the shop, Gali No.16, where he saw that the accused persons were quarrelling with his brother Rashid on account of money.His brother - Rashid told him that accused persons were not giving money.On this, accused persons told his brother that they would not pay any amount in respect of purchases made by them from his shop and in the meanwhile, the appellant went to his house and brought a chhura (knife) with him and gave a churra blow in the right side of abdomen of his brother, Rashid.PW-4 also deposed on the same lines confirming the fact that the appellant went to his Crl.A. No.1061/2010 Page 9 of 27 house and brought a chhura with him and gave a blow with the chhura in the right side of abdomen of Rashid.A. No.1061/2010 Page 9 of 2715. PW-5 Dr. S.K Verma, who conducted the autopsy of the deceased, stated that he had noted the following injuries:A small reddish abrasion on the base of Lt. index finger of size 0.5 x 0.4 cms.Incised wedge shaped stat wound of size 2.5 x 0.3 cms placed in Rt.Lumbar region 9 cms below the right costal margin in almost clavicular line and 102.5 cms from Rt.Heel, in an oblique fashion.The aorta was cut from anterior lateral aspect having an incised wound of size 1x 0.2 cms.He volunteered to say in his cross-examination that the quarrel was continuing when he had reached the spot.PW-4, Mohd. Ansar Ahmed also deposed on the same lines confirming the fact that some hot talks were in progress between the accused persons and his brother on the point of money Crl.A. No.1061/2010 Page 14 of 27 and the deceased Rashid told him and his brother (PW-1) that the accused persons had to give money but they were not willing to return the same.
|
['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
65,231,268 |
They married and lived as husband and wife in a rented accommodation for 22 days where the prosecutrix was free to live her life.Appellant has examined the landlord and his wife as DW1 and DW2 who have categorically stated that there was no quarrel in the house when the Appellant was living with the prosecutrix.Hence the finding that the prosecutrix was made to live or raped contrary to her wishes is incorrect.The father and uncle of the prosecutrix took her from the rented house and produced her after two days to the Police.On 12th September, 2007 FIR No. 301/2007 under Section 363 IPC was registered on the complaint of PW2 who alleged that his daughter had gone from the house on 8 th September, 2007 at about 12.30 PM stating that she had gone to Kotla Mubarakpur market to get the knitting needles and has not turned back.PW1, the prosecutrix in her statement before Court stated that on 8 th September, 2007 she went to Kotla Mubarakpur, where the Appellant gave Crl.A.706/2010 Page 3 of 7 her sweets in celebration of his new job.She took the laddoo, felt giddy and became unconscious.When she gained consciousness she found herself in a room with the Appellant.When she tried to run away the Appellant threatened her and gave her beatings.He tied her hands and legs.She was locked in the room by the Appellant who went away.Next day he came along with a van and took her to Ghaziabad to an unknown place to his cousin sister.There also the Appellant tied and locked her in a room, committed rape on her and told his cousin sister to keep a watch on the prosecutrix.The Appellant had put her in a van, took her to marry at a Mandir where the marriage was photographed.After marriage the prosecutrix was brought back to the room and kept there for 18-19 days on the threats of killing the father and by giving beatings.She stated that nothing happened with her consent.One day she found the room of the house was not locked from outside and she asked one child to open the bolt.She went to the STD booth from where she made a telephone call to her house.The phone was picked up by her sister.She told her that she should telephone her on number from which she made a call, as she had no address.Thereafter her father and her uncle came to that place and took her back.Her father went to the Police station on the same day and subsequently her statement was recorded and medical examination was done.In the cross- examination though the prosecutrix does not dispute having known the Appellant prior to the alleged incident, however she states that she had no love affair with him.In her cross-examination she denied that she went of her own free will or that whatever happened was with her consent and not forcibly.By the present appeal the Appellant challenges the judgment dated 9 th April, 2010 whereby he was convicted for offences punishable under Section 363 and 376 IPC and the order on sentence dated 15 th April, 2010 whereby he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and a fine of Rs. 5000/- for offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and in case of default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for offence punishable under Section 363 IPC.2. Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that the allegations against the Appellant are for kidnapping the prosecutrix from a busy place like Kotla Mubarakpur by giving laddoo due to which she became unconscious.However the very foundation of the case is demolished as the Appellant has been acquitted for offence under Section 328 IPC and the State having not Crl.A.706/2010 Page 1 of 7 challenged the said acquittal, the same has become final.The Appellant and the prosecutrix knew each other for long and they had eloped with consent and on the asking of the prosecutrix.Thus, there was sufficient tutoring of the prosecutrix before her statement was recorded by the Police.Further when the medical examination was conducted on 1 st October, 2007 no injury was found.The statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded even later on 4th October, 2007 after sufficient time of her being under the influence of her parents.The Appellant has been falsely implicated and thus he be acquitted of the charges framed, or in the alternative the Appellant has undergone more than 5 and a half years of imprisonment and thus he be released on the period already undergone.The date of birth of the prosecutrix has been duly proved by PW10 the teacher who brought the school record.As on the date of alleged offence i.e. 8 th September, 2007 the prosecutrix was a minor and her consent was thus Crl.A.706/2010 Page 2 of 7 immaterial.Though the Appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has stated that the prosecutrix and the Appellant were in love with each other and the family of the prosecutrix demanded money and since he could not pay the same this case was foisted on him, however no such suggestion has been given to the witnesses.As the medical examination was conducted after 22 days, the absence of injuries on the body of the prosecutrix will not negate her cogent evidence.No case for acquittal is made out.This Court has already issued a notice of enhancement to the Appellant.Thus the appeal be dismissed and the sentence awarded to the Appellant be enhanced.A.706/2010 Page 2 of 7I have heard learned counsel for the parties.He suspected that Bhagwan Dass @ Kallu who was doing the work of catering with a neighbourer Manoj Kumar had taken away his daughter.The search of the prosecutrix was conducted and on 1st October, 2007 PW2 produced the prosecutrix in the Police station where her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded and she was medically examined.After recording the statement of the prosecutrix, offences under Sections 376 IPC and 328 IPC were added.This witness was suggested that the family of the prosecutrix Crl.A.706/2010 Page 4 of 7 demanded the money and when the Appellant refused to give the money a false case has been lodged against him, which she denied.A.706/2010 Page 3 of 7A.706/2010 Page 4 of 7PW2 the father of the prosecutrix stated that he was running a rehri of tea and on 8th September, 2007 when he visited his house he came to know that his daughter had not come back from the market.He searched for her for about 5-6 days on his own and then lodged a missing report at PS Lodhi Colony.After a few days he came to know that his daughter had been taken away by the Appellant and thus he lodged the complaint Ex.PW2/A on which the FIR was registered.A call was received from his daughter from STD booth and when they reached the STD booth, the operator took them to the house where his daughter was confined.From there they brought back the prosecutrix to Delhi and subsequently her statement was recorded.Same is the version of PW3 the mother of the prosecutrix and PW4 the uncle of the prosecutrix.Further PW2 has not been suggested that money was demanded from the accused and when he refused, this story was cooked up, though this suggestion has been given to PW3, the mother.Thus on the date of alleged incident, the prosecutrix was a few days less than 18 years of age.The Appellant has examined two defence witnesses i.e. Satender and his wife Kavita who stated that on September, 2007 the Appellant came with a lady and took the room on rent in their house for Rs. 800/- and started living there as husband and wife.They resided there for 20-25 days.No quarrel took place in between Bhagwan Dass and that lady in their presence and they were residing as husband and wife.DW2 states that the lady never Crl.A.706/2010 Page 5 of 7 disclosed to her that she was made to run away by the accused from her house and she stated that they were married one year back, however they started living together now and that is why they had no children.In the cross-examination this witness clarified that the prosecutrix used to go outside alone for purchasing bangles and other daily items from the vendors.A.706/2010 Page 5 of 7From the evidence on record it is established that the prosecutrix was a minor though a few days less than 18 years at the time of the alleged incident.Thus her consent which is sought to be invoked by the Appellant for going with him is immaterial.Further the testimony of DW1 and DW2 goes against the Appellant to the extent that the Appellant had taken the prosecutrix to the house where they lived as husband and wife, only to show that there was consent.DW1 and DW2 have stated that there Crl.A.706/2010 Page 6 of 7 was no quarrel between the parties.The allegation is that the Appellant initially beat her, threatened her and thereafter performed sexual intercourse on her.In view of the testimony of prosecutrix and their being no material on record to show that she was a consenting party, I do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the learned Trial Court convicting the Appellant for offences under Section 376/363 IPC.A.706/2010 Page 6 of 7Since this Court has already issued a notice of enhancement and the conviction has been upheld by this Court, List this matter for hearing on the order on sentence on 8th May 2013 when the Appellant will be present in Court.Appellant will be produced by Superintendent Tihar Jail.(MUKTA GUPTA) APRIL 25, 2013 'ga' Crl.A.706/2010 Page 7 of 7A.706/2010 Page 7 of 7
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
65,236,018 |
ddas/KS Allowed CRM 2763 of 2018 In the matter of: An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure affirmed on 14.05.2018 in connection with Bankura P.S. Case No.99 of 2018 dated 26.04.2018 under sections 279/338/307 of the Indian Penal Code.And Inthematterof:DebanshuKundu ......petitioner Mr. Dipankar Dandapath ... ... for the petitioner Mr. Avijit Ganguly Mr. Avik Ghatak ... ... for the State It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the injury was due to rash and negligent driving.Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail.This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
65,239,050 |
Shri Manish Datt, Sr.Counsel with Shri Pushpendra Dubey for the applicants.Shri Chandrakant Mishra, GA for the State.This is the first bail application filed by the applicants under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicants are in custody since 22.2.2012 in connection with Crime No. 15/2012 registered at P.S. Shahganj, District Sehore for the offence punishable under sections 302, 147, 148, 149, 459, 323 of the IPC.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the case.The incident took place on the spur of the moment.A counter case has also been registered against the complainant party under sections 452, 147, 148, 294, 323, 506-II of the IPC.The injured persons have not stated the names of applicants Sarvesh, Deepak and Satyam.The applicants are in custody and trial would take considerable time to conclude, therefore, they be released on bail.Learned counsel for State has opposed the application and submitted that witness Komal stated the names of the accused persons.She stated that deceased Daulat told her that Shyam, Krishna and Manoj assaulted him, therefore, this application is liable to be dismissed.Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that injured persons have not stated the names of the applicants as well as as per the statement of Komal co- accused Shyam, Krishna and Manoj assaulted the deceased, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case to release the applicants on bail, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that applicants shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 35,000/- (Rs. Thirty Five Thousand only) each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the committal Court/ trial Court for securing their presence before the said Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial.Certified copy as per rules.(G.S.Solanki) Judge PB
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
652,414 |
This notice was issued on the basis of the previous assessments.The company, in exercise of this right, filed an estimate in the prescribed form signed by Sh.Rama Shankar Bajpai on June 13, 1974, estimating its total income as nil.The second estimate, estimating the total income at Rs. 311.31 lakhs on which income advance tax payable came to Rs. 179.78 lakhs, was filed under the signature of the said Sh.The third estimate, estimating the total income of the company at Rs. 176.92 lakhs, was filed under the signature of the said Sh.Bajpai on December 13, 1974, i.e., 17 days before the closing of the year.K Chaufla, Income-tax Officer, Central Circle xviii, New Delhi, filed a complaint for offences under sections 277 and 278 of the Act and sections 177 and 109, Indian Penal Code, against the company, Sh.Sita Ram Singhania and Sh.Rama Shankar Bajpai, before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi.It was averred that the company willfully, deliberately and mala fide delivered the accounts or statements in the shape of estimates of advance tax in Form No. 29 as prescribed under the Income-tax Rules, 1962, which were false and which it either knew or believed to be false or did not believe to be true.The offences, obviously, were committed when the alleged false estimates were delivered.The estimates in question were admittedly delivered to the Income-tax Officer at Kanpur.After claiming credit for the tax already paid, the company paid a sum of Rs. 1,21,31,784 as tax.Penalty proceedings under section 273(1)(a) Of the Act were initiated against the company for filing false estimates and a penalty of Rs. 12,90,800 was imposed which was reduced to Rs. 7,74,470 in appeal.On November 15, 1985, Sh.It was further averred that S/Sh.The complaint had been filed without holding any preliminary inquiry and without giving any opportunity to the petitioners of being heard and was violative of the principles of natural justice.The company was an artificial juridical person.
|
['Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
65,243,118 |
Sessions Judge, Seoni in Session Trial No. 14/1994 whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 302 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life & fine of Rs. 5000/- and under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code & sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 months with default stipulations.The prosecution story in brief is that the deceased was living in village Runsai ka tola which was inhabited by tribal.On the basis of aforesaid incident of death of Ratnu, family members of Ramkishan had a strong belief that Ratnu died due to witch-craft performed by Santram (since deceased).Due to the aforesaid belief, the accused persons came armed on the spot.At that time deceased Santram was sitting in the courtyard (angan) of his house, the accused persons had inflicted injuries on the person of the deceased.He died on the spot.Report of the incident was lodged at police station.Shyamlal (PW-10) and Jagoti Bai (PW-11) are the eye- witnesses.Shyamlal (PW-10) deposed that on the date of incident at around 4 - 5 pm in the evening, appellants were beating my uncle (mama) Santram.Appellants Devisingh and Jaisingh were armed with ballam (lance), Sohan was armed with axe and Ramkishan was armed with lathi.They had beaten my uncle.I went to save my uncle.I was also beaten.I became unconscious.Santram was died.Thereafter, all the four accused persons ran away from the spot.I lodged the report at the police station.In his cross- examination, he admitted the fact that he had consumed liquor and was dancing at the time of Diwali.He further stated that he did not mention the fact that Jaisingh was armed with ballam and Sohan was armed with axe in the report.Jagoti Bai (PW-11) is the wife of the deceased.She deposed that at around 5 o'clock in the evening, my husband was sitting on a khat in the courtyard of the house.At that time, accused-appellants 4 CRA No. 1337/1995 Jaisingh, Devisingh, Ramkishan and Sohan had come there and beaten my husband.Bhagwati Bai (PW-3), Sonelal (PW-4) and Parsadi (PW-5) turned hostile.Nathulal Yadav (PW-9) Patwari deposed that he prepared the spot map which is Ex. P/22 and signed the same.Dr. S.D.Bhide (PW-6) performed post-mortem of the deceased.He deposed that on 16.11.1993, I was posted as Assistant Surgeon at Indira Gandhi Government Hospital, Seoni and I performed post-mortem of the deceased.I noticed an incised wound of size 1"x1"x5" on the back of right upper thigh, 1/3"-11" above knee joint, vertical in nature gaping on the person of the deceased.The injury was caused by sharp edged weapon.It was sufficient to cause death of the deceased.I also opined that the injury sustained by the deceased could be caused by ballam which was seized from one of the accused.Shyamlal Gond lodged a report at the police station.I recorded the report which is Ex. P/23 and signed the same.I sent the body of the deceased for medical examination.Thereafter, I recorded statement of Shyamlal, Maniyaro Bai, Jagoti Bai, 6 CRA No. 1337/1995 Maniram, Manku Bhoi, Manak Bhoi, Semulal Bhoi and Bhagwati Bai.He further deposed that, I noticed there were injuries on the person of the deceased caused by lathi.From other accused persons Jaisingh, Sohan and Ramkishan lathis were seized.(14/02/2018) Per : S.K.Gangele, J :-Appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment dated 30.08.1995 passed by the Second Addl.Police conducted investigation and filed charge-sheet.Appellants abjured guilt during trial and pleaded innocence.2 CRA No. 1337/1995Learned trial Court held the appellants guilty for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302 and 447 of IPC and awarded sentence as mentioned above.During the pendency of the present appeal, appellants No. 3 and 4 were granted suspension of sentence on 02.02.1996, appellant No. 2 was granted suspension of sentence on 14.01.1997 and appellant No. Jaisingh was granted suspension of sentence on 21.06.2000 and he was released on bail after completion of jail sentence of 7 years.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even though, if any offence was committed, it would fall under the ambit of Section 304 Part I of the IPC and not under Section 302 of the IPC.Therefore, the appellant prayed to set aside the impugned judgment and for acquittal 3 CRA No. 1337/1995 of charges levelled against them.3 CRA No. 1337/1995Jaisingh was armed with ballam, Ramkishan and Devisingh were armed with lathi.I asked them why you were beating my husband.They said "he is shoda".My nephew Ramlal came to save the deceased and he also received injuries on his head.There are some omissions in the statement of this witness recorded by the police under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.4 CRA No. 1337/19959. Bhurelal (PW-1) turned hostile.He verified the fact that the police seized plain and red earth before me vide seizure memo Ex. P/1 and I signed the same and also I signed Panchnama of dead body (Ex. P/2).Similarly, he denied the fact that from accused-appellant Sohan a lathi was seized.Similarly, he denied the fact that from accused-appellant Ramkishan a lathi was seized.Suraj Prasad (PW-2) turned hostile.He admitted that panchnama of dead body was prepared.He also denied seizure of 5 CRA No. 1337/1995 articles from the accused persons.5 CRA No. 1337/1995Clothes were also seized.Seized ballam was sent to the doctor for examination.Thereafter, on 29.11.1993 I recorded statements of the witnesses Sone, Sohan Singh, Dhruv Lal, Parsadi and Gyansingh.The seized articles were sent to FSL for examination.6 CRA No. 1337/1995The two eye-witnesses Shyamlal (PW-10) and Jagoti Bai (PW-11) are interested and related eye-witnesses.Shyamlal (PW-10) is the nephew and Jagoti Bai (PW-11) is the wife of the deceased.Jagoti Bai (PW-11) deposed that Jaisingh was armed with ballam whereas Shyamlal (PW-10) deposed that Devisingh and Jaisingh both were armed with ballam.There is a contradiction between the statement of both the witnesses on the vital aspect.Shyamlal (PW-10) deposed that two persons Devisingh and Jaisingh were armed with ballam and Jagoti Bai (PW-11) deposed that only Jaisingh was armed with ballam.7 CRA No. 1337/1995"We have already narrated the deposition of the witnesses in brief.There are six eye witnesses and three of them are injured eye witnesses, which is a weighty factor to show the actual presence of these witnesses at the scene of occurrence.Moreover, the credibility and trustworthiness of all these eye witnesses could not be shaken by the accused persons.Once it is found that these witnesses, who are eye witnesses, were present and they have truthfully narrated the incidence as it happened and their depositions are worth of credence, conviction can be based on their testimonies even if they were related to the deceased.The only requirement, while scrutinising the interested witnesses, is to examine their depositions with greater caution and deeper scrutiny is needed, which exercise has been done by both the courts below.In fact, when the learned counsel for the appellants was confronted with the aforesaid factual and legal position, he could not even provide any answer to the same."The Apex Court has held that conviction can be based on the basis of evidence or related witnesses, however, their evidence has to be examined with greater caution and deeper scrutiny.State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.[(2016) 4 SCC 357] has further held as under in regard to appreciation of medical evidence versus 8 CRA No. 1337/1995 ocular evidence and inconsistency between medical and ocular evidence.8 CRA No. 1337/1995In the event of contradictions between medical and ocular evidence, the ocular testimony of a witness will have greater evidentiary value vis--vis medical evidence and when medical evidence makes the oral testimony improbable, the same becomes a relevant factor in the process of evaluation of such evidence.It is only when the contradiction between the two is so extreme that the medical evidence completely rules out all possibilities of the ocular evidence being true at all, that the ocular evidence is liable to be disbelieved." (emphasis supplied) 9 CRA No. 1337/1995He deposed that he noticed only one injury on the person of the deceased that could be caused by ballam.Although, the A.K.Dwivedi (PW-12) Investigation Officer deposed that he had noticed injuries on the person of the deceased which may be caused by lathis, there is no cross-examination by the prosecution of Dr. D.S.Bhide (PW-6) who performed autopsy of the deceased that there were other injuries on the person of the deceased.The evidence of Dr. D.S.Bhide (PW-6) is reliable piece of evidence.The prosecution has also not levelled any allegation that Dr. D.S.Bhide (PW-6) had any bias.Hence, in our opinion 10 CRA No. 1337/1995 evidence of Dr. D.S.Bhide (PW-6) would prevail on the evidence of A.K.Dwivedi (PW-12) Investigation Officer.10 CRA No. 1337/1995It was also deposed that Shyamlal (PW-10) received injuries but there is no evidence of doctor who examined him and neither there is MLC report on record.Hence, Shyamlal (PW-10) cannot be termed as an injured eye-witness.Both witnesses have deposed that all the accused persons had been beating the deceased.Shyamlal (PW-10) deposed that Devisingh and Jaisingh were armed with ballam, Sohan with axe and Ramkishan with lathi.Jagoti Bai (PW-11) deposed that Jaisingh was armed with ballam.Ramkishan and Devisingh were armed with lathi.From the possession of appellant Devisingh, a ballam was seized and from Jaisingh a lathi was seized.Hence, the evidence of Shyamlal (PW-10) is reliable to the extent that Devisingh had caused injury by ballam to the accused and the evidence of PW-10 and PW-11 that other accused persons has caused injuries to the deceased is not reliable because evidence of Dr. S.D.Bhide (PW-6) completely ruled out any injury of lathi 11 CRA No. 1337/1995 on the person of the deceased.11 CRA No. 1337/1995On the basis of aforesaid analysis, in our opinion, the trial Court has wrongly convicted appellants No. 1-Jaisingh, appellant No. 3-Ramkishan and appellant No. 4-Sohan (except appellant No.2 Devisingh) for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 and 447 of IPC.Now, the next question is that what offence accused-appellant Devisingh has committed.As per evidence of Dr. S.D.Bhide (PW-6), there was one injury on the thigh of the deceased.Thigh is the non-vital part of the body.Deceased had sustained only one injury.As compared to 'knowledge', 'intention' requires something more than the mere foresight of the consequences, namely the purposeful doing of a thing to achieve a particular end."13 CRA No. 1337/1995Due to the occurrence in the morning at the barber shop of the deceased, the appellant emerged from the northern side of the grove carrying pistol in his hand and fired at the deceased.The weapon used and the manner in which attack was made and the injury was inflicted due to premeditation clearly establish that the appellant intended to cause the injury.But the prosecution has not elicited from the doctors that the gunshot injury on the inner part of left thigh caused rupture of any important blood vessel and that it was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death.Keeping in view the situs and nature of injury and in the absence of evidence elicited from the doctor that the said injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, we are of the view that it is a fit case where the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC should be under Section 304 Part 1 IPC."14 CRA No. 1337/1995The offence committed by appellant No. 2 Devisingh would fall under Section 304 Part I of IPC.Consequently, the appeal filed by appellant No. 1-Jaisingh, appellant No. 3-Ramkishan and appellant No. 4-Sohan is hereby allowed.Appellants Jaisingh, Ramkishan and Sohan are acquitted from the charges levelled against them.The impugned judgment and sentence passed by the Trial Court is hereby set aside.The appellants are on bail.Their bail bonds are hereby discharged.The appeal filed by appellant No. 2-Devisingh is partly allowed.His conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court under Section 302 of IPC is altered to Section 304 Part I of the 15 CRA No. 1337/1995 Indian Penal Code.He is awarded sentence of R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1000/-.In case of default of payment of fine amount, further R.I. for 3 months.The conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court under Section 447 of IPC is hereby upheld.Both the sentences shall run concurrently.Appellant Devisingh is on bail.His bail bonds are canceled and he is directed to surrender immediately before the concerned trial Court to undergo remaining part of the jail sentence, failing which the trial Court shall take appropriate action under intimation to the registry.15 CRA No. 1337/1995
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
65,243,636 |
1 High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Indore Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.1150/2020 (Vinod s/o Kanwarlal Chamar Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh) Indore, Dated 14.01.2020 Mr. R.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicant.
|
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
65,245,447 |
This application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail who apprehend his arrest in connection with Crime No.561/2015 registered at Police Station, Gwalior, District - Gwalior for offences under Section 498A, 307, 34, 304-B of the Indian Penal Code.It is also argued that neither in the FIR nor in the dying declaration any role has been attributed to the applicant who is husband of the deceased.It is further submitted that allegation has been made against mother-in-law.On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for MCRC No.12868/2015 the respondent/State has opposed the prayer for bail.Taking into submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing Personal Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with one surety in th e like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer.The applicant shall abide by the conditions as enumerated under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
6,524,680 |
Argument heard.This is first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The present applicant has been arrested by the Police Station- Sunera, District-Shajapur in Crime No.16/2015 under Sections 363, 366, 376 (2) (1), 341, 506 of I.P.C., Sections 3/4 and 5/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Sections 3/181, 146/196 of Motor Vehicles Act.According to the prosecution story, on 02.08.2015, a report was lodged by mother of the prosecutrix that her daughter who was 13 years of age at that time was taken away by somebody.Thereafter, crime No.16/2015 was registered under Section 363 of IPC.On 03.08.2015, the prosecutrix was recovered and it was complained by the mother of the prosecutrix that her daughter was raped by Govind, Dharmendra and Vishnu.In this matter, charge- sheet has been filed and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions.Learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed this application.Thereafter, a report was made on 07.08.2015, again she was examined on 10.08.2015 before the Court, and in this statement also, she did not support the fact of rape by the present applicant and other co-accused.Taking into consideration the statements of prosecutrix under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C., this application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed.Accordingly, it is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) and one 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) of Cr.P.C. meticulously.Certified copy, as per rules.(Alok Verma) Judge Chitranjan
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
652,531 |
JUDGMENT A.K. Awasthy, J.Appellants have filed the appeal under Section 374 of the Cr.PC against the judgment and order dated 30-11-96 in S.T. No. 185/92 by Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh against the conviction and sentence under Section 302/34, IPC for the imprisonment for life and payment of fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment for 1-1 year's.The prosecution case is that the appellants and Ashok were staying in Room No. 143 of Anand Lodge, Biaora and on 15-9-92 at about 5 PM on the counter of the Lodge before Manager Suresh (P.W. 5) appellants and Ashok had quarrel on the demand of money and thereafter the appellants accused alongwith said Ashok went to the Room No. 143 of the Lodge.That after some time, the appellants were seen by Manoj (P.W. 1), Suresh (P.W. 5) and Rambabu (P.W. 6) carrying the deceased Ashok to the Hospital.That Dr. Chandra Mohan Singh Tripathi (P.W. 3) found the deceased Ashok dead and on 15-9-92 the written report (Ex. P- 5) was sent to the Police Station, Biaora.That the FIR was registered against the appellants under Section 302/34 and the Investigating Officer D.S. Chandel (P.W. 10) reached on the spot and the map was prepared by him.That Head Constable Shivbhuwan Tiwari (P.W. 4) prepared the Panchnama (Ex. P-7) and it was seen that the death of Ashok was on account of throttling and the injury on his body.The dead body of Ashok was sent to the hospital on 16-9-92, and the post-mortem of Ashok was conducted by Dr. Chandra Mohan Singh Tripathi (P.W. 3) who has found that the deceased had the injuries on his neck and other part of the body and the cause of death was throttling.That during the investigation the statement of accused Vijay under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act were recorded and a Towel was recovered from his possession.During the investigation register of the Lodge was seized wherein entry of taking the room by the accused was mentioned.After usual investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against all the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the IPC.The prosecution has examined eye-witness Manoj (P.W. 1), Dr. B.K. Gupta (P.W. 2), Dr. Chandra Mohan Singh Tripathi (P.W. 3), Head Constable Shivbhuwan Tiwari (P.W. 4), eye-witness Suresh (P.W. 5), eye-witness Rambabu (P.W. 6), Gokal s/o Madan (P.W. 7), Gokal s/o Chhagan (P.W. 8), Rajendra Jain (P.W. 9) and the Investigating Officer D.S. Chandel (P.W. 10).The learned Trial Court has held that the eye-witnesses in their statement under Sections 161 and 164 have alleged to the effect that the accused has caused the murder of Ashok and as such, they were convicted and sentenced accordingly.The appellant has assailed the conviction that in spite of the absence of eye-witnesses and in spite of the fact that the witnesses to prove the circumstances were hostile, the learned Trial Court has erred in believing the statement of the witnesses recorded during the investigation and in convicting the accused and as such, they should be acquitted.There is no eye-witness in the case.The prosecution has examined Manoj (P.W. 1), Suresh (P.W. 5) and Rambabu (P.W. 6) to prove the following circumstances to bring home the guilt of murder against the accused persons.(1) That on 15-9-92 at about 5 PM at the counter of the Lodge the accused had quarreled with deceased Ashok over the demand of the money.(2) That Manoj (P.W. 1), Suresh (P.W. 5) and Rambabu (P.W. 6) have heard the noise of the quarrel from the room of the Lodge where the accused with deceased were staying.(3) That on 15-9-92 at about 7 PM all the accused were seen carrying the body of Ashok to the Hospital.The witness to the aforesaid circumstantial evidence Manoj (P.W. 1), Suresh (P.W. 5) and Rambabu (P.W. 6) had turned hostile.Manoj (P.W. 1) has admitted in Para 5 of the cross- examination that the quarrel between the accused and the deceased on the counter has not taken place in his presence.Manoj (P.W. 1) has further admitted that he has not heard the noise of quarrel nor he has seen the accused taking away deceased Ashok from the Lodge.9. Suresh (P.W. 5) and Rambabu (P.W. 6) who were working in the Lodge have stated that no incident has taken place on 15- 9-92 before them and they have not seen the accused quarreling with the deceased or taking him away from the Lodge.The prosecution has declared Manoj (P.W. 1), Suresh (P.W. 5) and Rambabu (P.W. 6) as a hostile witness.These witnesses have denied their statement under Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.PC.The right guaranteed to an accused under Section 162 is total and absolute and this ban imposed under Section 162 of the Cr.It is held in case of Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1976 SC 294 and in case of Rameshwar Singh v. State of J&K, AIR 1972 SC 102 that the use of the statement recorded during the investigation for proving the case is barred and it is not a substantive piece of evidence and such statement can not be used even for the corroboration of the evidence of the witness in the Court.The learned Trial Court has acted on the statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the eye-witnesses and he has overlooked the prohibition contained in Section 162 of the Cr.PC.There is no evidence whatsoever against the appellants accused of their involvement in the offence of murder of deceased Ashok.
|
['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.
|
65,254,570 |
[Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM, J.] This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for records relating to the detention order passed in No.62/BCDFGISSSV/2017 dated 13.02.2017 by the Detaining Authority against the detenu by name, Charles, aged 35 years, S/o.Magimaidoss, residing at No.4/28D, Beerbailivan, Thangal, Dharga Road, Thiruvottriyur, Chennai-19 and quash the same.The Inspector of Police, M-7 Manali New Town Police Station as Sponsoring Authority has submitted an affidavit to the Detaining Authority, wherein, it is averred to the effect that the detenu has involved in the following adverse cases :i.M-7 Manali New Town Police Station Crime No.1210/2016 registered under Section 379 of IPC.ii.M-7 Manali New Town Police Station Crime No.1943/2016 registered under Section 397 of IPC.Further, it is averred in the affidavit that on 26.12.2016, one Raghupathy, aged 30 years, S/o.Amavasai, residing at No.143, Newnappalaiyam, Manali New Town, Chennai-103, as de facto complainant has given a complaint to the Sub Inspector of Police, M-7 Manali New Town Police Station, wherein, it is alleged to the effect that in the place of occurrence, the detenu by showing a deadly weapon, has snatched a sum of Rs.500/- from the pocket of the de facto complainant and also created panic in the minds of the general public and consequently, a case has been registered in Crime No.1951/2016 under Sections 341, 294[b], 336, 427, 392 r/w 397 and 506[ii] of Indian Penal Code and ultimately, requested the Detaining Authority to invoke Act 14 of 1982 against the detenu.The Detaining Authority after considering the averments made in the affidavit and other connected documents, has arrived at a subjective satisfaction that the detenu is a habitual offender and ultimately, branded him as goonda by way of passing the impugned Detention Order and in order to quash the same, the present petition has been filed by the wife of the detenu as petitioner.Despite repeated adjournments, on the side of the respondents, counter has not been filed and therefore, the present Habeas Corpus Petition is disposed of on merits on the basis of the available materials on record.Magimaidoss is quashed and directed to set him at liberty forthwith, unless he is required to be incarcerated in any other case.
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
652,603 |
So far as accused Hansraj is concerned as hewas found to be almost 16 years, an order was passed that instead of jailhe be sent to children home.The aforesaid criminal case was registered on the basis of aninformation submitted by Parasnath Dubey who was PW-1 contendinginter alia that on 02.11.1981 at about 5 p.m., he alongwith his father, RamAbhilakh deceased, were returning back to their home from LalganjBazaar.While said Ram Abhilakh Dubey was standing at the crossingof Setha Road at the shop of Ram Kishore Barayee for taking betel, theaccused persons, all of a sudden, came there whereupon the accusedShobhanath and Triveni Prasad instigated other accused persons, namelyDoodhnath, Vijai Pal (both sons of Ram Kumar), accused Knasu (son ofDoodhnath) at which all of them attacked him.It was also stated in thesaid information that first of all Vijai Pal stabbed him with a knife andother accused persons thereafter started beating him with lathis and thatas a result of the said assault, he had fallen on the ground.It was statedthat an alarm was raised by Parasnath Dubey because of which RamKripal, Ram Bahal, Parasnath and Lalta Prasad and other reached thereand saw the occurrence.A report of the incident was lodged at thePolice Station Gauriganj District Sultanpur on 02.11.1981 at about 6.35 2 p.m. Ram Abhilakh Dubey later on succumbed to the injuries i.e. on3.11.1981 at 8.30 p.m.The deceased Ram Abhilakh Dubey who received injuries on02.11.1981 in the aforesaid incident was taken to the hospital atGauriganj where he was medically examined and an Injury Report wasalso prepared by the doctor examining him at the hospital Gauriganj, wholooking at the grievous nature of injuries received by him sent him to theDistrict Hospital, Sultanpur as his condition was deteriorating.After thedeath of Ram Abhilakh who died in the hospital on 03.11.1984 at about8.30 p.m., the post mortem examination was done on 4.11.1981 at about4.10 p.m.On the basis of the aforesaid written report, a First InformationReport was prepared at the Police Station and entries in the General Diarywere made.After the death of said Ram Abhilakh Dubey, on 3.11.1981,the case was converted to under Section 304 IPC and entries were madeaccordingly.On receipt of the information, the Police started investigation.During the course of investigation, the accused persons were arrested.After completion of the investigation, the Police filed the charge sheetagainst all the accused persons.Charges under Section 147, 148 and302 read with Section 149 IPC were framed against all the accused 3 persons for having formed an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of thecommon object, all of them committed murder of deceased RamAbhilakh Dubey.The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the chargesframed and claimed to be triedDuring the trial the prosecution examined number of witnesses toprove the occurrence and the guilt of the accused persons in murderingthe deceased Ram Abhilakh Dubey.The complainant and the informantParasnath Dubey (PW-1) was examined as an eye-witness to theoccurrence.Besides him, there were two other eye witnesses who werealso named in the FIR namely Lalta Prasad (PW-3) and Ram Bahal Singh(PW-6) who were also examined in support of the case of theprosecution.According to their statements, they both witnessed theoccurrence.Dr. D.R.Singh examined Ram Abhilakh Dubey when he was takento the Primary Health Centre and he prepared an Injury Report.He conducted the aforesaidexamination which is after the occurrence i.e. at about 7.15 p.m.Dr. A.C. Joshi who has conducted the post mortem was examinedas PW-5 and the post mortem report was exhibited as Ext. Ka-10. 4The Investigating Officer who submitted the chargesheet as Ext.Ka 20 was examined as one of the prosecution witnesses.Thestatements of all the accused persons under Section 313 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure (for short "the CrPC) were recorded.The defense also produced three witnesses in this case in order toprove the formal paper filed on their behalf to establish enmity andmotive because of which they are falsely implicated in this case.The defense case was that both PW-3 and PW-6 namely LaltaPrasad and Ram Bahal Singh respectively came in the witness box inorder to help the complainant Parasnath Dubey because they togetherformed one party in the previous litigation and criminal cases are pendingbetween them and the accused party.The Additional Sessions Judge by his judgment and orderconvicted all the accused persons under the aforesaid sections andsentenced them to imprisonment for life.So far as Shobnath, TriveniPrasad, Vijai Pal, Sudhakar and doodhnath are concerned, they weresentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 149IPC.They were further sentenced to two years R.I. under Section 148IPC and one year R.I. under Section 147 IPC.So far as accused Hansraj alias Hansoo is concerned, since he wasaged about 16 years, therefore the benefit of the Children Act, 1960 was 5 extended to him.He was not sentenced to jail and was directed to be inChildren Home.Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence, theaccused persons filed an appeal before the High Court of Allahabad,Lucknow Bench, which was heard.The High Court after considering thematerials on record set aside the order of conviction and sentence passedagainst the accused respondents and acquitted all of them of the aforesaidcharges.Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of acquittal passed by theHigh Court, the present appeal was preferred by the State of UttarPradesh which was entertained and on which we have heard the learnedcounsel appearing for the respective parties.On going through the records and the order setting aside the order ofconviction and sentence, we find that the trial court while holding all therespondents guilty of the charges leveled against them held that the dyingdeclaration of the deceased itself would prove and establish the act ofinvolvement of the accused persons in the incident of murdering thedeceased.The Additional Sessions Judge also appreciated the statementsof PW-1, the informant as also the statements of PW-3 and PW-6 andfound that their statements are corroborated to each other and also by themedical evidence.According to the trial court, there was no 6 contradiction in the statements of the witnesses with regard to the weaponbeing carried by them in their hands and further about the manner ofassault given by them to the deceased Ram Abhilakh Dubey.Havingheld thus, the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed the order ofconviction and sentence against all the accused persons.The High Court, however, after hearing the counsel appearing forthe parties held that so far as the dying declaration is concerned, the samecould not have been given by the deceased immediately after theoccurrence as the prosecution witnesses themselves had stated that hebecame unconscious after receiving the blows and therefore he was not ina stage of giving any such statement although alleged by the prosecution.The High Court also held that there are discrepancies in the InjuryReport and in the post mortem report as also in the x-ray report and that anumber of injuries and their nature did not corroborate it with each other.It was pointed out on the other hand the aforesaid four papers namelyInquest Report, Injury Report, Post mortem Report and General Diaryindicate different injuries beginning from two injuries extending to fourinjuries and then completed in five injuries.It was also held by the HighCourt that all the three witnesses who are said to be eye-witnesses namelyPW-1, PW-3 and PW-6 are all chance witnesses and that they do notbelong to the place of occurrence and that they are interested witness ingiving favourable evidence for roping in the accused persons with whom 7 all of them had long standing enmity.It was also held by the High Courtthat if all the accused persons had given lathi blows and knife blow, thenthe number of injuries should have been many more.The High Court also held that if the aforesaid eye witnesses werepresent at the place of occurrence then they would have certainlyinterfered and intervened in the incident and would have definitely chasedthe culprit and would have tried to catch him and as nothing of that natureis stated, therefore only presumption would be that they were not presentat the place of occurrence.Consequently, it was held that the prosecutionhas failed to prove its case and consequently all the accused persons wereacquitted.So far as discrepancies between the statements of the eye witnessesand the medical evidences as pointed out by the High Court areconcerned, the same appear to be based on misreading of the evidenceon record.It was the month of November, but at 5 p.m., there would bestill day light.It has also come in evidence that the deceased had gone toGauriganj Bazaar alongwith PW-1 as it was a market day.In a marketday people usually go to the market and therefore presence of PW-1 withdeceased on that particular day also appears to be natural.The place ofoccurrence is near a betel shop where the deceased had gone for takingbetel.The place of occurrence is a tri-junction and by the shop of Ram 8 Kishore Barayee where the deceased had gone to take betel when theaccused persons allegedly attacked him with a knife and lathis in theirhands.It is stated in the First Information Report and also in thestatements of the eye-witnesses that the Vijai Pal had a knife and otherrespondents had lathis in their hands and that at the instigation of TriveniPrasad and Shobhanath, Vijay Pal inflicted knife blow on the deceasedwhereas the other accused-respondents started beating by means oflathis.The First Information Report was taken down at the Police Stationon 2.11.1981 at 6.35 p.m. and medical examination was done at2.11.1981 at 7.15 p.m. Injury Report which is proved as Ext. Ka-11states that about five injuries were found on the body of Ram Abhilakhwhen he was taken to the Primary Health Centre.In the post mortem examination also, five injuries were found onthe body of the deceased.Said injuries found in the post mortemexamination when compared with the injuries recorded in the injuryreport, it would be established that all the injuries are similar in nature.So far as Inquest Report is concerned, the same is prepared by the policewho are not experts like the doctors and therefore no such weightagecould be given on the Inquest Report.It is also settled law that Inquest 9 Report cannot be treated as a piece of admissible evidence.One of themain grounds for acquitting the accused respondents by the High Courtwas alleged discrepancies in the aforesaid reports which according to usis based on misreading of evidence and misappreciation.The incident had happened at about 5 p.m. and the said fact wasreported to the Police at 6.30 p.m. The High Court doubted theprosecution case also because of the aforesaid delay in making the reportof the incident to the Police.According to the High Court, the PoliceStation was only about one furlong away and therefore, there was delayin reporting.Let us therefore now proceed to discuss if there was anydelay.PW-1, the informant who was the son of the deceased in hisstatement has clearly stated in detail as to how the incident has takenplace and as to why he did not intervene when his father was beingassaulted by the said accused persons.He has stated that he could notimmediately get any mode of conveyance to take his father to the PoliceStation or to the hospital and he had to wait for some time for getting aconveyance to enable him to shift his father to the Police Station whichthey reached at about 6.30 p.m. when report was recorded.The victimwas examined in the Primary Health Centre at about 7.15 p.m. i.e. within45 minutes of the incident being reported to the Police.That being so, it 10 cannot be said that there was any undue delay either in reporting theincident to the police or taking the victim to the hospital.The High Court has doubted the entire prosecution case on theground of the aforesaid delay of about an hour in reporting the incident tothe Police.But, it is proved and established on record that the entireincident as it happened was mentioned in the First Information Reportwherein the name of the eye-witnesses were also mentioned.He narrated the entire incident asit happened on the day of occurrence and he was cross-examined atlength, but his evidence could not be shaken.He had also explained thecircumstances for which he was not been assaulted by the accusedpersons.He also stated in his deposition that he had not taken any suchstep to catch hold any of such accused persons on account of fear and alsobecause he did not have any weapon in his hands.Further, he hascategorically stated that he raised alarm to save his father from the assaultby accused persons.The said evidence of PW-1 appear to us to be cogentand natural.The same also gets corroborated by the evidence of othertwo eye witnesses namely PW-3 and PW-6 and also by the medicalevidence namely the Injury Report and the Post mortem Report.The High Court was also not right in holding that the aforesaid twoeye witnesses could not be accepted as eye witnesses to the occurrence.The High Court held that all the said three witnesses as chance witnesses.11 The said findings are based on surmises and conjectures.The date of theincident was a market day at Gauriganj and therefore it was natural thatpersons from the nearby areas would go to the market place.Therefore,PW-1 accompanying his father on the date of the incident to the marketand PW-3 and PW-6 being present at the place of occurrence cannot besaid to be unnatural.So far as the dying declaration of the deceased is concerned, thesame apparently was not recorded either by the Police Officer or by thedoctor.There is some doubt about making of such dying declaration bythe deceased and therefore, the dying declaration said to have been madeby the victim was not correctly relied on by the High Court.But even ifthe said dying declaration is taken out of purview of the evidence onrecord, even then the statements of the eye-witnesses can under nocircumstances be doubted and held as untrustworthy.We find no reason as to why close relatives of the deceased wouldtry to rope in someone else as the murderers of their near relation andgive up the actual accused.It is against the human conduct.[Dr. Mukundakam Sharma]New Delhi,May 8, 2009 13
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
55,350,632 |
APEAL.975-2007.sxw 2 The facts which give rise to the present appeal can be summarized as under:(i) PW-10 PSI Shri Shivaji Auwati then attached to Antop Hill police station, Mumbai, on 17.4.2006 at about 8.10 pm had received a telephone from Central Control Room informing him that some persons have set on fire one lady in the hutments in front of Shiv Sena branch no.45, Antop Hill, Mumbai.He accordingly made entry about the said fact in the station diary, gave information about the said fact to his superior officers and immediately went to the spot of incident along with this staff.After reaching the spot of incident, he noticed that the said incident had taken place on the loft of house no.90 in the said hutment areai and the victim lady was already taken to the hospital by her relatives.He thereafter posted the police staff at the spot of incident and rushed to the Sion Hospital.After reaching to the hospital, he was informed by the staff of the Sion Hospital that the doctor had already declared victim Geeta @ Laxmi Ramesh Devendra as dead.He thereafter enquired with the parents of the deceased Geeta about the incident.Upon which, Smt. Indira, the mother of Geeta told him that the husband of Geeta i.e. appellant no.1, his brother the ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:15 ::: 4 APEAL.975-2007.sxw appellant no.2 and mother of appellant no.1 i.e. appellant no.3 herein poured kerosene on the person of Geeta and set her ablaze.PW-10 PSI Shri Shivaji Auwati thereafter recorded the statements of the mother of the deceased Geeta namely Smt. Indira Appau Tewar (PW-1) as per her say.::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:15 :::The contents of the said complaint were read over to PW-1 Indira, the mother of deceased in Hindi language and after she admitted the contents thereof as true and correct, he obtained her signature and put his signature.PW-10 PSI Shri Shivaji Auwati thereafter gave the information about the said complaint to Antop Hill police station on telephone and PSI Kadam registered crime no.92 of 2006 under Section 498-A and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.(ii) PW-10 PSI Shri Shivaji Auwati thereafter started investigating the said crime.He also seized the burnt pieces of clothes, hair and a pair of toe rings and pair of anklet of deceased Geeta as per the panchanama and sent dead body of Geeta for postmortem examination.PW-10 PSI Shri Shivaji Auwati along with police inspector Shri Surve and other police staff went to the police station.PW- Indira, mother of deceased Geeta, showed the spot of incident to the police personnel.PW-10 PSI Shri ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:15 ::: 5 APEAL.975-2007.sxw Shivaji Auwati thereafter prepared the spot panchanama in the presence of two panchas and seized the pieces of bangles, half burnt pieces of clothes of Geeta, can of kerosene, half burnt match box, bundle of half burnt hairs from the spot of incident.PW-10 PSI Auwati recorded the statement of father of Geeta namely Mr. Appau Kutty Tewar (PW-2) as per his say and handed over further investigation to PI Shri Sanjay Surve (PW-11) as per the orders of the superior officer.::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:15 :::(iii) PW-11 PI Sanjay Surve was then attached to Antop Hill police station.On 19.4.2006, he had received investigation of crime no.92 of 2006 punishable under Section 498A and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.He then visited the vicinity of spot of incident for recording statements of witnesses.PW-11 PI Surve recorded the statements of Maniganda Raju Devendra and Anandraj Nagraj Devendra as per their say.She has stated that Laxmi @ Geeta was her 2nd daughter.She further stated that the marriage of Geeta taken place with appellant no.1 Ramesh was a love marriage.Respondent no.1 was residing in the same ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:15 ::: 7 APEAL.975-2007.sxw area which is two to three lanes away from her house.She stated that prior to marriage of Geeta she was knowing appellant no.1 as he was residing in the vicinity.She has further stated that after two to three months of marriage, Geeta had been to her house and told her that Geeta had quarrel with the respondents.Geeta further told her that the appellants were saying that in case of marriage with another girl, they would have received money and ornaments in dowry.She has further stated that Geeta returned to her matrimonial house on her own account.She further stated that thereafter appellant no.1, husband of Geeta, came to her house and took Geeta with him.PW-1 Indira stated that she had advised appellant no.1 not to quarrel with Geeta and maintain her properly.She has further stated that accused no.1 used to drink liquor and ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:15 ::: 8 APEAL.975-2007.sxw beat her.PW-1 Indira further stated that accused no.1 gave kicks on the stomach of Geeta.She has stated that her husband i.e. father of Geeta gave some money to Geeta.She further stated that Geeta was pregnant at that time.PW-1 Indira further stated in her testimony that on 17.4.2006 at about 7.00 pm, she was sitting in the room of Kupai and at that time Anandraj i.e. PW-5, son of Nagraj Devendra came to the house of Kupai and told to PW-1 that kerosene was poured on the person of Geeta and was set ablaze and asked PW-1 Indira "Bhago Bhago" .e.run-run.PW-1 Indira thereafter immediately rushed to the house of the appellants.When she entered into the house of Geeta, she noticed the pieces of broken bangles lying on the ground floor and there was smell of burning of clothes.Accused nos.1 to 3 were standing in front of the door of their house.That the PW-1 Indira shouted as "Geeta Geeta".As per the evidence of PW-1 Indira, Geeta gave her reply by saying that she was set on fire after pouring kerosene on her person by the appellants and she asked PW-1 Indira to call her father.She further stated that Geeta was on the mezzanine floor of the said house.1 Indira has stated that due to fear she did not go to the mezzanine floor and came outside of the house and tried to search her husband.She has further stated that at that time PW-6 Krishna came towards the house of the appellants.1 The appellants, original accused persons, by this appeal have questioned the correctness of their conviction and sentence, thereby challenging the judgment and order dated 7 August 2007 passed by the 12 th Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sewree, Mumbai in Sessions Case No. 632 of 2006, thereby convicting the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 498-A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years each and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- each, in default of which to suffer rigorous imprisonment FOR 9 months and are further convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC and to suffer rigorous imprisonment of life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each in default of which to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 1 year and 10 months each.It has been further ordered that their substantive sentences shall run concurrently.::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:15 :::On 20.4.2006, he recorded statements of Akash Rajendra Swami and Krishna Appau Tewar as per their say.On 3.6.2006, he recorded statements of witnesses Smt. Radha Mariappa Devendra and Smt. Chitra Marimutum Devendra as per ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:15 ::: 6 APEAL.975-2007.sxw their say.During the course of investigation, he collected other material such as postmortem report and other reports and after finding that there was sufficient evidence against all the appellants, he submitted a final report as contemplated under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court, Kurla, Mumbai.::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:15 :::(iv) On committal case to the Court of Sessions, the Trial Court framed charge below Exhibit 3 under Section 498-A read with Section 34 and under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC.3 In order to effectively deal with the submissions advanced before us by Smt. Anjali Patil, the learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. H.J. Dedhia, the learned APP, it is necessary to scrutinize the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.4 PW-1 Smt. Indira Appau Tewar is mother of deceased Geeta.PW-1 Indira.In her testimony she has stated that she has one son and three daughters.PW-1 Indira further stated that one month prior to the above incident, Geeta came to her and informed that the appellants were harassing and used to beat her.Geeta told her that appellants had asked her to bring money from her father.The witness has stated that on the said information from Geeta, she advised her to lodge complaint with the police and not to come to her again and again.She further stated that Geeta then went to the Antop Hill police station and lodged a complaint with the police and after lodging the complaint to the police Geeta came to her house and stayed with her about two to three days.::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:15 :::::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:15 :::PW-1 Indira asked Krishna to immediately make telephone call ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:15 ::: 9 APEAL.975-2007.sxw to father of Geeta and within 15 minutes her husband i.e. PW-2 and Rajesh came there.She has further stated that her other relatives also rushed towards the house of the appellants.::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:15 :::PW-1 Indira has stated that after her husband reached to the house of the appellants, the appellants did not allow her husband and her brother to enter into the house.Thereafter a fire-brigade vehicle came to the house of the appellants and extinguished the fire.In the meanwhile an ambulance came to the spot of the incident and took Geeta to Sion Hospital.PW-1 Indira went to Sion Hospital along with her husband, her sons and brother.After reaching the Sion Hospital, doctor of Sion Hospital examined Geeta and declared Geeta as dead.The police from Antop Hill police station recorded her statement as complaint which is at Exhibit 14 on the record.It is important to note here that PW-1 Indira has stated in her examination-in-chief that when she reached to the spot of incident, Geeta was alive and informed her that the appellants poured kerosene on her person and had set her ablaze.This is oraldying declaration given by Geeta to PW-1 Indira i.e. her mother.::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:15 :::APEAL.975-2007.sxw 5 In her cross-examination, an admission has been elicited that there were number of houses near the house of the appellants and the said area is thickly populated area.An admission has been elicited that the marriage of her daughter Geeta with appellant no.1 was against her will and therefore after marriage of Geeta, her relation with the appellants were strained and she was not talking with the appellants.However, she has denied the suggestion that her relations with her daughter Geeta were also strained.An omission has been elicited in her cross-examination on the point that Geeta had visited to her two to three months after the marriage and told her that she (Geeta) had quarrel with her husband, husband's brother and mother-in-law i.e. the appellants herein.An omission has further been elicited that in her statement to the police it is not mentioned that when PW-1 entered into the house of the appellants, she noticed pieces of bangles lying on the ground floor of the house.PW-1 Indira in her cross-examination has admitted that till arrival of her husband to the scene of the offence she was standing on the main road near the house of the appellants and during the said period she shouted for help.PW-1 Indira has further admitted in her cross-examination that she was standing on the road and could not see anybody entering into the house of the appellants after she shouted for help.She has admitted that at the time of marriage of her ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:15 ::: 11 APEAL.975-2007.sxw daughter Geeta in all six persons were residing in the house of the appellants and on enquiry with her daughter, Geeta told her that house of the appellants is small.A suggestion has been put to PW-1 Indira to the effect that as the house of the appellants was small in size, Geeta used to complain about inconvenience which was being caused to her to which PW-1 Indira has denied.Further suggestion was put to the PW-1 Indira to the effect that whenever Geeta used to make complaint regarding insufficient accommodation, PW-1 Indira used to tell her that as Geeta had performed love marriage with appellant no.1, Geeta should not make complaint with PW-1 to which PW-1 has denied.::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:15 :::6 PW-2 Appau Kutty Tewar, father of the victim Geeta has stated in his examination-in-chief that Geeta was his second daughter.He has stated that about one and half year back Geeta performed love marriage with the accused-appellant no.1 Ramesh.He further stated that after love marriage, Geeta went to reside at the house of the appellants which is situated in the same locality and was at two minutes walking distance from his house.He further stated that, Geeta, her husband, her husband's two brothers and mother-in-law and father-in-law were residing in the said house.PW-2 Appau Tewar further stated that three months after the ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:15 ::: 12 APEAL.975-2007.sxw marriage Geeta had been to his house and Geeta informed him that family members of her husband were demanding money and ornaments.He has further stated that Geeta told him that appellant no.1 had given threats to her of committing her murder.He has further stated that prior to the said incident he had sold one room for Rs.2,50,000/-.He gave cash amount of Rs.10,000/- and ornaments of Rs.10,000/- to Geeta.He further stated that appellant no.1 came to his house and took Geeta with him.He has further stated that on 17.4.2006 at about 6.45 pm his son Krishna (PW-6) gave telephone call to him at Matunga where he was doing his job and told him that Geeta was set on fire and she is dead.He has further stated that within 5 minutes after said call, he went to the house of the appellants.::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:15 :::He has further admitted in cross-examination that as Geeta had performed love marriage with appellant no.1 against his will, he was not visiting the house of the appellants.An omission has been elicited in the cross-examination that at the time of recording his statement by the police, he did not state that two months after the marriage when Geeta had come to her house he had given ornaments of Rs.10,000/- and cash amount of ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:15 ::: 13 APEAL.975-2007.sxw Rs.10,000/- to Geeta.He has further admitted in the cross-examination that he personally did not see that the appellants assaulted Geeta and Geeta did not tell him the exact date when she was assaulted by the appellants.::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:15 :::8 PW-3 Venkatesh Kalidas Devendra the panch-witness to the spot panchanama, did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared as hostile.It is to be noted that during his cross-examination by the learned APP, nothing fruitful has been elicited from the said witness.9 PW-4 Marimuttu Amumutu Devendra is the another panch-witness to the scene of offence i.e. spot panchnama which at Exhibit 21 on record.10 PW-5 Anand Nagraj Devendra is the neighbour of the appellants.In his examination-in-chief has stated that he has stated that he did not know anything and therefore he was declared hostile.In his cross-examination, no fruitful material has been elicited.::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:15 :::APEAL.975-2007.sxw 11 PW-6 Krishna Appau Tewar is younger brother of Geeta.He has stated in his examination-in-chief that he used to visit the house of Geeta frequently.In his testimony he has stated that the incident took place on 17.4.2006 at about 7 pm when he and Akash (PW-7) were playing in the lane.He stated that Akash told him that he was hungry and therefore PW-6 Krishna told Akash that he will fetch money from Geeta to purchase something in the market. PW-6 Krishna further stated that when he reached to the house of Geeta he heard the voice from the mezzanine floor.The said voice was of Geeta and she was shouting "Amma Amma".PW-6 Krishna therefore went towards the mezzanine floor while Akash stayed on the ground floor.He further stated that he saw appellants were giving kicks to Geeta on her stomach.Therefore, he rushed to his house to inform the incident to his mother.As the mother was not available at the house, he again returned to the house of Geeta i.e. the house of the appellants.At that time he saw people gather at the spot and among the said people his mother was also there.He has further stated that his mother told him that Geeta was burnt and thereafter he gave telephone call to his father PW-2 Appau Tewar.::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:15 :::APEAL.975-2007.sxw 12 In his cross-examination PW-6 Krishna has admitted that adjoining to the house of appellants there are other houses.He further admitted that he did not approach to the neighbours of the house of the appellants to tell them about the incident.13 PW-7 Akash Rajendra Swami is the cousin brother of Krishna and Geeta aged 10 years.In his examination-in-chief he has stated that he knew deceased Geeta as she was residing in the same area where he was residing.He has further stated that PW-6 Krishna is the son of his maternal uncle.PW-7 Akash has further stated that on 17.4.2006 at about 7 pm he along with PW-6 Krishna were playing in the lane.He was hungry and therefore told Krishna about the same when Krishna told him that he would go to the house of Geeta and will fetch money from her to purchase something from market.He further stated that he went with Krishna at the house of Geeta.He stated that he sat on the ground floor and Krishna went on the mezzanine floor to see his sister Geeta to take money and at that time he heard a noise from the mezzanine floor and that noise was of Geeta.She was shouting like "Mummy Mummy".He has further stated that he also heard the noise of beating.At that time Krishna came on the ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:15 ::: 16 APEAL.975-2007.sxw ground floor and told Akash PW-7, that the appellants were beating to Geeta.Thereafter they went to see the mother of Geeta.As PW-1 the mother of Geeta was not at the house, they returned back to the spot and saw that people had gathered there.In his cross-examination he admitted that he did not see actual beating incident.::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:15 :::14 PW-8 Radha Mariappa Devendra is the real sister of deceased Geeta.In her examination-in-chief she has stated that after some days of marriage of Geeta, there used to be quarrel between Geeta and her husband i.e. appellant no.1 and appellant no.1 used to ask Geeta to bring money from her parents and also used to beat Geeta on that issue.This witness has further stated that appellant no.1 and appellant no.3 used to threatened Geeta that if Geeta fails to fetch money from her parents in that event they will pour kerosene on Geeta.Geeta used to tell this fact to her and her parents when Geeta used to come to her house.It appears that this witness has been examined on the point of demand of money by the appellants from the parents of Geeta.15 In the cross-examination this witness has admitted that in her presence the appellants did not demand any money from Geeta nor they did ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:15 ::: 17 APEAL.975-2007.sxw beat or threaten Geeta.She has further admitted that she did not actually see when the appellants allegedly poured kerosene on the person of Geeta and set her ablaze.::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:15 :::16 PW-9 Chitra Marimutum Devendra is vegetable vendor and used to sell vegetables in the vicinity of the house of Geeta.This witness has turned hostile and no material has been elicited in her cross-17 PW-10 is PSI Shivaji Auwti who has registered first information report which has been treated as CR No.92 of 2006 under Section 498-A and 302 of IPC.18 PW-11 PI Sanjay Surve then attached to Antop Hill police station and has investigated the entire crime and submitted chargesheet in the matter.In his evidence he has narrated about the fact of taking over investigation and completion of the same.19 The learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that as ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:15 ::: 18 APEAL.975-2007.sxw deceased Geeta was not happy with the accommodation and as she wanted to have larger accommodation, she has committed suicide.We have scrutinized the entire record minutely and it is noticed that PW-6 Krishna has stated about the beating to his sister Geeta on the fateful day at the hands of the appellants.However, after seeing the said beating he immediately left the spot and when he came to the spot he found people have already gathered there near the said hut.PW-7 Akash has admitted in his cross-examination that he had not actually seen the beating incident and he only heard the voice of Geeta shouting as "Mummy Mummy".Thus it is clear from the evidence on record that there is no witness to the said incident of setting Geeta ablaze.It is necessary to note that though PW-1 Indira mother of Geeta in her examination-in-chief has stated that Geeta told her that she was set on fire by pouring kerosene on her person by the appellants which amounts to oral dying declaration, we find from the record that there is absolutely no corroborative evidence to rely on the same.There is also no evidence at all to discern the fact that who actually poured the kerosene on the person of Geet and who actually ignited the fire.It is pertinent to note that this witness has admitted ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:15 ::: 19 APEAL.975-2007.sxw in her cross-examination that till the arrival of her husband she was standing on the main road near the house of the appellants and as she was standing on the road, she could not see anybody entering into the house of the appellants after she raised shouts for help.::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:15 :::::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:15 :::20 The present case is based on the circumstantial evidence and after the scrutiny of record minutely, we find that there are no witnesses to the actual incident as was put forth by the prosecution.It is settled position of law that the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution should form a complete chain which would exclude every hypothesis of the innocence of accused persons/appellants and unquestionably points the finger of guilt to the accused.So also the alleged oral dying declaration of Geeta to PW-1 Indira does not inspire confidence for want of corroboration to the same.Therefore, in our considered view, ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:15 ::: 20 APEAL.975-2007.sxw the circumstances put forth by the prosecution do not complete the chain of circumstances and therefore the appellants deserve to be given benefit of doubt for the same.::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:15 :::Fine, if amy paid by the appellants, be refunded to them.Since appellant nos.1 and 2 i.e. Ramesh Mani Devendra and Rajesh Mani Devendra are in jail, they be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.The bail bond of appellant no.3 stands cancelled.::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:15 :::
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
55,372,782 |
Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that PW8 Naval Prasad was residing in House No.C-182, Nihal Vihar, Nangloi along Crl.A.No.939/2009 Page 1 of 24 with his wife, four sons and three daughters.His eldest daughter Sarita (PW7) was 17 years old.House of Amar Singh was adjacent to the house of Naval Prasad.A.No.939/2009 Page 1 of 24The appellant and his co-accused Manoj @ Manohar (a juvenile) used to come and sleep on the roof of the house of Amar Singh.This was not liked by PW Naval Prasad and his wife Kranti (hereinafter referred to as the "deceased") as they had young daughters in their house and also because of the fact that on some occasions Manoj @ Manohar used to sleep after removing his pants.Naval Prasad and the deceased had even protested and requested Amar Singh that he should not permit the appellant and his co- accused to sleep on his roof.For this reason, earlier there had been exchange of hot words and abuses between the parties.On 10.09.2001 PW Naval Prasad returned home from his work at around 9:30 - 9:45 pm.He was sitting on the roof of his house and was preparing to have meals.The deceased Kranti and his daughter Sarita told him that earlier in the day, the appellant Sonu and co-accused Manoj had visited and insisted that they would continue to sleep on the roof of the house of their neighbour and if they objected to that, their house would be blown with a bomb.PW Naval Prasad had not even changed his clothes when the appellant Sonu and his co-accused Manoj came on the roof of his house from Crl.A.No.939/2009 Page 2 of 24 the roof of house of Amar Singh and attacked Naval Prasad while abusing him.Appellant Sonu caught hold of Naval Prasad and his co-accused Manoj stabbed him with knife, as a result of which he sustained injury above his left eye.When the deceased tried to catch hold of Manoj @ Manohar in order to save her husband, the appellants Manoj and Sonu stabbed her on the chest with a knife, as a result she started bleeding and fell down.On this, Sarita (PW7), who was present at the roof, started throwing bricks at the appellant and his co-accused and they were hit by the bricks resulting in injuries to them.However, both the accused escaped from the spot.Naval Prasad and Sarita took the deceased to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital in a three-wheeler scooter where she was declared brought dead.A.No.939/2009 Page 2 of 24The police machinery was set into motion in this case with recording of DD No.29 dated 10.09.2001 at 11:00 pm on the receipt of information relating to a quarrel at the shop of one Kamal RZC- 174 at 50 feet wide road.Copy of said DD report was entrusted to Head Constable Kishan Lal for verification.In the meanwhile, another information was received at the police post from Duty Constable Sanjay posted at Gandhi Memorial Hospital that PW Naval Prasad had brought the deceased to the Hospital who on examination was declared brought dead.This information was recorded at 11:45 pm as DD No.30 and copy of the DD report was Crl.A.No.939/2009 Page 3 of 24 entrusted to SI Rajni Kant, who proceeded to the Hospital along with Constable Lal Chand.A.No.939/2009 Page 3 of 24At the Hospital, SI Rajni Kant met Head Constable Kishan Pal who handed over copy of the DD No.29 to him.SI Rajni Kant collected the MLCs of the deceased as well as PW Naval Prasad.The appellant as well as co-accused Manoj had also been brought to the Hospital in injured condition.Inspector Inder Singh, SHO P.S. Nangloi also reached there and he took over the investigation.From the hospital, Inspector Inder Singh along with SI Rajni Kant, PW8 Naval Prasad, PW7 Sarita and the accused persons, came to the place of occurrence.The Investigating Officer inspected the scene of crime and prepared the rough site plan with the assistance of complainant Naval Prasad.He got the spot of occurrence photographed.There was blood scattered on the roof of the house of the complainant.Blood sample was lifted from the spot of occurrence, sealed in a parcel with the seal of "IS" and taken into possession.The clothes of the appellant as well as co-accused Manoj were stained with blood.They were made to remove their clothes which were sealed in separate packets and taken into possession.Appellant as well as his co-accused were arrested.A.No.939/2009 Page 4 of 24A.No.939/2009 Page 4 of 24On interrogation, both the accused made disclosure statements.Appellant Manish @ Sonu, pursuant to his disclosure statement led the police party to the roof of house No.RZC-174, Nihal Vihar and from there, he got recovered the weapons of offence i.e. the knife Ex.P2 as well as a blade of scissor Ex.P1 from under the cloth lying by the side of the parapet wall.Both weapons were measured; their sketches prepared; the weapons were converted into separate sealed packets and taken into possession.The Investigating Officer conducted the inquest proceedings.He sent the dead body for post mortem and collected the post mortem report.The weapons of offence were also sent to the Autopsy Surgeon for seeking his opinion.Scaled site plan was also got prepared.The exhibits were sent to CFSL for examination and as per the CFSL report Exhibits PX and PY, human blood of blood group "A" was found on the clothes of the appellant as well as his co-accused, which matched with the blood group of the deceased.He, in his statement in the court has reiterated his version narrated in his statement Ex.PW8/A, which formed basis for registration of the case.He also stated that during investigation, he pointed out the spot of occurrence to the police, which was got photographed and that blood- stained clothes of the appellant as well as his co-accused were seized in his presence vide respective memos Ex.PW8/E and Ex.PW8/D. He Crl.A.No.939/2009 Page 6 of 24PW7 Sarita, daughter of the deceased testified that the appellant and his co-accused Manohar @ Manoj used to come to the roof of their neighbour Amar Singh.Her mother had told them that they should sleep on the roof of their house and should not come and sleep at the roof of the house of Amar Singh.She further stated that her mother even requested the wife of Amar Singh that they should not permit the appellant and Manoj to come on their roof.On 09th September, 2001, between 1:00 to 2:00 pm, the appellant and Manoj came to their house and claimed that they would continue to sleep on the roof of Amar Singh's house and if they were stopped from sleeping there, they would blow away their house with a bomb and thereafter, they left hurling abuses.She further stated that on 10th September, 2001 at about 09:00 pm, the appellant and Manoj again came to the roof of Amar Singh.She and her mother told her father Naval Prasad about the visit of the appellant and Manoj and the threats given by them.On the fateful night, when Naval Prasad was coming out of the bathroom, appellant and Manoj came on the roof of their house.At that time, she had gone downstairs with her mother to bring food.Accused Manoj stabbed her father on the head with a knife.On this, her mother immediately put down the food and caught hold of her father.As soon as she caught hold of Naval Prasad, the appellant Sonu stabbed her with a knife on the chest."On External examination, there was a clean incised wound on the left side of the chest at 8 intercostal place 6 c.m. below the left nipple obliquely present, margins were inverted and its base contained blood.Its size was 2 c.m. X 1 c.m. and its one angle was acute and the other one was obtuse.It appeared to be viscera deep.On Internal examination, there was corresponding cut on the intracostal muscles, pericardium of the heart was clean cut which was traced upto the apex of the heart which had the wound of 1.8 c.m. X 1 c.m. Cut went upto the ventricular of the heart.Surrounding tissues were soiled with the clotted blood.1.5 ltr clotted and liquid blood was present in the thoracic cavity.Brain was pale and other organs were also pale".In her opinion, cause of death was haemorrhagic shock due to the penetrating injury to the heart and the injury was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.The injury was ante mortem and time since death was approximately 16 hours.They were discharged after medical examination and were brought to the spot of occurrence.Their clothes were stained with blood, which were taken into possession by the Investigating Officer.It was not suggested to either of these witnesses that blood samples were not lifted from roof of the house of PW Naval Prasad.The presence of blood on the roof is sufficient assurance that PW7 and PW8 are telling the truth that the occurrence took place on the roof of the house.Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that admittedly the appellant as well as co-accused Manoj had sustained injuries, who were also taken to the hospital and their MLCs were prepared.Said injuries on the person of the appellant and his co-accused, however, have not been explained.Even their MLCs have not been placed on record which leaves a gap in the prosecution case and benefit of that must go in favour of the appellant and his co-accused.The Juvenile Justice Board again referred the appellant for ossification test and as per the subsequent report dated 13.08.2003, the age of the appellant as on the date of the report was fixed between 20 to 21 years.Learned counsel submitted that on the basis of said subsequent report, Juvenile Justice Board has fixed the age of the appellant as on the date of the report as 20 years and working backwards, concluded that on the date of occurrence, the age of the appellant was 18 years and 01 month and his case was referred back to be tried in accordance with the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that aforesaid conclusion of the Juvenile Justice Board is in contravention of Rule 12 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 as the Juvenile Justice Board has failed to give the benefit of one year margin to the appellant.Learned counsel further submitted that the inquiry conducted by the Juvenile Justice Board is based upon the ossification test only and no effort whatsoever has been made during inquiry to collect evidence of date of birth of the appellant from his school.On completion of investigation, the charge was filed under Section 452/302/307/34 IPC against the appellant as well as his co-accused.Accused Manohar @ Manoj was found to be a juvenile; as such his case was separated and forwarded to juvenile court for trial.The Crl.A.No.939/2009 Page 5 of 24 appellant Manish @ Sonu was charged for the offences punishable under Section 452 and Section 302 IPC.The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.A.No.939/2009 Page 5 of 24In order to bring home the guilt of the appellant, prosecution has examined 21 witnesses, including the eye-witnesses PW7 Sarita, daughter of the deceased and PW8 Naval Prasad, husband of the deceased.As a result of the injury, she started bleeding.A.No.939/2009 Page 7 of 24 Thereafter, they went to the police post and police came to their house and took them to the hospital, where her mother was declared dead.A.No.939/2009 Page 7 of 24PW11 Dr. Komal Singh is the Autopsy Surgeon.She has stated that on post-mortem examination, she found following injuries on the person of the deceased:She further stated that on 17th October, 2001, Investigating Officer produced two sealed pullandas' containing weapons with a request for giving opinion if the injury on the person of the deceased could be caused by those weapons.The said 'pullandas' contained a knife and a blade of scissor and on examination, she found that injury on the chest of the deceased could be possible by the knife.A.No.939/2009 Page 8 of 24A.No.939/2009 Page 8 of 24He has also stated that on interrogation, the appellant as well as his co-accused made disclosure statements and they both led the police party to the house of the appellant i.e. RZC-174, Nihal Vihar and from there, they got recovered one knife and a blade of scissor, which were seized after preparing their sketches and converting them into sealed packets.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, relying upon the eye witness account of the occurrence given by PW7 and PW8 as also the evidence of seizure of blood-stained clothes of the appellant which he was wearing at the time of his arrest as well as the recovery of the weapon offence at his instance, found the appellant guilty of charges under Section 302 IPC as well as Section 452 IPC and convicted and sentenced him accordingly.On the contrary, reason has to be shown when a plea of partiality is raised to show that the witnesses had reason to shield actual culprit and falsely implicate the accused.No evidence has been led in this regard.So far as the delay in lodging the FIR is concerned, the witnesses have clearly stated that after seeing the deceased in an injured condition immediate effort was to get him hospitalized and get him treated.A.No.939/2009 Page 10 of 24 suspect.Even a long delay can be condoned if the witnesses have no motive of implicating the accused and have given a plausible reason as to why the report was lodged belatedly.In the instant case, this has been done.It is to be noted that though that was cross-examination at length no infirmity was noticed in their evidence.We find no merit in this contention.On perusal of the challan, it is apparent that tenant Ram Samoj was cited as a witness for the prosecution.He, however, could not be examined as he had left the given address and was not traceable.The next contention on behalf of the appellant is that as per the case of prosecution, the motive for the crime was insistence of the Crl.A.No.939/2009 Page 12 of 24 appellant and his co-accused to sleep on the roof of the house of Amar Singh, which was objected to by the deceased.Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that as per PW7 Sarita and PW8 Naval Prasad, because of the aforesaid controversy, the appellant and his co- accused had visited the house of the deceased on 09.09.2001and threatened that in case they objected to sleeping of the appellant and his co-accused on the roof of the house of Amar Singh, they would blast their house with a bomb.Learned counsel further submitted that as per the witnesses, prior to the occurrence the deceased had protested against the sleeping of the appellant and his co-accused on the roof of house of Amar Singh, to the wife of Amar Singh.Despite that, neither Amar Singh nor his wife has been examined to corroborate their aforesaid version.The appellant and his co-accused, at the relevant time, were young boys.Further, if the version of PW7 and PW8 in this regard was false, nothing prevented the appellant to examine Amar Singh and his wife to falsify their testimony.A.No.939/2009 Page 13 of 24Learned counsel further contented that presence of PW7 Sartia at the time of occurrence is highly doubtful for the reason she in her examination-in-chief has stated that at the relevant time, she was downstairs as she had gone to fetch food along with her mother.We find no merit in this contention.Of course, PW7 Sarita deposed so, but she also stated that when the accused Manoj hit her father on his head with a knife, her mother immediately put down the Crl.A.No.939/2009 Page 14 of 24 food and caught hold of her father and it was at that time the appellant Sonu stabbed her with a knife on her chest.From this version, it is obvious that though PW7 had gone downstairs with her mother to bring food, but they had reached upstairs on the roof with the food when Manoj, co-accused, had inflicted a stab injury on PW8 Naval Prasad.Thus, we find no reason to suspect the presence of PW7 Sarita at the time of occurrence.A.No.939/2009 Page 14 of 24Next contention on behalf of the appellant is that PW7 and PW8 are not worthy of credence as their testimony in court suffers from several improvements vis-a-vis their previous statements made before the Investigation Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In this regard, he has drawn our attention to relevant cross-examination of PW7 and PW8, which is, inter alia, reproduced thus:"PW 7 ...I had mentioned in my statement to the police that on 10.09.2001 I along with my parents and my brothers and sisters was present in my house.(Attention of witness is drawn to the statement Mark P -7-A where the date or presence or brothers and sisters is not mentioned) I had mentioned in my statement to the police that accused Sonu and Manoj had earlier been arrested in theft cases and my mother was afraid that they might do something in our house or with us.(Confronted with statement Mark P-7-A where it is not so recorded) I had mentioned in my statement to the police that my mother had a talk with wife of Amar Singh for not permitting the accused persons to come to her roof.(Confronted with statement Mark P-7-A where this fact is not mentioned) I had also mentioned in my statement to the police that on 9.9.2001 accused Sonu and Manoj came to our house at 1.00-2.00 PM and claimed that in case they were stopped from sleeping on the roof, they would blow away our house with a bomb and that they left uttering foul names.(Confronted with statement Mark P-7-A where the date and the time only are not mentioned) I had mentioned in my statement to the police that when my father was coming out of the bath-room, the accused came on the roof of our house.A.No.939/2009 Page 15 of 24"PW8 ... .I stated before the police that at the time of occurrence I was present at the roof o my house and that our tenants were also sitting on the roof with us and that I went to the bathroom of the roof and on coming out of it, I was washing my hands and that accused Sonu who was present at the roof of his house, exhorted that he would come and sleep on the roof of house of Amar Singh and that in case we objected thereto, he would attack us with knifes and bombs (attention of witness drawn to his statement Ex. PW-8/A where it is not so recorded ).I stated before the police in my statement Ex. PW-8/A that Manohar was having a broken scissor blade in his hand (confronted with portion A to A of his statement Ex. PW-8/A where it is not so recorded.What is recorded therein is that Manohar accused had attacked the witness with a knife).I stated before the police in Ex. PW-8/A that my wife and gone downstairs to bring meals and that she also came up ( confronted with portion B to B of his statement Ex. PW-8/A where it is not so recorded.What is recorded therein is that his wife also came there to save him).I stated before the police in statement Ex.PW-8/A that my wife placed her hand on the seat of injury (attention of witness drawn to his statement Ex PW-8/A where it is not so recorded).I did not state before the police that Manohar pulled me towards himself.I did not state before the police that my wife remained back.I stated before the police that all my children, who were sleeping there, wok up.(attention of witness drawn to his statement Ex. PW-8/A where it is not so recorded).I did not state before the police that my son Jitender started throwing bricks and stones on Sonu and Manohar.I stated before the police that accused Sonu and Manohar jumped over to the roof of house of Amar Singh to run away.(confronted with potion C to C of Ex.PW-8/A where it is recorded that Sonu and Manohar ran away).I stated before the police that I and my son Jitender and daughter Sarita ran to police post and informed the police about my injury and that my wife had been killed.(attention of witness drawn to his statement Ex. PW-8/A where it is not so recorded).A.No.939/2009 Page 16 of 24I do not remember to have stated before the police that thereafter we returned to our house with the police (attention of witness drawn to his statement Ex.It is significant to note that the occurrence took place on 10.09.2001 and PW7 Sarita as well as PW8 Naval Prasad were examined as witnesses almost four years later.Learned counsel for the appellant took us through the DD No.29 dated 10.09.2001, police post Nihal Vihar (Ex.PW15/A) and submitted that as per this DD report, the quarrel had taken place at RZC-174, Shop of Kamal at 50 feet wide road, whereas the spot of occurrence has been shown by the prosecution as the roof of house of PW8 Naval Prasad.Therefore, clearly it is a case of unfair investigation in which the place of occurrence has been shifted with a view to make the presence of PW7 and PW8 at the time of occurrence plausible.Thus, learned counsel has urged us to infer that PW7 and PW8 are not reliable witnesses.A.No.939/2009 Page 17 of 24A.No.939/2009 Page 17 of 24We are not convinced with the argument.PW20 Inspector Inder Singh, the Investigating Officer has stated that from the hospital he came to the spot of occurrence i.e. roof of the house of Naval Prasad and on inspection, he found the blood lying scattered on the roof.He also stated that he lifted blood sample from there and seized it vide memo Ex.PW8/F. Above version of the Investigating Officer is also corroborated by PW21 SI Rajni Kant and PW8 Naval Prasad, who are witnesses to the recovery memo Ex.PW8/F. The version of these witnesses has gone unchallenged in their respective cross- examinations.A.No.939/2009 Page 18 of 24A.No.939/2009 Page 18 of 24It is true that the appellant and his co-accused Manoj had sustained injuries for which they were taken to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital and the MLCs were prepared.It is also true that their MLCs have not been placed on record.We may add that the appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. vide Question No.18 was confronted with the evidence that he and his co-accused Manoj were taken to hospital and even their MLCs were prepared which were collected by the Investigating Officer, SI Rajni Kant.The appellant, in response to said question, admitted that he and his co-accused were taken to SGM Hospital and vaguely added that but it was not in connection with the occurrence in question.From the MLC of PW8 Naval Prasad, we find that he also sustained an incised wound above his left eye, which also gives an Crl.A.No.939/2009 Page 19 of 24 assurance of his presence at the time of occurrence.It has also come in evidence of PW20 Inspector Inder Singh, PW21 SI Rajni Kant and PW8 Naval Prasad that the clothes of the appellant and his co-accused were stained with blood and those clothes were seized by the Investigating Officer on the same night.As per the CFSL report Exhibits PX and PY, the clothes of the appellant on chemical examination tested positive for human blood group "A", which was also the blood group of the deceased as found on her clothes which were seized during investigation.This circumstance also gives an assurance that PW7 and PW8 are telling the truth.Otherwise also, if someone else had stabbed the deceased, under the natural course of circumstances, it is unlikely that PW7 and PW8 who are close relatives of the deceased would falsely implicate the appellant and his co- accused and allow the real culprit to go scot free.A.No.939/2009 Page 19 of 24Learned counsel for the appellant has also raised an issue of juvenility.He was subjected to ossification test in the year 2002 under the directions of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and as per the medical opinion based upon the said ossification test, his age was fixed between 18 to 21 years as Crl.A.No.939/2009 Page 20 of 24On perusal of the Trial Court record, it transpires that pursuant to the directions of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated Crl.A.No.939/2009 Page 21 of 24 18.04.2002 inquiry for determination of age of the appellant Manish was conducted by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board and as per the report of the Board dated 27.09.2003, the age of the appellant was determined to be 18 years and 01 month as on the date of the commission of offence.Thus, the matter was referred back for trial to the learned Additional Sessions Judge.The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
|
['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', '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.
|
553,823 |
One Lal Singh had three sons, Hari Singh, Jaswant Singh and Birbal Singh.Brij Pal Singh PW 1, Ved Pal and Gajender Singh are the sons of Birbal Singh whereas Suraj Bhan, Netar Pal and Satbir Singh are the sons of Jaswant Singh and Ram Pal and Ram Saran, the accused are the sons of Hari Singh.Hari Singh predeceased his father Lal Singh whereafter the joint land holding was partitioned by Lal Singh between his sons Jaswant Singh and Birbal Singh and the sons of Hari Singh deceased in equal shares retaining 18 bighas for himself.About 2-3 years prior to the incident Ram Pal Singh staked a claim that the tube well on the land was his exclusive property on the plea that the electricity connection was in his fathers name.Several civil and criminal litigations followed on account of this dispute and certain other matters with the result that the relations between the accused and Birbal Singh degenerated to an all time low and about two days prior to the occurrence, an altercation had taken place between Birbal Singh and his son Brij Pal Singh on the one side and the accused on the other, relating to the use of the tubewell water.At about 8.30 A.M. on 20th June 1991, Birbal Singh accompanied by his brother Jaswant Singh and his son Brij Pal Singh left the village to go to Muzaffarnagar for purchase of house-hold articles when they were accosted by the two accused, Ram Pal carrying his licensed DBBL .12 bore shotgun, and Ram Saran armed with a country made pistol and the accused fired a shot each in quick succession hitting Birbal Singh killing him instantaneously Jaswant Singh and Brij Pal Singh saved themselves by lying prone on the ground.The incident was also witnessed by several other persons who were passing by amongst them being Harvir Singh PW 2, Tejvir Singh PW 3, Amar Singh and Matroo Singh and on their challenge the assailants ran away.Brij Pal Singh PW 1 thereafter rushed to the village, wrote out a report and then went to police station Tetawi six kilometers away from the place of incident in a tractor and handed over the written complaint at 10.30 a.m. leading to the registration of the FIR.J U D G M E N T HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.This appeal by special leave arises out of the following facts.SHO Brij Mohan Mishra accompanied by SI Rajinder Singh then reached the place of occurrence whereafter the SI recorded the inquest proceedings relating to the murder.He also picked up a spent cartridge case and wads of a shotgun cartridge and dispatched the dead body for the post mortem examination.He also conducted a search of the house of Ram Pal and Ram Saran on 21st June, 1981 and recovered a DBBL gun and 10 live cartridges licensed to the former therefrom.The weapon and the cartridge case were sent to the Forensic Laboratory and its report revealed that the cartridge had been fired from the right barrel of the gun in question.On the completion of investigation, the accused were charged for offences punishable under Sections 302/149 I.P.C and they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.The Trial Court held that though the relations between the parties were strained on account of several factors yet these differences did not constitute a sufficient reason for the murder of Birbal, the uncle of the accused, and on the other hand Brij Pal Singh PW 1 had the motive to implicate the accused in a false case and as such it was appropriate that the eye witness account be examined minutely.The Trial Court then examined the evidence of the eye witnesses PW1 Brij Pal Singh, PW 2 Harvir Singh and PW 3 Tejvir Singh and taking up of the case of PW 1 Brij Pal Singh first, observed that he was the most important witness being the son of the deceased but his testimony was not trustworthy as he and his brother had picked up a woman in the year 1979 for which a criminal case was pending and that another case relating to the murder of one Nirmal was also pending against him, his brother and their father.The Court also observed that Brij Pal Singh had attempted to cheat his brother Ved Pal and Gajender Singh and his relatives of the 18 bighas of land left by his grand father Lal Singh and was therefore a man of such abysmally low character and mentality that he could not be trusted.The Court then examined the statement of Harvir Singh and found that he was chance and stock witness and as he had earlier been an eye witness in the case of the murder of one Pradhan.The Trial Court (on this aspect) observed thus:It is a very rare chance (sic) a man to be witness of two murders in his life time.In that case Ld.District & Sessions Judge did not relied (sic) upon the testimony of Harbir and the accused persons were discharged.The photocopy of the judgment dated 16.1.1973 passed by ld.District & Sessions Judge is available on record.As it is stated above that Harbir is very close to the complainant, deceased and other witnesses.In brief whenever either complainant or his family members were in need of surety, Harbir provided his services.Such a person who has already been a witness in a murder case and he was not relied upon and who is a permanent surety for the party of the complainant could not be relied upon easily.The Trial Court then examined the statement of Tejvir Singh and observed that he too had been closely associated with Brij Pal as he had been in college with him in Muzaffarnagar and that when Tejvirs uncle Karan Singh had been murdered; Jaswant Singh had been one of the witnesses and that there was no reason whatsoever as to why Tejvir Singh should have been present in that area at the relevant time as he had no field or land in that direction.The court then examined the plausibility of the prosecution story and held that Birbal Singh who was statedly on his way to Muzafarnagar for purposes of shopping for household goods was a story which could not be believed as he had not been wearing shoes or a cap on his head or a vest under his shirt or an underwear under his dhoti and though there was a tonga service available from the village to Muzaffarnagar he along with the others had still chosen to walk to that place.The Trial Court accordingly concluded that it appeared that the deceased had been shot while easing himself and the body had thereafter been taken out by the murderer(s) and put on the boundary of the field.The Court also examined the Forensic evidence and opined that there was no explanation for the presence of an empty cartridge at the spot as only one shot had been fired from each of the two weapons and there was no need for a re-loading of the weapons in that situation.The Trial Court also observed that the time of recovery of weapon being 26 hours after the incident, the Inspectors note about the smell of the gun powder from the right barrel of the gun could not be believed as the smell could not have been present after such a long time.Having held as above the Trial Court acquitted the accused.The State thereafter preferred an appeal before the Allahabad High Court.The Division Bench Court reversed the findings and convicted the accused under Sections 302/34 I.P.C and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life.It is in these circumstances that the present appeal is before us by way of special leave.We have heard learned counsel for the parties very carefully.Concededly, the facts of the case show that the parties are very closely related and on account of the dispute relating to the tubewell and the 18 bighas of land which had been left by Lal Singh, the relations between them were extremely strained.The High Court accordingly re-assessed the ocular evidence and held as under:There may be so many reasons for involving a person in a case falsely.Further, admittedly Brij Pal Singh alongwith his father and brothers were being prosecuted for assaulting Nirmal but admittedly there was a cross-case also against Nirmal and others initiated at the instance of Birbal Singh, the deceased against Mahabir, father of Nirmal and others.No doubt, Brij Pal Singh and Jaswant Singh mentioned in the alleged compromise that they had not given Rs. 40,000.00 as part payment to Lal Singh; but in the family there are so many matters and on what terms the compromise was reached between the parties are not known.Hence any adverse inference can not be drawn therefrom as PW 1 Brij Pal Singh stated that whatever he was directed to write in the compromise he got the same mentioned therein for getting the objections rejected.Regarding irrigation of their land by Brij Pal Singh and his brother from the tubewell, it appears that the field in which the tubewell was situate fell to the share of Ram Pal and his brothers but that tubewell was joint family property as it was installed in the life time of Hari Singh and Lal Singh before consolidation and partitition in the family and therefore Brij Pal Singh and his father Birbal claimed their right for irrigation of their land adjoining thereto from that tubewell.The trial judge further mentioned that PW 2 Harvir Singh and PW 3 Tejvir Singh were their own persons as whenever Brij Pal Singh or any member of his family or the family of Jaswant Singh got involved in any case Harvir Singh and Tejvir Singh stood surety for them.The trial judge also doubted the credibility of PW 2 Harvir Singh as admittedly he was an eye witness in the murder case of the village pradhan who was murdered in the year 1974 and again he appeared as an eye witness in the instant murder case.It may be just by chance that a person resident of the same village witnesses two murders.As a man of conscience and character he should appear as a witness in the murder case if he witnessed the murder or was acquainted with any fact relating thereto.By these facts we conclude only this much that this witness should be treated as a partisan witness whose testimony has to be scrutinized with care and caution.The trial judge also doubted the presence of PW 3 Tejvir Singh at the scene of occurrence as he stated that at that time he was going to the field situate at a short distance from the scene of occurrence for cutting fodder as he had taken that field from Nain Singh on batai whereas DW 1 Nain Singh stated that he had never given that field to Tejvir Singh on batai.However this witness Nain Singh was given a suggestion in his cross-examination that daughter of his cousin brother and real sister of accused Ram Pal got married in one and the same family at village Narsan, District Saharanpur which he could not deny.He only expressed ignorance stating that he did not know if daughter of his cousin brother and real sister of accused Ram Pal were married in one and the same family at village Narsan, District Saharanpur.Hence the testimony of DW1 Nain Singh is no better than a got up witness as he might be denying having given that field to Tejvir Singh on batai under the influence of accused Ram Pal.Moreover, the presence of a witness at the scene of occurrence can well be tested in his cross-examination.If he has withstood the test of cross-examination firmly and his credibility has not been impaired in his cross-examination his statement will have corroborative value otherwise not.The findings aforesaid have been challenged by Mr. Mahabir Singh, the learned senior counsel appearing for the accused/appellants.He has first argued that the eye witnesses account suffered from serious infirmities.He has pointed out that all the witnesses were either related to the deceased or were members of his group and as such their evidence had to be accepted with care and caution.He has also urged that the character of the three witnesses did little to enhance their credibility and that the High Court had not really met the reasons given by the trial judge in refusing to accept Harvir Singhs presence at the place of incident.He has in addition submitted that the High Court had found corroboration from the forensic evidence in the case but the facts which had come on the record, belied this evidence as well.The learned State counsel has however supported the judgment of the High Court.His statement finds full support from PW Tejvir Singh.The trial judge had disbelieved Tejvir Singh on the ground that he was a friend of Brij Pal Singh and had also been a witness to another murder.Mr. Mahavir Singh has also seriously challenged the Forensic evidence in this case by arguing that though the spent cartridge case had been picked up from the spot on 20th June, 1981 and the gun recovered the next day, both these items had been sent to the laboratory only on 17th September, 1981 and as the 22 pellets recovered from the dead body had not been sent to the laboratory there was no justification in holding that the weapon had in fact been used in the murder.He has also urged that as PW 10 Brij Mohan Mishra in his cross examination had testified that there were about 7-8 small shots in a .12 bore cartridge, the recovery of 22 pellets from the dead body and the note regarding the smell of gun powder from the barrel of the gun, falsified the prosecution story.We have considered these arguments very carefully.It is also clear from the statement of Ram Pal recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that the gun which was licensed to him had been recovered from his house along with 11 cartridges.We have also perused the statement of PW 7 HC Rameshwar Prasad who stated that the weapon and other articles have been sent to the Muzafarnagar city Malkhana on 2nd July, 1981 but had been returned to the police station as there was no place for storage and had been returned to the Malkhana on 13th July, 1981 awaiting re-transmission to the laboratory.We also note from the statement of PW 9 Randhir Singh a retired constable who was at the relevant time the moharrir of the Malkhana at Muzafarnagar in the police station that the weapon and cartridge in a sealed condition had been deposited with him on 2nd July, 1981 and had not been tampered with till their dispatch to the Forensic Science Laboratory.We have also gone through the statement of Om Prakash Tripathi PW 8, the expert in the Forensic Science Laboratory who had examined the KF .12 bore fired cartridge case and DBBL gun No.7902082 and had found that the said cartridge had been fired from the right barrel of the gun.Seizing on the fact that 22 pellets had been recovered from the dead body and that PW 10 SHO Brij Mohan Mishra had deposed that a .12 bore cartridge contained only seven to eight pellets, Mr. Mahabir Singh has submitted that the prosecution story was on the face of it unacceptable.___________________________________________________N.B. The equivalent in inches of the pellet size shown in brackets in the third column has been taken from Lyons Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology 11th Edition Page 913 and superimposed in the chart.From the above table it can be concluded that KF manufactured cartridges can contain between 70 (BB) to 580 (9) pellets per cartridge.The recovery of 22 pellets therefore fits in with the prosecution story.The argument based on the gun powder smell from the barrel is equally without substance.In Modis Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 23rd Edition (Page 723) while dealing with the topic as to the time when the weapon was fired it has been observed that it is never possible to ascertain with any scientific accuracy the time when a weapon or cartridge was fired. In this situation, the judgments cited, which are based on their special facts, have no relevance to the facts of the present case.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
55,383,273 |
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Sections 397 & 401 Cr.P.C. to challenge the order dated 15.05.2010 passed by the Court of Ms. Sunita Gupta, District Judge-VII/NE-cum- ASJ, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in S.C. No.26/10, RC SII 2005 S0024 Crl.Kuldeep Singh.Apart from the petitioner, who has been arrayed as accused No.1, 11 other persons have been named as accused, out of which 4, namely, Ishwar Chand Gaur @ Chand Sharabi, Dharam Veer Singh Solanki, Balidan Singh and Raj Kumar @ Raja Ram, have already expired.Accordingly, they have not been chargesheeted.The other 7 accused are Balwan Khokhar (accused No.2), Mahender Yadav (accused No.3), Maha Singh (accused No.4), Capt.Bhagmal (Retd.) (accused No.5), Santosh Rani @ Janta Hawaldarni (accused No.6), Girdhari Lal (accused No.7) and Krishan Khokhar (accused No.8).Rev. P. No.261/2010 Page 2 of 57Rev. P. No.261/2010 Page 2 of 57Case FIR No.416/1984 was registered at police station Delhi Cantt.on 04.11.1984 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 329, 436, 480, 302, 201 IPC against unknown persons on the complaint of Ms. Baljeet Kaur D/o late Avtar Singh r/o WZ-108, Raj Nagar Part-II, Palam Colony, Delhi.In her complaint, she made allegations of unlawful assembly, rioting with dangerous weapons and attack on her house by a mob of around 400-500 people on 01.11.1984, resulting in injuries to her parents and another attack on her house on 02.11.1984, in which her father was set on fire by the mob upon the instigation of her neighbour Mahender Sharabi.Later, her father had succumbed to his injuries.During the investigation of the aforesaid case at police station Delhi Cantt.some complaints were received in respect of similar incidents in the same locality.Rev. P. No.261/2010 Page 3 of 57 tabulated in the final report filed by the CBI, a copy whereof has been placed on record.Rev. P. No.261/2010 Page 3 of 57In the year 1992-93, on the recommendation of Justice Jain-Agarwal Committee, further investigation into the incident of attack on the house of Jasbir Singh and the incident involving deaths of husband, son and cousins of Smt. Jagdish Kaur wife of Sh.Kehar Singh, was taken up by the Riot Cell of Delhi Police.A supplementary charge sheet was filed on 26.02.1993 against 4 accused persons, namely, Sunil Tiwari @ Raju, Hukum Chand, Mangat Ram and Balwan Khokhar in the matter of attack on the house of Jasbir Singh.Justice Nanavati Commission took note of the depositions/affidavits filed before it and concluded that there was credible material against, inter alia, the petitioner for recording that the petitioner was involved, as alleged by the witnesses, in the commission of various offences.The commission recommended that the Government should examine only those cases and take further action in them as per law, in which the Crl.Rev. P. No.261/2010 Page 4 of 57 witnesses had accused the petitioner herein specifically of committing offences and yet no charge sheets were filed against him and the cases were terminated as untraced.Rev. P. No.261/2010 Page 4 of 57was re-registered by CBI as case RC- 24(S)/2005-SCU.I/SCR.I on 22.11.2005 and investigation was taken up.The charge sheet further states that investigation revealed that on 01.11.1984, an unlawful assembly led by Balwan Khokhar (A-2), Maha Singh (A-4), Santosh Rani @ Janta Hawaldarni (A-6), Iswar Chand @ Chand Sharabi (since expired), Dharamveer Singh (since expired) and 100-200 other persons, in furtherance of their common object, attacked the house of Smt. Jagdish Kaur wife of late Kehar Singh at RZ-1-129, Shiv Mandir Marg, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, Delhi.Smt. Jagdish Kaur Crl.Rev. P. No.261/2010 Page 5 of 57 stated that the said mob assaulted her husband Kehar Singh and son Gurpreet Singh with iron rods and sticks causing death of Kehar Singh on the spot.When her elder son Gurpreet Singh tried to escape, he was caught by another mob and burnt alive by pouring kerosene over him.Investigation further revealed that in pursuance of the common object, on the intervening night of 01/02.11.1984 Sajjan Kumar (A-1), the then Member of Parliament arrived at Raj Nagar, Palam area in an Ambassador car at about 10:00 - 11:00 p.m. Sh.Jagsher Singh stated that thereafter Sajjan Kumar (A-1) took a round of the area and berated his followers/mob for carrying out nominal destruction of the properties of the Sikhs.She had stated that she could not recognize anyone from the mob and that she could recognize some of them if they come in front of her.The Sikhs were killed in front of them and they did nothing.The petitioner accused was at the relevant time a Congress-I leader.This is also evident from his own claim in this petition that after the Crl.Rev. P. No.261/2010 Page 13 of 57 incident of assassination of late Smt. Indira Gandhi all through he remained with the former Prime Minister late Mr. Rajiv Gandhi consoling him for the untimely and unfortunate demise of his mother and making arrangements for her cremation.Rev. P. No.261/2010 Page 13 of 57That on 1.11.1984 my husband was serving in E.M. 505, Workshop was present with his family in his house.During noon at 2 P.M. near about 100 persons laced with weapons & stones came to his house and out of these persons 25-30 persons entered in our house & started beating my son Gurpreet Singh.He ran and was burned with powder to death & also they injured my husband which caused death of my son & husband on the spot.That M.P. Sajjan Kumar was leading the mob.That on 02.11.1984 an other mob entered the residence of my brother and in front of me my three brothers were burned after putting kerosene oil over them causing death of them.Then after this I was taken to military compound.6. ..............................That I can identify the leader of mob Mr. Sajjan Kumar M.P. because few days back he visited our mohalla regarding sewerage water problem.Local congress worker Shri Mann Singh Chand and Capt.Bhagmal were also accompanying this mob.Rev. P. No.261/2010 Page 14 of 57That during this danga my husband Kehar Singh, my son Gurpreet Singh and my three brothers Narender Pal Singh, Raghuvinder Singh, Kuldeep Singh were murdered and our houses were looted and dead bodies of my husband and sons were not allowed to be lifted on that day but after three days I cremated their dead bodies with the household belongings.That on 2.11.1984, in the morning when I approached the police station in way near Mandir Mangla Puri abovesaid M.P. Sajjan Kumar was organizing a meeting and addressing that "SARDAR SALA KOI NAHI BACHNA CHAHIDA and any hindu if found giving shelter to them should also be burned."Her statement on oath was also recorded before Justice Nanavati Commissioner of Enquiry and she was cross-examined by counsels appearing for Delhi Police and Central Government.In her said statement recorded as witness No.136 she, inter alia, stated that on 02.11.1984 when she went to her house she found that the same was burning and so she could not go inside her house.She had to go to the house of Sh.Om Prakash who was working with her husband.He was reluctant to keep her in his house as in the meeting held in the morning Sh.Sajjan Kumar declared that whoever keeps Sikhs in his house, his house will also be burnt.In her statement dated 23.05.2006 recorded before Sh.Manoj P. Pangarkar, DSP, CBI, SCR-1, New Delhi PW-1 Smt. Jagdish Kaur, inter alia, stated that on 02.11.1984 in the morning at about 08:39 a.m. she saw her cousin brothers being burnt alive.Then, about Crl.Rev. P. No.261/2010 Page 15 of 57 10:00 a.m. she went to the police post.Before going to the police post she learnt that Sh.Sajjan Kumar, the petitioner-accused, a Member of Parliament, was conducting a meeting in that area.She felt that the MP Sajjan Kumar would help her in saving the lives of her children and for cremating the dead bodies of her husband and son.At that time, the petitioner-accused Sajjan Kumar was conducting a meeting near Manglapuri Mandir/police post.She was shocked to hear what the petitioner-accused Sajjan Kumar was telling his followers.He was openly asking the Jaats not to leave any Sikh alive.He was asking them to kill even those people who had given shelter to the Sikhs.She further stated that in 1984-85 the atmosphere was totally anti-Sikh and, therefore, under that pressure she did not write the name of Sajjan Kumar.She further stated that Sh.Rajiv Gandhi had justified the anti-Sikh riots in view of the assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguards and that as everybody was against the Sikhs, she could not mention the name of Sajjan Kumar for the sake of safety of her children.The statement of PW-2, Sh.Jagsher Singh, was recorded by Sh.He stated that in November, 1984 he was about 17-18 years old.Rev. P. No.261/2010 Page 16 of 57 He stated that Raghvinder Pal Singh and Narender Pal Singh were his real brothers, whereas Kuldeep Singh was his first cousin.He claims to be an eye witness to the mob attack which killed Kehar Singh and Gurpreet Singh.He states that Sajjan Kumar, the petitioner, knew his elder brother Narender Pal.During those days the area was very undeveloped and people used to face a lot of problems.Prior to the riots once Sajjan Kumar had come to the area to listen to the problems of the residents.He states that on 01.11.1984 in the evening at about 10-11 p.m. one ambassador car came to the area and Sajjan Kumar, Member of Parliament, got down.He took a round of the area and enquired from the mobsters about the job done by them.While taking a round Sajjan Kumar, the petitioner accused, had gone to the house of Sh.Jagsher Singh and found only one door broken.The petitioner Sajjan Kumar then scolded the mobsters for not doing the job properly.He further stated that after scolding the mob, Sajjan Kumar left and the mob once again attacked the house of Jagsher Singh and looted every possible thing and the rest was set on fire.He further stated that before leaving, Sajjan Kumar had told his men not to spare Hindus who had given shelter to Sikhs and hence the mob then attached the residents of Smt. Rajni once they learnt that his brothers were hiding at the residence of Smt. Rajni.Rev. P. No.261/2010 Page 16 of 57Rev. P. No.261/2010 Page 17 of 57Rev. P. No.261/2010 Page 17 of 57Smt. Nirpreet Kaur, PW-10, in her statement made before Sh.She, inter alia, stated that on the morning of 02.11.1984 she saw Sajjan Kumar, the petitioner accused, then Member of Parliament standing and supervising the work of his followers and at that time the mob was at full swing involved in the killing of Sikhs, burning and looting their properties in the Raj Nagar area.I have already noticed hereinabove the statement of PW-1 Smt. Jagdish Kaur where she has sought to explain the reason why the petitioner was not specifically named by her in her earlier statements.So far as PW-2 Jagsher Singh and PW-10 Smt. Nirpreet Kaur are concerned, they have both sought to explain the aspect of delay in their own way.PW-2 Jagsher Singh stated that his late father Gurcharan Singh had filed a complaint with the police.However, the police did not record his statement.He also stated that he had not deposed before any commission, committee or Court in this regard and that he had not filed any affidavit before any commission or committee.PW-10 Smt. Nirpreet Kaur stated that Rawail Singh wrote a complaint relating the killing of her father, but neither she nor her mother were examined by the police and no statement was recorded.Thereafter neither she nor her mother was called to depose before any Court.She was not even aware that the appellants had filed a chargesheet in respect of killing of Crl.Rev. P. No.261/2010 Page 18 of 57 her father and that the accused had been acquitted.The circumstances disclosed by the witnesses to explain the so called delay in the recording of their statements has to be considered by the trial court.Rev. P. No.261/2010 Page 18 of 57From the statements of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses, it appears that the case of the prosecution against the petitioner accused is that he was seen in the riot struck area making inflammatory speeches and instigating the mobs to attack and kill the Sikhs: (i) firstly on 01.11.1984 (as claimed by PW-1 Smt. Jagdish Kaur in her affidavit filed before Justice Nanavati Commsision and by PW-2 Sh.Jagsher Singh in his statement dated 07.11.2007 recorded by the CBI); (ii) secondly on 02.11.1984 at about 10:00 a.m. (as stated by PW-1 Smt. Jagdish Kaur in her statement recorded on 23.05.2006 and by PW-10 Smt. Nirpreet Kaur in her statement dated 05.12.2008 recorded by the CBI).However, the killing of the other three victims, namely, Sh.Raghvinder Singh, Sh.Narender Pal Singh and Sh.Kuldeep Singh had taken place at 02.11.1984 i.e. after the alleged speech and inflammatory statements and instigation of the petitioner accused Sajjan Kumar.Rev. P. No.261/2010 Page 19 of 57Manoj P. Pangarkar, DSP, C.B.I. On the basis of these statements he submits that these witnesses do not support the case of the prosecution that the petitioner accused was seen in the area committing the offences of which he is charged.The statement of PW-6 Smt. Harbhajan Kaur, inter alia, is to the effect that she along with another lady Smt. Daljeet Kaur with children took shelter in the house of a neighbour whose name she did not remember.She did not know where her husband and his brothers were and where they had taken shelter.She remained along with Smt. Daljeet Kaur and children in shelter till 02.11.1984 till she learnt about the killing of her husband and the husband of Daljeet Kaur.She did not visit the place where her husband was killed or where his body was lying.She was not aware whether the dead body of her husband and his brothers were cremated or not.She also did not know the persons who were involved in the killing of her husband and his brothers.Smt. Jagdish Kaur has also stated that on 02.11.1984 at about 10:00 a.m., the petitioner while addressing a meeting of his followers near Mangla Puri Mandir, Police Post, exhorted and incited them not to leave any Sikh alive and even kill those who had given shelter to Crl.Rev. P. No.261/2010 Page 22 of 57 Sikhs.This fact has also been corroborated by Smt. Nirpreet Kaur.The Supreme Court also took note of the communication dated 03.08.1997 sent by the then Union Home Minister to the Crl.Rev. P. No.261/2010 Page 40 of 57 State Governments, wherein he echoed the overall popular perception that there has been a general fall in the performance of the police as also a deterioration in the policing system as a whole in the country, and he expressed that time had come to rise above limited perceptions to bring about some drastic changes in the shape of reforms and restructuring of the police before the country is overtaken by unhealthy developments.It was expressed that the popular perception all over the country appears to be that many of the deficiencies in the functioning of the police had arisen largely due to an overdose of unhealthy and petty political interference at various levels starting from transfer and posting of policemen of different ranks, misuse of police for partisan purposes and political patronage quite often extended to corrupt police personnel.VIPIN SANGHI, J.Rev. P. No.261/2010 Page 1 of 57 under Sections 109/147/148/149/153A/295/302/ 396/427/ 486/505/201 IPC.Rev. P. No.261/2010 Page 1 of 57By the impugned order the learned ASJ has ordered the framing of charge against the petitioner for offences under Section 120B read with Sections 153A, 295, 302, 395, 427, 436, 339, 505 IPC and also for the offence under Section 109 read with Sections 147, 148, 149, 153A, 295, 302, 395, 427, 435, 339, 505 IPC, besides framing of a separate charge for offence punishable under Section 153A IPC.At the same time the application of the petitioner seeking discharge has been rejected by the learned ASJ.The charge sheet in question filed by the CBI, which forms the basis of the impugned order pertains, inter alia, to murder of five persons, namely, Kehar Singh and Gurpreet Singh, the husband and son of Smt. Jagdish Kaur, Sh.Raghvinder Singh, Sh.Narender Pal Singh and Sh.After completion of the investigation by Delhi Police, five charge sheets were filed against 10 accused persons.These cases pertained to the murder of Avtar Singh, Harbhajan Singh, Joga Singh, Nirmal Singh and Avtar Singh, respectively.The details pertaining to these five cases have been Crl.After considering the findings of Justice Nanavati Commission, the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs vide order dated 24.10.2005 directed the CBI to investigate/re- investigate the cases, inter alia, against the petitioner-accused Sajjan Kumar including FIR No.416/1984 dated 04.11.1984 of police station Delhi Cantt., Delhi.Accordingly, the case FIR No.416/1984 of police station Delhi Cantt.He (A-1), while promoting the enmity between Hindus & Sikhs, instigated the unlawful assembly/mob by provoking it not to leave any Sikh alive besides, not even sparing any Hindu, who had provided shelter to Sikhs.After instigating the unlawful assembly, Sajjan Kumar (A-1) left Raj Nagar, and in pursuance of the common object, the mob so instigated looted the household items from the house of Jagsher Singh and thereafter set it on fire.The mob also looted the houses of other Sikhs residing in that area and also attacked the house of Smt. Rajni where Raghuvinder Singh, Narender Pal Singh and Kuldeep Singh had taken shelter.Rev. P. No.261/2010 Page 5 of 57As per the charge sheet the investigation has revealed that pursuant to the instigation of Sajjan Kumar on the night intervening 01/02.11.1984 to achieve the common object, a mob comprising of Crl.The gruesome murders of Raghuvinder Singh, Narender Pal Singh and Kuldeep Singh were witnessed by Smt. Jagdish Kaur.Smt. Jagdish Kaur also states that on 02.11.1984 at about 10:00 a.m. Sajjan Kumar (A-1), while addressing a meeting of his followers near Mangla Puri Mandir, Police Post, exhorted and incited them not to leave any Sikh alive and even kill those who had given shelter to Sikhs.This fact has also been corroborated by Smt. Nirpreet Kaur.Rev. P. No.261/2010 Page 6 of 57The investigation further revealed that provocative speeches, with common object as aforesaid, made by Sajjan Kumar (A-1) to the mob gathered in Raj Nagar area, promoted immediate and violent enmity amongst the public against Sikhs and disturbed the harmony between the two religious groups/communities in the locality resulting into killing of Sikhs and burning/looting of their houses/properties.Thus, Sajjan Kumar (A-1) instigated the mob and other accused persons including Balwan Khokhar (A-2), Mahender Yadav (A-3), Maha Singh (A-4), Bagmal (A-5), Santosh Rani @ Janta Hawaldarni (A-6), Girdhari Lal (A-7), Krishan Khokhar (A-8), Ishwar Chand Gaur @ Chand Sharabi (since expired), Balidan Singh (since expired), Dharamveer Singh (since expired), Raja Ram (since expired) and other unknown persons formed an unlawful assembly Crl.Rev. P. No.261/2010 Page 7 of 57 armed with deadly weapons like iron rods, lathis, kerosene oil etc. for the purpose of committing various criminal acts of murder, dacoity and destruction of the property of Sikh community.The said unlawful assembly also defiled the Gurudwara in Raj Nagar area with intention to insult the religion of Sikh community.Rev. P. No.261/2010 Page 7 of 57With the aforesaid acquisitions, the prosecution pressed for charges under Section 120B read with Sections 153A, 295, 302, 395, 427, 436, 339 & 505 of the IPC.Charges against the other accused persons were also pressed on similar lines.The learned ASJ has failed to appreciate the basic infirmities appearing in the case of prosecution, namely, the shifting stand of the prosecution witness No.1, Smt. Jagdish Kaur, in her various statements recorded from time to time; the fact that the statements of PW-2 Sh.Jagsher Singh and PW-10 Smt. Nirpreet Kaur were recorded more than 20 years after the incidents in question had taken place and were, therefore, liable to be rejected on that ground alone.Rev. P. No.261/2010 Page 8 of 57Rev. P. No.261/2010 Page 9 of 57For the same reason the statement attributed to PW-1 Smt. Jagdish Kaur dated 31.12.1992, allegedly made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. cannot be relied upon by the petitioner at this stage.She further stated that she did not cooperate with the Special Riot Cell of Delhi Police as she did not have faith in the investigation by Delhi Police and felt that the investigation was carried out by Delhi Police as a mere formality.Rev. P. No.261/2010 Page 15 of 57Rev. P. No.261/2010 Page 19 of 57Mr. Sharan has also sought to place reliance upon the statements of the other witnesses recorded by the CBI, namely, Smt. Harbhajan Kaur (PW-6) dated 01.05.2007 recorded before Sh.Govind Avasthi, S.I., C.B.I., SCR-1, New Delhi and the statement of Sh.Om Prakash (PW-8) dated 22.10.2007 recorded before Sh.Hence, she could not name the person(s) who killed her husband and his brothers during 1984 anti- Sikh riots.She stated that she had not seen the petitioner Sajjan Kumar in the area during that period.Rev. P. No.261/2010 Page 20 of 57Rev. P. No.261/2010 Page 20 of 57It is for this reason she did not witness either the killings or the movement of those involved in the killing or instigation of the mobs.Her statement appears to be of no avail to the petitioner.PW-8 Sh.Om Prakash in his statement recorded on 22.10.2007 by the CBI, no doubt, states that he did not see the petitioner accused in the area during that period.However, that by itself cannot be a reason to discharge the petitioner accused at this stage.The statement of Sh.Om Prakash that he did not see the petitioner accused in the area during the riots in question does not lead to the definite conclusion that the petitioner was indeed not present in the area at the relevant time and that he did not make the inflammatory speeches or instigate the mobs as claimed by the prosecution.The statements made by the other witnesses as discussed hereinabove do not get discredited only account of the aforesaid statement made by PW-8 Sh.Om Prakash.His statement pertains only to his own personal knowledge and does not contradict the statements made by the other witnesses.The assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister of the country, came as a grave shock to the nation.The assassination took place at the hands of her Sikh bodyguards.Rev. P. No.261/2010 Page 21 of 57 According to the case of the prosecution, after the said assassination a large number of anti-social elements indulged in rioting, arson killing of innocent persons belonging to the Sikh community throughout the country.In so far as the petitioner is concerned, I have already noticed in paragraph 9 above the accusations made against the petitioner - that on the intervening night on 01/02.11.2004, he arrived at Raj Nagar, Palam Area in an Ambassador Car at about 10:00-11:00 p.m. and took a round of the area and berated his followers/mob for carrying out nominal destruction of the properties of the Sikhs.He is also alleged to have promoted the enmity between Hindus & Sikhs and have instigated the unlawful assembly/mob by provoking it not to leave any Sikh alive, besides not even sparing any Hindu, who had provided shelter to Sikhs.It is also alleged that after instigating the unlawful assembly, the petitioner had left Raj Nagar, and in pursuance of the common object, the mob so instigated looted the household items from the house of Jagsher Singh and thereafter set it on fire.The mob also looted the houses of other Sikhs residing in that area and also attacked the house of Smt. Rajni where Raghuvinder Singh, Narender Pal Singh and Kuldeep Singh had taken shelter.It would be for the trial court to examine these aspects, if raised, on the basis of the evidence that may be brought on record.The materials produced by the prosecution along with the charge sheet, namely, the statements of the various prosecution witnesses gives rise to grave suspicion against the petitioner accused about the commission of the alleged offences.These are:Rev. P. No.261/2010 Page 29 of 57 investigation within a period of 3 months from the receipt of the order by an officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or any other officer duly authorized in his behalf.In 1998, the appellant filed yet another petition under Section 482 Cr.The matter remained pending for nearly 9 years.On 11.05.2007, the Court was informed that the Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur, vide a letter dated 22.02.2007 had directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police to complete the investigation.Consequently the High Court dismissed the petition preferred by the appellant which led to the filing of the Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.Rev. P. No.261/2010 Page 32 of 57Pursuant to the said reports several writ petitions were filed by individuals and organizations before the Kerala High Court with a prayer that the investigation may be transferred to CBI.One constable Ramchandran Nair filed a counter affidavit dated 11.01.1999 making a confession that he had shot nexalite Varghese on the instructions of then DSP Lakshmana.He also stated that the appellant P. Vijayan was present when the incident occurred.The Crl.Rev. P. No.261/2010 Page 33 of 57 Kerala High Court vide order dated 21.07.1999 directed the CBI to register an FIR on the facts disclosed in the counter affidavit of Ramachandran Nair.Constable Ramachandran Nair was named as accused No.1 Mr. Lakshmana was named as accused No.2 and P. Vijayan was named as accused No.3 for the offence under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.Rev. P. No.261/2010 Page 33 of 57The appellant P. Vijayan sought discharge by moving a petition before the trial Curt.The same was dismissed by the trial Judge on 08.06.2007 and he passed an order framing the charge for the offences under Sections 302 & 34 IPC.The appellant then preferred criminal revision petition before the Kerala High Court.Rev. P. No.261/2010 Page 34 of 57 1972 to 1998 between the time when the alleged fake encounter had taken place, and the issue was raked up for the first time on a news report.The relevant extract from the said decision contained in paragraphs 17 to 19 and 25 to 27 are reproduced hereunder:Pursuant to the said news reports, several writ petitions were filed by various individuals and organizations before the High Court of Kerala with a prayer that the investigation may be transferred to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).In the said writ petition, Constable Ramachandran Nair filed a counter affidavit dated 11.01.1999 in which he made a confession that he had shot Naxalite Varghese on the instruction of the then Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), Lakshmana.In the same counter affidavit, he also stated that the appellant was present when the incident occurred.Based on the assertion in the counter affidavit of Ramachandran Nair dated 11.01.1999 by order dated 27.01.1999 learned single Judge of the High Court of Kerala passed an order entrusting an investigation to the CBI.As said earlier, accordingly, CBI registered an FIR on 03.03.1999 implicating Constable Ramachandran Nair, Lakshmana and the appellant-Vijayan as accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.c) The 161 statement of CW 21 Constable Mohd. Hanifa in which he has stated that he was present along with Constable Ramachandran Nair while he shot dead Naxalite Varghese.d) The 161 statement of CW 31, Mr. K.This provision was introduced in the Code to avoid wastage of public time when a prima facie case was not disclosed and to save the accused from avoidable harassment and expenditure.Rev. P. No.261/2010 Page 36 of 57The unsatisfactory manner in which the Delhi Police conducted itself in controlling the communal violence, and thereafter handled the investigation in the 1984 anti-Sikh riot cases is demonstrated by the fact that, from time to time various commissions including Justice Nanavati Commission, were constituted to examine the role of politicians and other players in the said riots.The National Police Crl.The Commission made several recommendations to remedy the situation.The same was disposed of by the Supreme court on 22.09.2006 by its Crl.The Supreme Court in its judgment also referred to a research paper "Political and Administrative Manipulation of the Police" published in 1979 by the Bureau of Police Research and Development, which warned for excessive control of the political, executive and its principal advisers over the police as the inherent danger of making the police a tool for subverting the process of law, promoting the growth of authoritarianism, and shaking the very foundations of democracy.The Supreme Court also took note of the reports of various other high powered committees and commissions which had examined the issue of police reforms, viz. (i) National Human Rights Commission, (ii) Law Commission, (iii) Rebeiro Committee, (iv) Padmanabhaiah Committee, (v) Malimath Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System, and (vi) The draft outline prepared by Sorabjee Committee for a new Police Act. (Government of India vide office memorandum dated 20.09.2005 constituted a committee comprising Sh.Any interference in this process by any group, however powerful it may be and whatever may be the reasons should be strongly condemned."Rev. P. No.261/2010 Page 45 of 57U13018/5/2005-Delhi dated 24.10.2005, the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs directed the CBI to investigate the case FIR No.416/84 registered at police station Delhi Cant and FIR No.416/84 dated 04.11.1984 P.S. Delhi Cant was re-registered and entrusted to Sh.Manoj Panjarkar, DSP, CBI, SCR-I, New Delhi for further investigation.(VIPIN SANGHI) JUDGE JULY 19, 2010 rsk/akc/sr Crl.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
5,538,396 |
This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.583 of 2016 registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 342 & 506(1) IPC, as against the petitioner.http://www.judis.nic.in 1/6 CRL.O.P.No.25645 of 2016The 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 third respondent police registered a case in Crime No.583 of 2016 for the offenses under Sections 342 & 506(1) IPC, as against the petitioner.Hence he prayed to quash the same.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.Heard Mr.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.However, considering the crime is of the year 2016, the fourth respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.583 of 2016 and file a final report within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.11.03.2020 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order ubhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5/6 CRL.O.P.No.25645 of 2016 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.1.The Inspector of Police, Kelambakkam Police Station, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram District.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.O.P.No.25645 of 2016 11.03.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 6/6
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
55,189,430 |
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 23.12.2018 in Case Crime No. 1469/2018 u/s 364 IPC, P.S. Thakurganju, District Lucknow.The further contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and the false recovery memo has been prepared by the police to which there is no public witness.Dinesh Kumar Singh has been granted bail on 9.7.2019 in Bail No. 4749/2019, Riyaz was granted bail on 17.7.2019 in Bail No. 5550/2019 and Rehan was granted bail on 10.7.2019 in Bail No. 5656/2019, therefore, on the basis of parity the present applicant may be released on bail.Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.Let the applicant Javed, involved in Case Crime No. 1469/2018 u/s 364 IPC, P.S. Thakurganju, District Lucknow be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.Order Date :- 16.10.2019 Om [Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.]
|
['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
55,192,625 |
The appellant Raj Kumar and other co-accused, have been convicted under Section 302/364A/201/120B IPC, for having abducted/ kidnapped Ashok @ Bunty for ransom and for his murder.Ashoks father, Ram Kishan (PW-5), searched but could not locate him.The factum of seizure of the said jeans jacket, along with the ransom note, is recorded in the endorsement Ex. PW5/B. Again, on 12th December, 2005, shirt of the deceased was thrown outside PW-5s house.The shirt had another ransom note/letter, repeating the demand and the threat (seized vide Ex. PW-5/D).On 15th January, 2006, at about 7.00 P.M., co-accused Rakesh was apprehended by Jai Prakash (PW-2), brother of PW-5, when he was attempting to throw another ransom letter inside PW-5s house.In the third ransom note/letter demand of Rs.15 lacs was made.On the basis of disclosure, made by co-accused Rakesh, and the investigation done by the police, the appellant Raj Kumar was arrested from the house of the accused Mohan.M.A 14076/2012 Page 1 of 14This application has been filed by the State, under Section 391 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., for taking specimen handwriting of the appellant Raj Kumar, before the Court, for the purpose of comparison with the handwriting on the ransom letters.On 7th December, 2005, PW-5 called No. 100 and, on 8th December, 2005, lodged a Missing Persons Complaint with Police Station, Kalyan Puri.On 9th December, 2005, PW-5 received a ransom note, demanding Rs.10 lakhs, along with the jeans jacket of Ashok.The ransom note, with the jeans jacket of the deceased, was dropped at the door step of PW-5s Crl.M.A 14076/2012 Page 1 of 14 house.FIR No. 624/05 was registered under Section 364A IPC, on 10th December, 2005 at 00.10 Hrs with P.S. KalyanPuri.During the course of investigation, ACP Rajeshwar Kumar (Retd.) (PW-16), on 18th January, 2006, took specimen handwriting of the appellant Raj Kumar, vide memo Ex. PW16/H-1 TO 16/H-3, for forensic evaluation.S.I. Sansar Singh (PW-15) was witness to the same.FSL Report, dated 30th June, 2006, (Ex. PW16/O) has been relied upon for two reasons.Firstly, to prove that the ransom notes were in the appellant Crl.M.A 14076/2012 Page 2 of 14 Raj Kumars handwriting and, secondly, to prove that ransom notes were written on pages torn from the diary seized from the accused (Ex. PW- 2/G).The specimen handwriting was purportedly taken on 18th January, 2006 (by Memo Ex. PW16/H and 16/I).The ransom notes are already on record and have been relied upon.Whether the ransom notes were in fact recovered on the dates, as alleged, is as an aspect which we have to examine in the appeal on merit.(SANJIV KHANNA)(S. P. GARG) JUDGE October 18th, 2012 kkb Crl.M.A 14076/2012 Page 14 of 14
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
551,929 |
The prosecution case in brief is as follows: On 21.6.1978 at about 9.30/9.40 P.M. Sudhakar Tewari (PW 1) and Md. Abbas (PW 4) were gossiping on a Chabutar (a cemented platform rectangular in shape) at Muchipara (Mudipara) under P.S. Titagar.The accused Mahesh, Somnath and Kishen Jadav were sitting on the other side of the said Chabutar.After a while Provakar Tewari and Debakar Tewari the two brothers of Sudhakar (P.W. 1) came there.Thereafter the accused Lakhraji Devi also came near the said Chabutar and had talks with the accused Mahesh, Somnath and Kishen.Lotan, Ram Murad and Ram Samaj, the three sons of the accused Lakhraji Devi came there in the meanwhile along with the accused Fera Prosad.They began talking to each other.Soon thereafter Fera Prosad went to his house and came back with the accused Munna Passi, Gambler, Manager and Indar.They had talks with each other.Thereafter the accused Lakhraji came before Provakar and charged him by saying that last April he had assaulted her son Ram Samaj.Provakar denied the said charge and said that her son had been assaulted by Som Nath Passi.PW 1 sustained blood injuries.In the meanwhile Provakar got up and started running away, but the accused Somnath, Lotan, Ram Murad, Ram Samaj and Daya Ram along with others chased him.Lotan and Ram Murad each had a sword and Som Nath had a nepala.Provakar took shelter in the house of one Kishore.But the accused Ram Surat and Ram Samaj along with others brought him out and assaulted him with swords while Somnath assaulted with a nepala.The accused Bhola Passi, had a pipe gun with him, fired one round from that gun threatening the persons present at the spot with dire consequences, as a result of which those persons could not proceed further to the assistance of Provakar.Provakar being assaulted in the above fashion fell down on the ground, his body covered with blood.The accused Lotan then told his mother the accused Lakhraji that they had finished their work.Thereafter under instructions of the accused Lakhraji all the accused fled.PW 1 went to the police station and lodged a written complaint which had been marked as FIR in this case (Ext. 1).PW 1 was sent to B.N. Bose Hospital, Barrackpore.He examined P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 and some others.He seized the wearing apparels of the deceased being produced by his wife (P.W. 3) under a seizure list in the presence of the witnesses.P.W. 5 performed the post-mortem examination.P.Ws. 8 and 10 are police witnesses.All the brothers resided at Muchipara under P.S. Titagar.In cross-examination he stated that the patient was brought by Md. Abbas (P.W. 4).As stated by him he was assaulted by Lotan, Ram Murad and others.JUDGMENT Jitendra Nath Chaudhuri, J.Criminal Appeal No. 339 of 1981 and Criminal Appeal No. 340 of 1981 both arise out of the same sessions trial No. 6(11) 80 held by the 10th Court of the Additional Sessions Judge at Alipore resulting in the convictions of all the 14 appellants Under Sections 148 IPC, 307/149 IPC and 302/149 IPC.Both these appeals involve 14 appellants in all, in Criminal Appeal No. 340 of 1981, Lakhraji Devi and her three sons viz., Ram Murad Prosad, Ram Samaj Prosad and Ram Surat Prosad alias Lotan being the appellant, while Criminal Appeal No. 339/81 is on behalf of the remaining 10 appellants.These two Criminal Appeals since they arise out of the same joint trial have been heard together and this judgment will govern both.The 14 appellants are (1) Lakhraji Devi, (2) Ram Murad Prosad, (3) Kishen Jadav (4) Inder Hela, (5) Ganesh Show, (10) Mahesh Passi, (11) Bhola Passi, (12) Som Nath Passi, alias Prasad, (13) Raj Path Passi alias Manager, and (14) Ram Surat Prosad alias Lotan.All the appellants have been charged Under Section 148 IPC for being members of an unlawful assembly on "21.6.1978 at Mudipara, P.S. Titagar and in prosecution of the common object of the said assembly viz., in assaulting Provakar Tewari and his brother, committed rioting, being armed at the time with deadly weapons to wit, sword, pipe gun, nepala end lathi.They have all been further charged Under Section 307/149 IPC for an assault on Sudhakar Tewari the brother of Provakar Tewati, in prosecution of the said common object of the said unlawful assembly.They have all been also charged Under Section 302/149 IPC for causing death of Provakar Tewari, being members of the said unlawful assembly, in prosecution of the said common object of that assembly.All on a sudden thereafter the accused Manager Passi assaulted him with a lathi on his head as a result of which Provakar fell down.The accused Lakhraji then assaulted Sudhakar with a sword on his back when Sudhakar (PW 1), a brother of Provakar, came to his rescue.The accused Mahesh assaulted PW 1 on his nose with a Nepala.The prosecution examined 10 witnesses.The defence did not examine any witnesses.The defence of all the accused was one of innocence.He is an employee of Empire Jute Mill.On 21.6.78 at 9.30/9.45 P.M. P. Ws, 4 and 1 were sitting on a cemented floor at Muchipara talking with each other.The accused Mahesh, Somnath and Kishen Jadav were sitting on the other side of the cement floor.After about two minutes PW 2 and Provakar came there.His evidence thereafter regarding the accusation levelled by the accused Lakhraji Devi against Provakar and the assaults that followed thereafter on Provakar and PW.1 by the appellants, is as has already been set out in describing the prosecution case.Apart from injuries on his back and nose PW. 1 also sustained lathi injury.PW 1 identified all the accused as being persons at the time of the incident with the weapons in their hands.He proved his signature in the FIR.His evidence further is that the accused Lakhraji came in the thana in the meanwhile and was arrested.He identified the appellants as the assailants of Provakar and the weapons with which his brother Provakar was assaulted (II collectively).He (PW 1) was in hospital for 15 days.Provakar died in the hospital.The incident of assault continued for about ten minutes and there was a hue and cry.He saw the miscreants assaulting Provakar when he himself was being assaulted.P. W. 1 sustained injuries on his back and nose, as well as lathi injury at a space below the back.None of the miscreants could be apprehended at that time.There was blood on a cemented platform.He denied that the ghar of Kishore was closed.He denied that he had eloped with a woman of the locality for which the accused had raised objections, following which he had to live elsewhere.He denied that the accused did not assault him or Provakar and that out of grudge he was deposing falsely against them.He denied that there was no incident near the chabutar.He stated that he did not name any of the assailants before the hospital Doctor.There was no suggestion given to this witness that the FIR was not lodged there and then by him as deposed to by him.All the appellants are FIR named.No discrepancy, contradictions or omissions was brought out from the said FIR.The P.S. was at a distance of one and a half k.m.from the place of occurrence.It was after going to the police station and lodging of the said FIR that P.W. 1 was sent to the hospital.The fact that he did not name the assailants before the hospital Doctor is of ho consequence in view of the fact that the names of all the appellants were given by him in the FIR which he had already lodged.The time of making of the FIR not having been challenged the fact that he did not name the assailants before the hospital Doctor cannot in any way detract from his testimony.In view of the fact that he had already named the assailants in the FIR, it was quite unnecessary to name them again before the Doctor who was not a part of the investigating agency.The position may have been otherwise, if P.W. 1 had gone to the hospital first and thereafter gone to the police station to lodge the FIR.P.Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 7 the other eye witnesses broadly corroborate the evidence of P.W. 1 regarding the incident and the presence and participation of the appellants.P.Ws. 2, 4 and 7 are not related to P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 or Provakar P. Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 7 also identified all the appellants in Coun.The appellants were all known persons to P. Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 by name and face.In cross-examination P.W. 2 stated that he was not examined by any Doctor.20/25 persons saw the accused assaulting Provakar before the house of Kishore.He did not see either Kishore or his wife on that occasion.After saying that there was blood at the place of assault he thereafter stated that he could not remember if there was any blood on the chabutar or at the place where Provakar was assaulted after being dragged out of the ghar of Kishore.He denied that P.W. 4 and Gopal the had deposed in examination-in-chief that Provakar after losing consciousness was taken to hospital by Gopal were rivals of the accused and that is why he had come to depose falsely.P.W. 3 the widow of Provakar did not see the beginning of the incident as on hearing a row at about 9.30 A.M. she came out and saw her husband lying on the Chabutar, She however saw the rest of the assault and raised an alarm.Like P. W. 2 she also saw the accused Lotan.Ram Murad and Som Nath Passi assaulting Provakar with weapons.She also discussed in parts played by the other accused in the incident of assault on Provakar and P.W. 1, and the dragging of P.W. 1 and further assaults on him.She deposed that both P.W. 1 and P.W. 4 came to the rescue of her husband.The street light was burning, her house was close to the chabutar.The chabutar was 8 to 10 cubits from the house of Kishore.Provakar lay down before the house of Kishore.Her husband was assaulted mercilessly in the incident and his body was covered with blood.Her husband died in the hospital.In cross-examination she stated that she saw her husband from a distance of 8/10 cubits.Her husband took meals at about 9.30 A.M. and told her that he was going to attend to his duties.After sometime she heard a row.It was brought on record that she omitted to state before the I.O. that Lotan, Ram Murad and Som Nath assaulted her husband before the ghar of Kishore.Nothing else however was brought on record to discredit any part of her testimony regarding the presence and participation of the appellants in the incident or that Lotan, Ram Murad and Som Nath had not been implicated by her in the assault on Provakar at all.The only omission seems to be on the question of the exact place viz., "before the ghar of Kishore", where Lotan, Ram Murad and Som Nath assaulted Provakar.In cross-examination she further stated that blood started rolling before the ghar of Kishore but she did not notice if there was any blood on the chabutar.She denied that she was deposing falsely out of grudge.Mr. Abbas (P.W. 4) identified all the appellants as being present and participating in the incident with weapons.He is an employee of Empire Jute Mill.He went to B.N. Bose Hospital when Provakar was brought by Gopal.Provakar died in the R.G. Kar Hospital at 1 A.M. He and P.W. 2 went to R.G. Kar Hospital and got Provakar admitted there.In cross-examination he stated that he worked in the mechanical department while P.Ws. 1 and 2 worked in other department.He was a head mistry.He denied that Provakar and P.Ws. 1 and 2 are his special friends but he was contradicted by his statement to the police on this point.Certain other omissions in his statement to the police were also brought on record.He stated that he did not remember if he disclosed before the hospital any name except Lotan and Ram Murad.He was assaulted with a lathi but was not examined by any Doctor.Panchanan Shaw (P.W. 7) also identified all the accused as being present in the said assault with weapons and described the assaults on lines similar to the other witnesses.He also came to the rescue of Provakar but the appellant Bhola fired and threatened them with dire consequences.On 21.6.78 at 9.30/9-45 P.M. he had come out to purchase cigarettes.In cross-examination he stated that he had a transport business and his house was near the chabutar.Provakar was wearing a lungi and a shirt.He knew Provakar and his brothers for a long time and they had been playmates.Police came to the spot shortly after the incident.Some omissions in his statement to the police were brought on record.No omission was however brought on record from which the presence of the appellants in this incident could be shaken as deposed boby this witness.On 22.6.78 at 12.40 A.M. he examined Provakar Tewari and found multiple stab injuries all over the body (abdomen, testicle, thigh, back and at sides).The patient was in shock and blood pressure could not be recorded.Pulse was imperceptible, pupils dialated.Prognosis was bad and he was admitted.These names significantly were brought out in cross-examination.Dr. M.C. Mukherjee (P.W. 9) was the M.O. attached to B.N. Hospital.Barrackpore On 21.6.78 at 11.20 P.M. as injured named Provakar Tewari (21 years) was brought by one Gopal Sharma to him for treatment.On examination he found 10 injuries including stab injuries, incised cutting injury and lacerated injuries all over the body including the head, liver, thigh, back and elbow.All the injuries were fresh and grave in nature.Two of the stab injuries one on the right side of the liver and the other on the level of the 6th inter costal space on the right side were each sufficient to cause his death.The effect of all the injuries were sufficient to cause the death in ordinary course of nature.The incised wounds and stab injuries might have been caused by sharp cutting weapons like Ext. VI collectively.The lacerated injuries might have been caused by lathies like Ext. II collectively.On 21.6.78 at about 10.30 P.M. he also examined one Sudhakar Tewari and detected three injuries.These were (1) one stab injury 3/4" x 1/6" x muscle deep placed on the left side of the back (2) one incised injury 1" x " x skin deep on the left side of the bridge of nose, and (3) a lacerated injury 3/4" x " x muscle deep on the upper lip.Injuries 1 and 2 could be caused by a sharp cutting instrument while injury No. 3 could be caused by fists and blows.All the injuries were fresh.The patient was admitted for further treatment.In cross-examination he stated that as far as he could remember Provakar was not conscious.Neither Provakar nor Gopal made any statement disclosing the names of the assailants.P.W. 1 also did not disclose the names of the assailants.He could not say for how long P.W. 1 was in hospital or when he was discharged.The nature and the gravity of the injuries which this Doctor found on Provakar was not challenged at all in cross-examination nor was there any challenge regarding the nature of the injuries on P.W. 1 as found by this Doctor.On examination he found multiple injuries, lacerated, incised punctured, incised penetrating, and incised wound, abrasion ecchymosis all over the body.There were five lacerated wounds on the head, abrasions on the forehead, forearm and right leg, ecchymosis on the lower lip and lacerated wounds over the left arm.He found an incised punctured wound (stitched) on the chest and an incised penetrating wound (stitched) entering into the abdominal cavity.The track of this incised penetrating wound cut vital parts of the body before entering into the abdominal cavity, including the chest wall pleural cavity, right lung and large intestines and adjoining blood vesel.Incised perforating wounds were found on the left thigh wall.There were incised wounds over the scrotum and the right thigh and left palm.In his evidence he has put the injuries under eleven heads, many of them having a number of sub-heads.All the injuries were fresh with extravasated clotted blood in an around the injuries.Death according to him was due to the effects of the injuries anti mortem and homicidal in nature.The incised injuries might have been caused by sharp cutting instruments like nepala or sword.The lacerated injuries might have been caused by hard blunt substances like lathies.The multiple injuries suggested that there were more than one assailant.In cross examination, it was brought out that the stomach contained brownish pasty substances (150 grams).There was no undigested particle in the stomach.There was no cross-examination as to the nature and gravity of the injuries as deposed to by this Doctor.We must remember that Provakar did not die there and then, but died at about 1 A.M. in the hospital quite a few hours after the incident and that therefore until his death, digestion was taking place.P.W. 8 a S.I. of police held the inquest on the dead body of Provakar at R.G. Kar Hospital on 24.6.78 and prepared a report in the presence of witnesses.He detected multiple injuries on his person.In cross-examination he said that Md. Abbas (P.W. 4) was present at the time of the inquest.P.W. 8 did not ascertain the cause of the injuries.S.I. Ranada Paul (P.W. 10) is the I.O. of this case.P.W. 10 took up the investigation, visited the scene of crime, examined witnesses and seized alamats and drew sketch map with index (Ext. 2).These were seized from the ghar of the accused Ram Murad.They included three lathico including one with an iron attachment on one and the Carbon copy of the seizure list (Ext. 3) was tendered as the original was not traceable.He sent P.W. 1 to B.N. Bose Hospital.Provakar was sent from B.N. Bose Hospital as he was in a precarious condition to R.G. Kar Hospital, where he died on that very night.P.W. 3 produced a blood stain Sd lungi and a shirt which was seized by him in the presence of witnesses under a seizure list, the carbon copy of which was marked as Ext. (4).The witness identified Ext. II collectively as the Nepala and lathies seized by him under Ext. III.In cross-examination he stated that he arrived at the place of occurrence at 10.30 P.M. and visited both the places but found no blood.He examined local disinterested people including Panchanan (P.W. 7) and others.The fact that no blood was found cannot detract from the evidence of the eye-witnesses who have described the place of assault.The eye-witnesses corroborate each other broadly and the FIR substantially corroborates the evidence given by P.W. 1, All the appellants are FIR named, and the FIR was lodged very shortly after the occurrence.Moreover if the eye-witnesses were inclined to falsely implicate the appellants there is no reason why they should choose a place which was not the real place of assault.P.W. 7 who is not related to Provakar has been called.It is not the duty of the prosecution to call all the witnesses of the neighbourhood.There is no evidence that either Kishore or his wife were present at the time of the incident and in fact P.W. 2 in cross-examination has stated that she did not see either Kishore or his wife on that occasion.The fact that Gopal who took Provakar to hospital has not been called does not detract from the evidence of the eyewitnesses and the other circumstances of this case.There is no evidence that Gopal arrived on the scene at any time before the assault had concluded.The evidence shows that the assault on Provakar was a determined and merciless one.After giving due consideration to the discrepancies, contradictions and omissions brought out regarding the evidence of these witnesses we find that their evidence is reliable and implicates all the appellants as having participated in the common object as charged, of that unlawful assembly, at the place of occurrence at the time when the decesed Provakar and P.W. 1 who came to his rescue, were assaulted.All the appellants had arrived by the time the assault on Provakar began, they all remained side by side, each being armed until they have made sure that Provakar had been finished and only thereafter on the instructions of the accused Lakhraji Devi they all fled together.It is clear of the evidence that none of the appellants was in that unlawful assembly as a mere spectator or a bystander.The common object of the unlawful assembly of the appellants from the very beginning was to eliminate Provakar and when P.W. 1 came to his assistance the unlawful assembly also developed the common object of eliminating him so that he could not render any assistance to his brother.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
55,194,525 |
(ii) direct the respondents to provide security to the petitioner and her family members and further be pleased to direct the respondents to take proper action against the persons who threaten them and their picture captures in CCTV of hospital.(iii) Direct to handover the enquiry to another Higher Officer because the present I.O. is not conducting fair enquiry."Respondents have filed reply wherein paragraphs 4, 5 and 7 it is stated :That, it is submitted that, on the alleged date of incident i.e. 14.08.2016, some accused persons namely Salim Vasim, Shamshad Begum, Mehfus Ali, Sameer, Ariff Conductor, Mukit and Shriv Narayan manhandled the members of the family of the petitioner and caused injuries to them and thus, offence under Section 147, 148, 149, 294, 323, 506, 2 W.P.No.17345/2016 452, 307 of IPC read with section 3(1)(r)(s), 2(2-5) ka, SC/ST Act was registered against the accused persons on the complaint made by Praveen Jatav who happens to be the son of the petitioner.
|
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
55,198,695 |
The appellant was convicted for the offences under Section 304(1) of IPC and also 324 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 7 years R.I. and one year R.I. respectively.Fine of Rs.1,500/- was also imposed in all.During the quarrel, the accused are said to have hacked the deceased on various spots of his body with aruval.According to the prosecution, a juvenile boy was also involved in the occurrence.Chelladurai succumbed to the injuries on 03.08.2010 at about 10.50 a.m. The police after conducting an investigation, filed final report against the appellant and the second accused Karuthapandi, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kovilpatti.The charges were framed against the accused as follows:-"Charges 1 (Accused No.1 and 2) : U/s.294(B) IPC Charges 2 (Accused No.1 and 2) : U/s.302 IPC Charges 3( Accused No.1) : U/s.324 IPC"http://www.judis.nic.in2/6 Crl.A(MD).No.29 of 20133.The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.The prosecution examined 17 witnesses and marked Exs.P.1 to P.28. M.O.1 to M.O.4 were also marked.On the side of the accused, Ex.D.1 alone was marked.4.The learned Trial Judge, after a detailed consideration and evidence on record, by Judgment dated 09.01.2013, acquitted the second accused, but convicted the appellant/first accused and sentenced him as mentioned above.Challenging the same, this appeal came to be filed.5.The case of the prosecution is that following the occurrence that took place on 25.07.2010 at 5.30 p.m, the injured Chelladurai was rushed to Government Hospital, Kovilpatti and intimation to the police was given and they recorded his statement on the same day at 06.30 p.m., at Government Hospital, Kovilpatti.Therefore, the First Information Report was altered and it is relevant to mention here that on the very next day of the occurrence, i.e., on 26.07.2010, thehttp://www.judis.nic.in3/6 Crl.A(MD).No.29 of 2013 appellant herein was arrested and he gave a confession before the police.The admissible portion of the confession given by the appellant/ first accused was marked as Ex.Pursuant to the confession made by the accused/appellant herein, M.O.1-aruval was also recovered.The Trial Court has held that the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt the involvement of the appellant herein.This because, the deceased Chelladurai gave a statement immediately after the occurrence directly implicating the appellant.6.The learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant rightly did not challenge the conviction imposed on the appellant, he would only pray for modification and reduction of the sentence.The learned Senior counsel pointed out that even according to the statement of the deceased Chelladurai, he abused the appellant.The appellant is a villager and therefore, the possession of an aruval cannot said to be an incriminating circumstance.The appellant admittedly did not have any prior design to cause the death of Chelladurai.It was only the offending utterance by Chelladurai that invited the whole trouble.Therefore, I am inclined to show indulgence to the appellant.Therefore, even while sustaining the conviction imposed on the appellant, sentence of imprisonment is reduced from 7 years R.I. to 3 years R.I. Thehttp://www.judis.nic.in4/6 Crl.A(MD).No.29 of 2013 period of incarceration already undergone by the appellant will stand set off in terms of Section 428 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal stands partly allowed.1.The I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District.2.The Inspector of Police, Kovilpatti West Police Station, Tuticorin District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.4.The Record Keeper, V.R. Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in5/6 Crl.A(MD).No.29 of 2013 G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.sji Crl.A(MD).No.29 of 2013
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
55,199,799 |
Based on the complaint given by the revision petitioner, the respondent police registered a case for the offences under Sections 148, 341 and 324 (2 counts) IPC against the first respondent; and for the offences under Sections 147, 341 and 323 (2 counts) of IPC against the 2nd and 4th respondents; and for the offences under Sections 147, 341, 323 (3 counts) and 355 IPC against the 3 rd respondent; and for the offences under Sections 147, 341, 323 and 506(ii) IPC against the 5th respondent.Before the trial Court, on the side of the prosecution, the respondent police examined as many as 9 witnesses viz., P.W.1 to P.W.9 and marked as many as 8 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 and no material object was produced.There is no oral and documentary evidence produced on the side of the defence.After hearing the arguments of both sides and considering the records, the learned Judicial Magistrate found that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted all the accused from the charges made against them.Challenging the said judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram in C.C.No.139 of 2003, dated 05.10.2007, the complainant has filed the present revision before this Court.The revision petitioner has stated about the overt act attributed against respondents 1 to 5. P.W.6, the Doctor, stated that P.W.5 along with P.W.1 came to the hospital for treatment and admitted P.W.1 in the hospital.The Doctor, who given treatment to the victims,http://www.judis.nic.in 4 has clearly stated about the injury sustained by the revision petitioner and other witnesses.Accident Register itself shows that five known persons have assaulted.The prosecution has clearly established its case beyond reasonable doubt that the accused have assaulted the petitioner and other witnesses with deadly weapons and caused injuries.Hence, the learned counsel prays this Court to allow this revision and convict the accused.The learned Counsel for respondents 1, 3 to 5 would submit that during trial, the second respondent died.Therefore, the case was dismissed as abated against the second respondent.All the other respondents are relatives and interested witnesses.The alleged occurrence has occurred in a public place, but no independent witness was examined, which creates a doubt.The prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the respondent police have only examined interested witnesses.The trial Court observed that the prosecution has not proved its case and further, the weapons alleged to have been used by the respondents were not recovered by the prosecution.The prosecution witnesses and the medical witness have not tallied with the injuries sustained by the victims.Due to previous enmity, the petitioner has foisted a false case as against the respondents and the respondents are innocent persons.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing for the State would submit that P.W.1 to P.W.3, who are the victims, have clearly stated that respondents 1 to 5 have attacked them with deadly weapons.There was a previous enmity between the petitioner and the respondents 1 to 5 with regard to fetching of water from the pipeline, for which, respondents 1 to 5 have attacked the petitioner and caused injuries and the petitioner was admitted in the hospital as inpatient for 11 days.Therefore, prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.The learned Judicial Magistrate has failed to appreciate the evidence of the prosecution and acquitted all the accused, which warrants interference.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents 1, 3 to 5 as well as the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the State and perused the documents available on record.Even the A.R.Copy itself shows that the injured witnesses have stated that known persons have gathered with weapons, but they have not stated that how many persons.It is admitted that all the witnesses are relative and interested witnesses.Admittedly, in this case, the occurrence took place on 14.02.2003 at about 7.00 P.M., in a public place, but the respondent police has not examined any independent witnesses.All the witnesses examined by the prosecution viz., P.W.1 to P.W.5 are relatives and interested witnesses and also there is a contradictions between them.The injuries sustained by the victims, are simple in nature.
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
61,552,193 |
revisions Prayer in both revisions: Criminal revision petitions filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and set aside the order dated 06.04.2016 in Crl.For Petitioner in Crl.R.C.662/16 : Mr.N.R.Elango, senior counsel for Mr.R.Vivekanandan For Petitioner in Crl.R.C.841/16 : Mr.A.Ramesh, senior counsel for Mr.C.Arun Kumar For Respondent : Mr.K.Srinivasan, S.P.P. For CBI in both cases COMMON ORDER Both the revision petitions have been filed by the petitioners/A1 and A3 respectively, to call for the records and set aside the order dated 06.04.2016 in Crl.2.The respondent viz., the Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Bureau, Chennai has registered a case for the offences under Section 120(B) of I.P.C. and Sections 7, 12, 13(2) read with 13(1)d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in R.C.MA1/2014 15 dated 21.04.2014 against the petitioners and other accused.3.The case of the respondent/prosecution is that on 09.04.2014, the petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.662 of 2016/A1 demanded an amount of Rs.35,00,000/- as bribe to sort out various deficiencies identified during the audit of MIOT Nursing College records from the defacto complainant Shri R.Hariharan, the Liasion Officer for MIOT Hospital at Chennai and A1 entered into a criminal conspiracy with A2 and directed him to accept the bribe money of Rs.5,00,000/- initially from the defacto complainant.Accordingly, a complaint lodged before the Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, Chennai on 21.04.2014, based on which, the respondent registered the complaint in RC.15(A)/2014 for the offences under Sections 7 and 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the same day.Thereafter, a trap was laid on A2 at Mount Manor Hotel, Guindy in Room No.212 at about 1.45 P.M. on the same day.During the trap proceedings, A2 was arrested, while accepting the bribe money of Rs.5,00,000/- as first instalment on the direction of A1 and the tainted currency was recovered from A2 under recovery mahazer.4.Aggrieved by the said charge sheet, the petitioners/A1 and A2 have filed discharge petitions under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P.Nos.5745 and 2957 of 2015 respectively in C.C.No.9 of 2015 before the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai.Against which, the present criminal revision petitions have been filed.During the investigation, the prosecution examined as many as 50 witnesses and recorded statements of all the witnesses and 476 incriminating documents were also collected and from all the available materials, oral and documentary evidence, the Special Judge considered all the aspects elaborately and correctly dismissed the discharge applications filed by the petitioners herein and there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Special Court.10.Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for both the petitioners and the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record along with the order passed by the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases.11.Perusal of the charge sheet filed under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. along with other material documents and dismissal order of the learned Special Judge would show that there are incriminating materials against the petitioners and other accused.The validity and admissibility of the oral and documentary evidence can be done only after the trial and not at the stage of framing of charges.
|
['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.
|
61,553,152 |
1 30.10.2018 Ct. No. 8 Pk/ss CRM No. 9556 of 2018 In Re:- An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 26.10.2018 in connection with Chapra P.S. Case No. 82 of 2017 dated 17.03.2017 under Sections 448A/307/34/302 of the Indian Penal Code.In this application for grant of bail, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner contends that, other similarly situated persons have been granted bail.The prayer for grant of bail is opposed on behalf of the State.Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.(DEBANGSU BASAK, J.) (BISWAJIT BASU, J.)
|
['Section 307 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.
|
61,555 |
This Rule was issued at the instance of a school-master against an order of the Additional District Magistrate of Burdwan acquitting the" opposite party of an offence under Section 504, Penal Code.Although it is a revision I have been compelled by Mr. Panchanan Chaudhuri with his usual eloquence to hear what was really a full appeal on facts and law against the acquittal.
|
['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
61,555,915 |
This petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.115 of 2018 on the file of the first respondent.There were no criminal act or criminal intention on the part of the petitioners.Hence this petition.M.Mohamed Riyaz, Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the crime has been registered in Crime No.115 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420, 120(b), 294(b) and 506(2) IPC.The petitioner's father and other petitioners threatened tohttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 attack the defacto complainant with iron pipe and used foul language on them.4.Heard, Mr.Balasubramanian P.R., the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.The second respondent lodged a complaint on the allegation that the petitioners when the defacto complainant and his brother visited the petitioner and his family members without any prima facie evidence they have threatened and attacked him with iron pipe and used foul language on them.Accordingly, the petitioners have committed serious offence.The correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only in the Trial.Criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature.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."8.In view of the above discussions and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.http://www.judis.nic.in 6 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.9.However, considering the above facts, the 1st respondent is hereby directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.115 of 2018 and file a final report within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdictional Magistrate, if not already filed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.1.Inspector of Police Mangalapuram Police Station Namakkal District2.Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras Crl.O.P.No.9870 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.No.5143 of 2019http://www.judis.nic.in
|
['Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
61,557,373 |
Heard on I.A. No.8586/15, which is an application moved on behalf of appellant Smt. Ratan Kumari for taking her medical documents on record for consideration at the time of hearing on her bail plea.Looking to the nature of the documents and purpose for which they are filed, the I.A. is allowed, taking the documents on record.Also heard on I.A. No.6572/15, which is an application under Section 389(3) of the Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of appellant Smt. Ratan Kumari for suspension of sentence and grant of bail during the pendency of this appeal.Vide the impugned judgment, appellant Smt. Ratan Kumari with co-appellants namely Pushpendra and Aditya, who are in-laws and husband, respectively, of deceased Shashi, are found guilty for demanding dowry from her parents and causing her dowry death by drowning.Thereupon, appellant Smt. Ratan Kumari with aforesaid co-appellants are convicted under Sections 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and 304-B of the IPC and sentenced on first count to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of which to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and on second count to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years.The substantive jail sentences are directed to run concurrently.Be it noted that vide the impugned judgment, co-appellant Jyoti, who is sister-in-law of the deceased stands convicted under Sections 498-A of the IPC and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and convicted thereunder.On behalf of appellant Smt. Ratan Kumari, her learned counsel submits that she remained under trial prisoner from 04.06.09 to 24.07.09 and, thereafter, she was on bail during the trial.It is also submitted by him that this appeal is of year 2015, hence, there is no likelihood of this appeal being heard on merits in recent future.It is also submitted by him that her age is 59 years and she has been suffering from Myocardial Ischaemia (heart disease).It is also submitted by him that she is a house wife and has no criminal antecedents.It is also submitted by him that the deceased died of drawing due to an accidental fall into a well while drawing water from it.This fact is proved by the defence witnesses Chhotelal (DW-3) and Devdhari (DW-7) who saw the incident.However, in the impugned judgment, the defence evidence on this point was not properly considered.It is also submitted by him that there are material contradictions, inconsistencies and discrepancies in the evidence of star witnesses of prosecution and they are closed relatives of the complainant party.No independent witness is examined by the prosecution in connection with demand of dowry and dowry harassment to the deceased.But, the learned trial judge has given undue weightage to their evidence over the defence evidence.Thus, the appellants have good case on merits as well.Upon these submissions, learned counsel prays for grant of bail to her.Learned counsel for the objector opposes the prayer vehemently.It is also submitted by him that the deceased got married to co-appellant Pushpendra on 26.06.07 and she died of drowning on 29.02.08 in her matrimonial house.Thus, the deceased died within eight months of her marriage.It is also submitted by him that there is overwhelming evidence on record which proves that appellant Smt. Ratan Kumari and co-appellants used to demand dowry from the parents of the deceased and the deceased was subjected to ill-treatments, beatings and harassment by appellant Smt. Ratan Kumari and co- appellants in connection with demand of dowry.As a result, the deceased had ended her life by jumping into the well.It is also submitted by him that the learned trial judge in para-27 of the impugned judgment has given cogent reasons that the deceased had not died due to an accidental fall into the well, but jumped into it on account of dowry harassment, cruelties meted out to her at the hands of appellant Smt. Ratan Kumari and co- appellants.It is also submitted by him that Chhotelal (DW-3) and Devdhari (DW-7) are neighbours of the accused party and they have given evidence under their pressure to the effect that deceased Shashi had fell down in the well accidentally.It is also submitted by him that there are no material inconsistencies, discrepancies and omissions in the star witnesses of the prosecution and whose evidence proves the prosecution case beyond doubt.Having referred to medical documents of appellant Smt. Ratan Kumari, learned counsel submits that she has a minor heart problem on account of her age.As such, she is not entitled to get bail on the basis of her ill-health.Learned Government Advocate has supported the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the objector.Having considered the submissions canvassed on behalf of the parties by their counsel and on the reading of the evidence on record meticulously, we are not inclined to grant bail to appellant Smt. Ratan Kumari.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
61,564,422 |
These are two appeals against a common judgment dated 13th December, 2005 and Order on Sentence dated 17 th CRL.A. 406/2006 & CRL.A. 591/2006 Page 1 of 9 December, 2005, whereby the appellants were convicted under section 393 & 394 of IPC read with section 34 thereof and the appellant Sanjay was additionally convicted under section 398/393 of IPC and both of them were sentenced for varying periods.The appellant Sanjay was sentenced to undergo RI for 4 years each and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each or to undergo SI for 6 months each in default under section 393/34 and 394/34 of IPC.He was separately sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years under section 398 of IPC.The appellant Vicky was sentenced to undergo RI for 4 years each and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- each or to undergo SI for 6 months each in default under section 393/34 and section 394/34 of IPC.The sentences were directed to run concurrently.CRL.A. 406/2006 & CRL.A. 591/2006 Page 1 of 9The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 23rd October, 2004, at about 5.15 P.M. the complainant Ajay Kumar was going to New Delhi Railway Station on foot.When he reached CF Road, two young boys caught hold of him and asked him to hand over his mobile phone to them.The complainant, however, did not oblige them, whereupon they threatened him with dire consequences and gave fists and slap blows to him and one of them attacked him with a blade.When he raised alarm, police officials, who are passing from there on a motor cycle, overpowered the appellants and arrested them.He identified the appellants as the persons involved in the incident.PW5 Constable Naveen has stated that on 23.10.2004 he, while on patrol, reached police picket at CF Road where Constable Daya Nand and Rohtash Kumar were found sitting and CRL.A. 406/2006 & CRL.A. 591/2006 Page 3 of 9 he joined them.On hearing commotion from the side of Connaught Place, they reached near the public lavatories where they saw the appellants Sanjay and Vicky having caught hold of Ajay Kumar.CRL.A. 406/2006 & CRL.A. 591/2006 Page 9 of 9Injuries from blade were CRL.A. 406/2006 & CRL.A. 591/2006 Page 2 of 9 caused on his cheeks as well as on the left side of his chest.Two policemen who were going on a motorcycle reached there on hearing the alarm raised by the complainant and apprehended the culprits after a short chase.The case of the prosecution is that the appellant Sanjay is the person who had used the blade for causing the injuries to the complainant, whereas the appellant Vicky is the other person who had accompanied Sanjay and had held the complainant when injuries were caused to him by Sanjay.CRL.A. 406/2006 & CRL.A. 591/2006 Page 2 of 9The complainant came in the witness box as PW 1 and stated that on 23.10.2004, when he reached CF Road at about 5.15 P.M. the appellants suddenly came there and asked him to hand over his mobile to them.When he held on to his mobile they started beating him and one of them caused injuries to him on his face as well as on his chest, with a blade.The other person was holding him at that time.On seeing the police they left him and starting fleeing away.They, however, managed to apprehend both the appellants.At that time Sanjay was holding a surgical blade with some blood stains.Both the appellants were handed over to the Investigating Officer alng with the surgical blade recovered from Sanjay.CRL.A. 406/2006 & CRL.A. 591/2006 Page 3 of 9In their statement under section 313 the appellants denied the allegations against them.The appellant Sanjay stated that he was picked up from Rohini about 15 days before he was implicated in this case as he was previously involved in a theft case.The appellant claimed that he was picked up from his house at Sadar Bazar at about 3.00 A.M.She stated that her husband was taken from her house at 3.00 A.M. but later on he was not released.CRL.A. 406/2006 & CRL.A. 591/2006 Page 4 of 9CRL.A. 406/2006 & CRL.A. 591/2006 Page 4 of 9The complainant was held by the appellant Vicky when injuries using a blade, were caused to him by the appellant CRL.A. 406/2006 & CRL.A. 591/2006 Page 5 of 9 Sanjay.It is, thus, obvious that both of them shared a common intention to cause hurt to the complainant in attempting to commit robbery.Hence, both of them are also liable to be punished under section 394 IPC read with section 34 thereof.CRL.A. 406/2006 & CRL.A. 591/2006 Page 5 of 9As regards applicability of section 398 of IPC which by itself does not create an offence but only makes attempt to commit robbery punishable with a minimum imprisonment of 7 years in case the offender was armed with a deadly weapon at the time of attempting to commit robbery, in order to succeed, the prosecution was required to prove that the appellant Sanjay was armed with a deadly weapon.The term 'deadly weapon' has not been defined anywhere in IPC but would ordinarily mean an instrument which, if used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death.The Investigating Officer has not prepared any sketch of the surgical blade alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the appellant Sanjay.The seizure memo of the blade does not show what its size or shape was.Though the police officials have described the instrument recovered from the possession of the appellant as a surgical blade, none of the witness has given any description of the blade which has been CRL.A. 406/2006 & CRL.A. 591/2006 Page 6 of 9 referred by them as a surgical blade.CRL.A. 406/2006 & CRL.A. 591/2006 Page 7 of 9For the reasons given in the preceding paragraphs, the conviction of both the appellants is maintained only under section 393 and 394 of IPC read with section 34 thereof without applying the provision contained in Section 398 of IPC.The appellant CRL.A. 406/2006 & CRL.A. 591/2006 Page 8 of 9 Vicky is sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- or to undergo SI for 15 days in default under section 393/34 of IPC.The sentences shall run concurrently.One copy of this order be sent to the appellant Sanjay, who is in Jail, through the concerned Jail Superintendent.CRL.A. 406/2006 & CRL.A. 591/2006 Page 8 of 9Trial court record be sent back along with a copy of this judgment.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
61,572,388 |
This is an application for bail under section 438 of Cr.P.C. for offence under Sections 294, 341, 323, 506-B/34 of IPC and section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act in connection with Crime No.141/2014 registered at police station Jatara District Tikamgarh.According to prosecution on 14/06/2014 complainant Dharam Das, who happened to be member of SC/ST caste, was assaulted by petitioners.Learned counsel for petitioners submits that provisions of SC/ST Act added in this case just to make the case more serious and to debar the petitioners from getting benefit of anticipatory bail.Further submits that in fact it was dispute between son of petitioner and son of complainant because both were interested in a post in which son of petitioner succeeded and son of complainant made allegation that he obtained forged mark sheet.Learned counsel for State submits that sufficient evidence available on record to show involvement of petitioners in this case.Without commenting on merits of the case, on due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it proper to grant bail to the petitioners.Petitioner no.1 Anupam Pateriya, petitioner no.2 Ramswaroop Pateriya, petitioner no.3 Anurag Pateriya and petitioner no.4 Monty Pujari are directed to join the investigation immediately and fully cooperate with the investigating agency and the trial.In the event of arrest, petitioners shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.30,000/-each with a separate surety of like amount to the satisfaction of arresting officer.Conditions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. shall apply on the petitioners during currency of bail.
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 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.
|
61,573,103 |
1 CRM 4352 of 2020 (Via Video Conference) In Re : An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Belda P.S. Case No. 21 dated 18.01.2020 under Sections 498A/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioners undertake to affirm and stamp the petition as per the Rules within 48 hours of resumption of normal functioning of the court.The petition is taken up through video conference on the basis of such undertaking.It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioners that they have been falsely implicated in the instant case though there is no incriminating materials available against them.The learned advocate appearing for the State submits that the petitioner no.1 is the prime accused and the investigation is still in progress but could not be completed because both the accused are absconding.We had the occasion to peruse the Memorandum of evidence submitted by the State and the crux of the FIR reproduced thereunder.We have further perused the other materials disclosed there in and on perusing the prima facie materials available therein, we do not feel that it is a fit case where the petitioner no.1 should be extended the privilege of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.However, we find that such privilege can be extended to the petitioner no.2 on the basis of the materials disclosed in the said Memorandum of evidence.The 2 prayer for anticipatory bail so far as it relates to the petitioner no.1 is concerned is hereby rejected.The petitioner no.2 is entitled to anticipatory bail.Accordingly in the event of an arrest, the petitioner no.2 shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/- subject to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and also on the conditions of 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.With these observations, CRM 4352 of 2020 is disposed of.Urgent photostat certified copy of this order may be supplied to the parties expeditiously, if applied for.(Harish Tandon, J.) (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)
|
['Section 34 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.
|
61,574,556 |
Heard on the question of admission.Appeal seems to be arguable, hence admitted for final hearing.He has deposited the fine amount before the trial Court.The trial Court has suspended his jail sentence upto 26.05.2018 and if the execution of jail sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may become infructuous.Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant-Ravindra Kumar shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with a surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 22.10.2018 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.Certified copy as per rules.(Subodh Abhyankar) Judge sjk Digitally signed by SHARANJEET KAUR JASSAL Date: 2018.05.21 11:48:12 +05'30'
|
['Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
61,581,652 |
In pursuance of the directions issued by the Apex Court and guidelines issued by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the wake of COVID-19 outbreak, the matter was taken up through video conferencing while adhering to the norms of social distancing prescribed by the Government.Heard, learned counsel for the parties.Case diary perused.This is the first application under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No.88/2020 registered at Police Station- Dursada District Datia (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 294, 506-B and 34 of the IPC.Allegation against the applicant and other co-accused, in short, is that some altercation took place with regard to agricultural field.At that time, the co-accused Kalicharan inflicted injuries with the help of axe on the head of the complainant Brijmohan, whereas applicant Shobharam assaulted Ramswaroop by lathi.On the basis of the aforesaid, crime has been registered.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR M.Cr.C. No.27161/2020 ( Sobha Ram Kushwah Vs The State of M.P. ) (2) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has falsely been implicated in the matter.Co- accused Kalicharan Kushwah has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 31/07/2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 22062/2020 by this Court.The applicant shall install Arogya Setu App (if not already installed) in his mobile phone.The applicant shall also furnish a written undertaking before the SHO concerned that he will abide by the terms and conditions of various circulars, as well as, orders issued by the Central Government, State Government and local administration from time to time such as maintaining social distancing, physical distancing, hygiene etc. to avoid proliferation of Corona virus.
|
['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
61,581,998 |
Through: Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP for State.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL G.S.SISTANI, J, (ORAL).The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Trial Court are as under:"On 27.8.99 when SHO Inspector R.S. Nehra was to move for the VVIP route duty, Hari Bahadur @ Hari resident of WZ-113, Naraina village, Delhi met him in the police station and disclosed that he has killed his sister (Muhboli) Vishnu in his room at his house no. WZ-113, village Naraina by strangulating her throat.On this disclosure vide DD no.18A SI Sunil Kumar along with const.Yogender Kumar went for inquiry to WZ-113 village Naraina.In the meantime Nar Bahadur and landlord Prem Singh Crl.A. No. 47/2004 Page 1 of 22 also arrived at the spot.In their presence the key of the room was taken from Hari Bahadur and lock of the room was got opened and they went inside the room.Nar Bahadur in his statement disclosed that for one month she was living with his brother Hari Bahadur as she had quarrelled with him (Nar Bahadur) and living separately with Hari Bahadur who is a resident of Nepal and presently living at WZ-113, Village Naraina.He also disclosed that Hari Bahadur came to him around at 5:30 AM .on that day at his house informed that he was fed up with the activities Of Vishnu, therefore, he was going to finish himself also.He tried to stop Hari Bahadur but Hari Bahadur ran away.Thereafter he was coming in search of Hari Bahadur and his wife and found the police at the spot i.e. WZ-113, Village Naraina.The Inspector prepared a Tahrir and through constable Rajinder Singh got recorded the FIR.The crime team was called at the spot for examination.Photographs were taken through photographers.After the examination of the spot, the site plan was prepared.The notebook was lying near the dead body.In this notebook on the rear cover it was written that he could not bear his insult, therefore, he has killed her and he will also not live.The notebook was seized.The dead body was sent for post mortem to Safdarjang hospital.The statements of witnesses were recorded.During the investigation Hari Bahudur confessed that due to activities of his sister (Muhboli Behan) has murdered her by strangulating her throat.In this case, the appellant went to the Police Station and disclosed that he had killed his sister (mooh boli) Vansha in his room at his house no.WZ113, Village Narayna, by Strangulating her throat.The matter was passed over once as none was present on behalf of the appellant and taken up post lunch.Mr. Braham Singh, Advocate who is present in court is appointed as Amicus Curiae in the matter.The present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 12.11.2003 and order on sentence dated 15.11.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.There a dead body of the deceased Vishnu W/o Nar Bahadur was found lying by the side of a wall.There was silky chord around the neck of the deceased tied twice which was having a strong knot, back side.The inspector through wireless called Additional SHO Inspector Sudhir Kumar for taking over the inquiry who along with const.Phool Kumar reached at the spot where ASI Hukam Singh with const.Balwan Singh also reached.Inspector Sudhir Kumar recorded the statement of Nar Bahadur, husband of deceased Vishnu.The disclosure statement was recorded and accused was arrested.In the post mortem report Doctor gave the cause of death strangulation by ligature.Scaled site plan was got prepared through Draftsmen.The notebook and specimen hand writing was sent to FSL Malviya Nagar for examination and the accused was committed for trial.A. No. 47/2004 Page 1 of 22The formal charge against the accused was framed on 2.8.2000 under section 302 of IPC which was read over and explained to the Crl.A. No. 47/2004 Page 2 of 22 accused and the accused Hari Bahadur pleaded not guilty and claimed trial."A. No. 47/2004 Page 2 of 22The prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses.One witness was examined by the defence.The statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein the appellant denied the allegations made against him and alleged false implication and claimed to be tried.Mr. Braham Singh learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the impugned order is contrary to the facts and is based upon conjectures and surmises.The counsel for the appellant submits that the testimony of Nar Bahadur PW2 is not a reliable or truthful piece of evidence and is contradictory to the version given by S.I. Sunil Kumar PW5 and Insp.It is further clarified that PW2 in his testimony categorically deposed that appellant Hari Bahadur gave him the keys of jhuggi and he is the one who opened the lock.However, PW5 and PW6 had testified that appellant gave keys to PW5 and he opened the same.The counsel for the appellant submitted that there are material Crl.A. No. 47/2004 Page 3 of 22 contradictions and improvements in the statement made to the police which cast a serious doubt in the case projected by the prosecution.A. No. 47/2004 Page 3 of 22The learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the alleged recoveries made in the present case did not connect the appellant Hari Bahadur with the crime.The presence of the appellant at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful which is further corroborated by the testimony of PW1 Prem Singh and DW1 Ashok Kumar.Lastly, counsel for the appellant urged that even if the allegations against the appellant are believed to be true, the case falls under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and not under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.The incident took place at the spur of the moment and the appellant had not acted in a cruel and unusual manner therefore, the appellant should be convicted under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code on the period already undergone.Per contra, Ms. Aashaa Tiwari learned APP for the State submits that the prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond any shadow of doubt.The counsel for the State vehemently supported the case of the prosecution and submitted that the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses unerringly point towards the guilt of the appellant herein.The counsel for the State further submitted that the alleged incident is corroborated by the testimony of PW2 Nar Bahadur in which he categorically deposed that on the fateful day he saw the dead body lying by the side wall of the room.Lastly, learned counsel for the State submits that the evidence produced on record clearly establishes the guilt of the appellant and the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, hence the impugned judgement does not call for any interference.A. No. 47/2004 Page 4 of 22We heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record and also examined in detail the judgment rendered by the trial court.Before we deal with the rival submissions of the parties, we deem it appropriate to refer the testimonies of the material witnesses in detail.The case of the prosecution rests on the testimonies of PW2 Nar Bahadur and PW6 Insp.PW2 Nar Bahadur in his testimony deposed as under:"On 27.08.99 Hari Bahadur, present in the court, came to me around 5:30 AM in the morning and told me that being annoyed by the activities of my wife Vishnu he had killed by her throatening.On hearing this I tried to apprehend him but he ran away.My wife Vishnu was residing with him for the last one month before this incident and Hari Bahadur was her Dharam Bhai and she had strained relations with me.Thereafter I went to WZ-113, there I found the police officer present, Hari was produced before me second time and he gave me the keys of his Jhuggi from which I opened the Jhuggi , in the Jhuggi of Hari Bahadur dead body of my wife was lying towards the right side wall."PW6 Inspector R. S. Nehra in his testimony deposed as under:"On 27.08.99, at 6:45 AM I was going on VVIP Road.At the gate of P.S. a person namely Hari Bahdur, present in the court today told me that he has killed his Muhboli sister by strangulating in his room in village Naraina.....I took him to WZ-113 village Naraina, at second floor in the corner where his landlord and husband of the deceased were present.SI Sudhir Kumar and Const.Yogeshwere also present there.I asked for the key.A. No. 47/2004 Page 5 of 22Thereafter after reaching the spot PW2 found the dead body of his wife lying upon the side wall and there was resham dori tied with the strong knot from the back of the deceased.Furthermore, on the disclosure of the appellant the dead body was recovered.A. No. 47/2004 Page 8 of 22 and conduct of the appellant /complainant by whom the First Information Report is given, can be admissible in evidence.A. No. 47/2004 Page 8 of 22A. No. 47/2004 Page 12 of 22 his having murdered his wife and children.STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDUREA. No. 47/2004 Page 15 of 22Hence he had killed her and she will not live and he will also not live.She is my sister.Hari Gurran.Q.27 Do you want to say anything else?A. Yes.A. No. 47/2004 Page 16 of 22 Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be made the sole basis of his conviction."A. No. 47/2004 Page 16 of 22With the above modification, the appeal is allowed in part with respect to the period already undergone.G. S. SISTANI, J SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J th February 18 2016 gr// Crl.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
62,543,581 |
The genesis of the petition culled-out in brief is that, the first informant Mithan Mohan Barse i.e. present petitioner filed the FIR on 03-07-2015 to the Police of Bhusawal Police Station and cast the allegations that on 03-07-2015 in the morning at about 8.30 to 9.30 p.m. he accompanied with his father Mohan had been to Sant Tulshiram Market Bhusawal to look after the work of the contract of public toilet allocated on pay and use basis.The first informant Mithun and his father after enjoying the tea started returning to home.However, the assailant Anil Chabildas Chaudhary arrived on his motorbike.He reprimanded the father Mohan by putting the revolver on his head and gave threat to eliminate him.Thereafter, assailant Anil Chaudhary took out the weapon knife and dealt a blow of weapon at::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:26:13 ::: 5 WP-1619-15 the abdomen of Mohan Barse.Meantime, other assailants Nattu Chawariya, Gopal Shivram Shinde, Bunty Parshuram Pathrode, Vijay Parshuram Pathrode, Jacky Pathrode all came running at the spot of incident.They were armed with weapons sword, iron pipe, chopper etc. They all exhorted to kill father Mohan.In the fight, assailants attacked on the head of Mohan with sword, iron pipe and chopper etc. The assailant Bunty Pathrode and Vijay Pathrode were having revolver in their hands.They were giving threats to the public by flashing the revolver.The assailant also attempted to attack on the first informant::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:26:13 :::-Mithun but he flung the bricks towards assailants.The on-lookers thronged at the spot.Thereafter, assailants made their escape good from the scene of occurrence.The injured Mohan was escorted to the Hospital of Dr. Manavkar but he was declared dead.Eventually, the first informant filed the FIR, pursuant to which, the Police of Busawal Police Station registered the crime No. 128 of 2015 under sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 302 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") as well as section 3, 4 read with section 25 of the Arms Act and set the criminal law in motion.The Investigating Officer (for short "IO") carried out the investigation.He recorded statements of the witnesses acquainted with the facts of the case.The assailants, namely, Nattu Chawariya, Gopal Shinde and Jacky Pathrode were apprehended in this crime for the sake of investigation.03 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 17@07 39404 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 45@07 39402 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 69@07 363It is also imperative to mention that the impugned charge-sheet reflects statements of following witnesses recorded by the IO under section 161 of Cr.P.C during the course of investigation.These witnesses divulged the names of assailants in their statements, which were also considered and verified by this Court, the details of which are as under:-(b)Statement on 2.8.2016 before (1)Anil Choudhary CID (2)Gopal Shinde (3)Nattu Chavariya (4)Jacky Pathrode (5)Bunty Pathrode (6)Vijay Pathrode(c)Letter dated 9.8.2016 Denied earlier Affidavit and all Statements(d)Statement u/s.164 -JUDGMENT :- ( Per : K.K. Sonawane, J.)1. Rule.Rule made returnable forthwith.Heard the learned counsel for appearing parties finally, with consent.The petitioner Mithun Mohan Barse resident of Bhusawal, District Jalgaon preferred the present writ petition by invoking remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code with following prayer:"A. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, Writ of certiorari or any such other::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:26:13 ::: 4 WP-1619-15 appropriate writ or order thereby directing the concerned respondents to institute or cause to be instituted a fresh/further investigation into the crime registered by the Bhusaval Bazar Peth Police Station, Bhusaval, vide C.R. No. 128 of 2015 dated 03-07-2015 for the offences punishable u/s 302, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149 and 120B of IPC and section 3, 4 r/w section 25 of the Arms Act against all the original accused persons named therein viz (1) Anil Chhabiladas Choudhary, (2) Nattu Chaurasiya (3) Gopal Shivram Shinde (4) Bunty Parshuram Pathrode, (5) Vijay Parshuram Patrode and (6) Jacky Indal Pathrode all resident of Bhusaval; to handover the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation or to a Special Investigation Team headed by a responsible superior officer as may be constituted by this Hon'ble Court or to any other independent investigating agency outside the district of Jalgaon to be carried out under the supervision of this Hon'ble Court."::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:26:13 :::The weapons were recovered from their custody under section 27 of the Evidence Act. After completion of investigation, IO preferred the charge-sheet against three accused/assailants, namely, Nattu Chawariya, Gopal Shivram Shinde and Jagdish @ Jacky Indal Pathrode.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:26:13 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:26:13 :::6 WP-1619-15Being dissatisfied with the mode and manner in which the investigation was carried out by the concerned Investigating Agency, the petitioner approached to this Court by invoking remedy under Artciel 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., to redress his grievance.According to petitioner, the names of prime assailants Anil Chabildas Chaudhary, Bunty Pathrode and Vijay Pathrode were shown deleted from the array of accused in the charge- sheet.Moreover, Investigating Agency did not apply sections 143, 144, 147, 148 and section 149 of the IPC in this crime.It has been contended that these alleged accused persons have an high level political connection and influential persons.Therefore, Police of Bhusawal Police Station failed to conduct investigation of the present crime in proper manner.The IO allowed the prime assailants to scot free from the charges pitted against them.It has been submitted that the petitioner is one of the eye witness and first informant of the incident.The assailants Anil Chabiladas Chaudhary, Nattu Chawariya, Gopal Shinde, Bunty Pathrode, Jacky Pathrode and Vijay Pathrode all brutally attacked his father by lethal weapons.He figured all these assailants in his FIR as well as described their overtacts in detail.The FIR came to be filed immediately after the occurrence of alleged incident.The IO also recorded statements of witnesses.The supplementary statement of first informant was recorded by the IO, in which he divulged about the involvement and participation of all these assailants in the alleged incident.There were circumstances to show prima facie complicity of these accused persons in this case.But, the Investigating Agency did not arrest the prime culprit nor proceeded to::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:26:13 ::: 7 WP-1619-15 interrogate them in regard to the alleged crime.According to first informant, the alleged incident was occurred in the broad day-light.According to petitioner, the entire investigation carried out in this crime is dishonest, tainted and biased, as such needs to be transferred to CBI or State Agency i.e. CID for further investigation.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:26:13 :::In order to substantiate contentions propounded on behalf of petitioner, attention of this Court was invited to the offences registered against alleged assailants, which are as under:vfuy Nfcynkl pkS/kjh] jk- HkqlkoG HkqlkoG cktkj Ikks-LVs- dMhy xqUgs v-ua Xkq-j-ua dye lífLFkrh 01 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 66@87 Hkknfo 324] 504 Ukk 'kkchr 02 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 168@88 Hkknfo 147] 148] 149] 504] 506 Ukk 'kkchr 03 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 52@92 Hkknfo 353] 332] 504] 34 Ukk 'kkchr 04 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 177@95 Hkknfo 353] 323] 504] 34 Ukk 'kkchr 05 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 90@2000 Hkknfo 147] 148] 149] 341] 506 vkeZ vWDV Ukk 'kkchr 4@25 06 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 118@01 Hkknfo 147] 148] 149] 427 Ukk 'kkchr 07 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 164@06 Hkknfo 143] eqiksvWd 135 U;k;izfo"B 08 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 166@06 Hkknfo 143] 341 eqiksvWd 135 U;k;izfo"B 09 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 179@06 Hkknfo 143] 147] 148] 149] 427] 324] U;k;izfo"B 504] fdz- ykW- vW d 7 10 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 181@06 Hkknfo 143] 147] 148] 149] 395] 323] 504] fdz- ykW- vW d 7 11 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 182@06 Hkknfo 143] 147] 148] 149] 395] 307] U;k;izfo"B 354] 323] 294] 504] 506] 427] fdz- ykW- vW d 7] eqa iks vW d 135 12 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 192@06 Hkknfo 143] 147] 148] 149] 353] 186] 332] U;k;izfo"B 427] fdz- ykW- vW d 7::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:26:13 ::: 8 WP-1619-15 13 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 26@11 Hkknfo 395] 384] 386] 504 vkeZ vWDV 25 ek- lqfize dksVZ] U;q o 27 fnYyh] ;kaps vkns'kkUo;s rikl Lfkfxrh 14 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 249@11 Hkknfo 387] 109 U;k;izfo"B 15 Hkkx 6 xq-j-ua- 71@11 Ekq iks vWDV 141] 142 U;k;izfo"B 16 Hkkx 6 xq-j-ua- 3008@13 EkqacbZ iksyhl vWDV dye 142 U;k;izfo"B 17 i- uk- dk- 100@11 Hkknfo 504] 506 U;k;izfo"B HkqlkoG rkyqdk Ikks-LVs- dMhy xqUgs v-ua Xkq-j-ua dye LífLFkrh 01 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 19@04 Hkknfo 353] 332] 323] 504] 506] 186 lg 'kkfcr 2 o"kZ lDr etqjh o yks- iz- dk- d- 130 3000 # naM 02 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 25@11 Hkknfo 307] 143] 147] 148] 120c] 323] ek- lqfize dksVZ] U;w fnYyh 504] 506] vkeZ vWDV 4@25 lg eq-iks-dk-d- ;kaps vkns'kkuqlkj rikl 135 Lfkfxrh HkqlkoG 'kgj Ikks-LVs- dMhy xqUgs v-ua Xkq-j-ua dye LífLFkrh 01 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 89@00 Hkknfo 307] 323] 504] 506] vkeZ vWDV 'kkfcr 2 o"kZ lDr etqjh o 3@25 2000 # naM 02 Hkkx 6 xq-j-ua- 40@05 eq-iks- vWDV dye 37¼1½¼3½ ps mYya/ku 135 U;k;izfo"B izek.ks 03 Hkkx 6 xq-j-ua- 43@06 izkWiVhZ MWest vWDV 1984 ps dye 3 U;k;izfo"B lkeusokyk fo#?n nk[ky vlysys vn[kyik= xqUgs v-ua iksyhl LVs'ku vn[kyik= xqUgk uksan dzekad vf/kfu;e o dye 01 Hkq- cktkjisB iks-Lvs- 461@10 Hkknfo d- 323] 504] 506] 02 Hkq- cktkjisB iks-Lvs- 100@11 Hkknfo d-504] 506] lkeusokyk fo#?n dsysyh izfrca/kd dk;Zokgh v-ua iksyhl LVs'ku gíikj izLrko dzekad@pW-ds-dz- Vf/kfu;e o dye 01 HklkoG cktkjisB pW-ds-dz-193@06 Lkhvkjihlh 110 ¼bZ½¼x½ 02 HklkoG cktkjisB pW-ds-dz-247@06 Lkhvkjihlh 107 03 HklkoG cktkjisB pW-ds-dz-47@09 Lkhvkjihlh 110 ¼bZ½¼x½ 04 HklkoG cktkjisB g-iz-dz-2@04 eq-iks-vWDV dz- 56¼c½¼MªkWi½ 05 HkqlkoG 'kgj LFkkuc?n dkjokbZ 01@11 Lkhvkjihlh 151 ¼3Z½izek.sk 06 HklkoG cktkjisB g-iz-dz-1@11 eq-iks-vWDV dz- 57¼v½¼1½ caVh ij'kqjke iFkjksM] jk- HkqlkoG HkqlkoG cktkj Ikks-LVs- dMhy xqUgs v-ua Xkq-j-ua dye lífLFkrh 01 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 60@05 307] 147]148] 149] 324] 323 02 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 85@06 294] 504] 506] 34::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:26:13 ::: 9 WP-1619-15 03 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 17@07 394 04 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 45@07 394 05 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 85@07 395] 147] 148] 149] 384] 323 06 Hkkx 6 xq-j-ua- 3020@15 vkeZ vWDV 4@25 07 i-uk-dk-jft-ua-99@15 323] 504] 506] 34 HkqlkoG 'kgj Ikks-LVs- dMhy xqUgs v-ua Xkq-j-ua dye LífLFkrh 01 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 11@07 147] 148] 149] 02 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 69@07 363 03 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 141@10 363] 376¼x½ HkqlkoG yksgekxZ Ikks-LVs- dMhy xqUgs v-ua Xkq-j-ua dye LífLFkrh 01 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 55@2012 394] 34 fot; ij'kqjke iFkjksM] jk- HkqlkoG HkqlkoG 'kgj Ikks-LVs- dMhy xqUgs v-ua Xkq-j-ua dye lífLFkrh 01 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 85@07 395 02 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 04@04 396 03 i-uk-dk-jft-ua-99@15 323] 504] 506] 34 tWfd mQZ txnh'k bany iFkjksM] jk- HkqlkoG HkqlkoG cktkjisB Ikks-LVs- dMhy xqUgs v-ua Xkq-j-ua dye lífLFkrh 02 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 180@06 143] 147] 148] 149] 395] 307] 324] 504] 506 03 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 183@06 143] 147] 148] 149] 395] 427] eq-iks- vW-d 135 o fdz-ykW- vW-d- 7 04 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 184@06 143] 147] 148] 149] 395] 452] 427] 435 eq-iks- vW-135 05 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 186@06 143] 147] 148] 149] 436] 427] 395]::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:26:13 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:26:13 :::01 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 85@07 39502 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 04@04 396iks- vW- 135 HkqlkoG 'kgj Ikks-LVs- dMhy xqUgs v-ua Xkq-j-ua dye lífLFkrh 01 Hkkx 5 xq-j-ua- 89@2000 Hkknfo 307] 323] 504] 506] vkeZ vWDV 3@25::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:26:13 ::: 10 WP-1619-15::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:26:13 :::It has been asserted on behalf of petitioner that all these assailants are habitual offenders and history-sheeters.Therefore, the independent witnesses of the crime found reluctant to come forward for giving evidence against these perpetrator of crime due to their fear and terror.These assailants are very well connected with political party i.e. Nationalist Congress Party and they are enjoying sufficient political clout.Therefore, the investigating Agency did not venture to lay their hands for arraigning these assailants in this case.Per contra, the learned prosecutor raised objections for transfer of investigation to any other Agency at the behest of petitioner and submits that the Investigating Agency has conducted the investigation promptly after registration of crime No. 128 of 2015 at the instance of petitioner.The IO recorded statements of witnesses acquainted with the facts of the case.Thereafter, IO picked up accused Nattu Chawariya, Gopal Shinde and Jacky Pathrode for the sake of investigation.So also, the weapons were recovered from their custody under section 27 of the Evidence Act. The investigation carried out uptil this date was not tainted and biased.The investigation was carried out by local Police as well as State CID in proper manner for collecting the evidence in this crime.The learned Public Prosecutor added that initially investigation was carried out by the local Police, however, in view of directions from the State Government, investigation came to be transferred to State CID and since then CID had taken charge of investigation into the crime.According to learned Prosecutor, the purpose of filing present petition has already been sub-served as::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:26:13 ::: 11 WP-1619-15 investigation has been transferred to the State CID.The learned Public Prosecutor further submits that, in view of investigation conducted by the State CID, petitioner might have satisfied with the investigation, and therefore, he sought withdrawal of the present petition.But, the act of seeking permission for withdrawal was objected by the Public Prosecutor on the ground that the investigation was ordered to be carried out under the supervision of this Court.According to learned Public Prosecutor, on appreciating the allegations nurtured on behalf of petitioner, this Court by virtue of judicial order has supervised and monitored the investigation till date and also recorded its satisfaction in regard to the quality of investigation.Therefore, there are no any extraordinary circumstances for requisite directions of transfer of the investigation of crime to CBI.The learned prosecutor prayed to dismiss the petition.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:26:13 :::We have given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on behalf of both sides.We have also delved into the factual aspects as well as relevant documents produced on record.The record adumbrates that this Court on 01-02-2016 issued notice and directed the concerned IO to remain present before this Court along with relevant documents of the investigation.Thereafter, on 15-02-2016 after verification of the entire investigation papers of the crime, this Court expressed displeasure and issued directions to the Superior Police Personnel i.e. Additional Superintendent of Police to file affidavit to evaluate the attending::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:26:13 ::: 12 WP-1619-15 circumstances of the investigation.This Court also sought explanation as to why charge-sheet was not filed against so called assailants, who are figured in the FIR and not arrested in this crime.Pursuant to directions of this Court, the concerned Additional Superintendent of Police has filed the affidavit and disclosed that investigation was carried out under his supervision and the same was not concluded though the charge-sheet came to be filed against three accused persons.He asserted that the investigation is in progress.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:26:13 :::It is worth to mention that during the course of hearing in the petition, on 09-06-2016, it was brought to the notice of this Court that in view of directions from the State Government, investigation of the crime came to be transferred from the local Police to State CID, but the issue of transmission of investigation to CID or CBI is subjudice before this Court.Therefore, the State CID found reluctant to take over the charge of investigation into the crime.Thereafter, this Court was pleased to direct the concerned State CID to accept the responsibility of investigation into the crime and proceed further for collecting evidence.The liberty was also granted to the concerned CID to file supplementary charge-sheet, if any, required in this crime.It is strange to appreciate that pending petition before this Court, learned counsel Mr. Jivan J. Patil appearing for the petitioner sought discharge and advocate Mr. Yogesh L. Dalal seeks permission to continue his appearance on behalf of petitioner in this mater.But, the said prayer of withdrawal of petition was objected by the learned Public Prosecutor.However, this Court by exercising supervisory jurisdiction called the detail report from the Investigating Agency as well as directed the concerned Investigating Officer of the State CID to remain present in the Court.It was advised to carry out meaningful investigation into the present crime.It was further revealed from the record that on 11-08-2016, this Court expressed its satisfaction about the manner in which investigation was carried out and adjourned the matter for further hearing.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:26:13 :::The aforesaid factual scenario impelled to arrive at the conclusion that prayer of the petitioner to the extent of transfer of investigation to the State CID has already been redressed after requisite directions from the State Government itself.As such, his prayer to that extent has rendered infructuous one.Thereafter, the petitioner himself prayed for withdrawal of the present petition without mentioning any cause for the same.These circumstances are indicative of redressal of grievance of the petitioner in relating to mode and manner in which the investigation was carried out into the crime.It is evident from all these circumstances that most of the part of investigation was carried out under the supervision of this Court.In such background, if the pleadings of the petitioner are considered and scrutinized, the allegations of political influential as well as perfunctory::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:26:13 ::: 14 WP-1619-15 and bias investigation nurtured on behalf of petitioner appear not sustainable and considerable one in this case.There are no prima facie circumstances available on record to show the necessity of investigation into the crime by the Central Agency like CBI.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:26:13 :::(b)Second Statement on 30.7.2015 (1)Nattu Chavariya before CID (2)Gopal Shinde::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:26:13 ::: 15 WP-1619-15 C Vivek Sarsar (1)Nattu Chavariya::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:26:13 :::(a)First Statement on 11.7.2015 (2)Gopal Shinde(b)Second Statement on 10.8.2016 (1)Nattu Chavariya (2)Gopal Shinde D Vishnu Sokiya (1)Nattu Chavariya(a)First Statement on 7.8.2015 (2)Gopal Shinde(b)Second Statement u/s. 164 on Nobody's name 14.8.2015 E Pralhad Gharu Anil Choudhary and 5E Pralhad Gharu Anil Choudhary and 5(a)Affidavit on 10.12.2015 unnamed persons(b)Statement before Police on (1)Anil Choudhary 23.2.2016 (2)Nattu Chavariya (3)Gopal Shinde (4)Jacky Pathrode (5)Vijay Pathrode (6)Bunty Pathrode(c)Statement on 27.8.2016 before (1)Anil Choudhary CID (2)Nattu Chavariya (3)Gopal Shinde (4)Jacky Pathrode (5)Vijay Pathrode (6)Bunty Pathrode(c) Letter dated 9.8.2015 Denied earlier affidavit and all Statements(d)Statement u/s. 164 F Vinod Ghengat Anil Choudhary and 5F Vinod Ghengat Anil Choudhary and 5(a)Affidavit on 10.12.2015 unnamed persons(b)Statement by Police on 10.2.2016 (1)Anil Choudhary (2)Gopal Shinde (3)Nattu Chavariya (4)Jacky Pathrode (5)Bunty Pathrode (6)Vijay Pathrode::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:26:13 ::: 16 WP-1619-15::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:26:13 :::(c)Statement on 23.7.2016 before (1)Bunty Pathrode CID (2)Vijay Pathrode (3)Nattu Chavariya (4)Gopal Shinde (5)Jacky Pathrode(d)Letter dated 9.8.2016 Denied earlier Affidavit and all StatementsAt this juncture, in view of recitals of the FIR and supplementary statement of first informant Mithun recorded by the IO, we find it painful to accept the proposition putforth on behalf of IO that there is no sufficient evidence against the assailant Anil Chaudhary, Bunty Pathrode and Vijay Pathrode.It is the settled principle of law that the sole evidence of solitary witness, if found credible and trustworthy, would base the conviction.Admittedly, the FIR recorded under section 154 of Cr.P.C. is an vital and important piece of evidence and it can be used under section 157 of the Evidence Act for corroboration to the version of first informant being an former statement recorded by the Police prior to registration of crime.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:26:13 :::Be that as it may be, it is also worth to mention that the Courts of law are not powerless and in case, during the course of trial the Sessions Court come across with circumstances that the persons who are not arraigned in this crime, found guilty of the offence, they could be tried together with other co-accused.The provisions of section 319 of the Cr.P.C. contemplates the powers to proceed against other persons found guilty of offence which reads as under :Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence -(1) Where, in the course of any inquiry::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:26:13 ::: 18 WP-1619-15 into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:26:13 :::Moreover, learned trial Court may also call for report directing further investigation if any required into the matter.In such circumstances, we do not find it just and proper to entertain the petition at the behest of petitioner for any relief as prayed.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:26:13 :::23 WP-1619-15It is evident from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement that the Hon'ble Apex Court and High Court have every power to order further investigation, fresh or de-novo investigation into the matter, provided appropriate case to that effect is to be made out.In the instant case, there is no justifiable circumstances on record to issue directions for fresh investigation.In contrast, most of the investigation was carried out under the supervision of this Court.The Criminal writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
|
['Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
62,565,387 |
Brief facts stated are that, deceased Rakesh got married to Accused Prabha on 11.12.2008, as per Hindu rites and customs at Delhi.The Deceased and Accused Prabha lived together for 6-7 months as husband and wife in same home, later, some differences arose between them, consequently, Accused Prabha left matrimonial home and started staying with her parents in paternal home in House No. B-401, Gali No. 9, Meethapur, Om Nagar, Delhi.Deceased was having visiting terms at his in law's house and oftenly used to meet CRL.A. Nos. 733/2017, 996/2017 & 623/2017 Page 2 of 32 Accused Prabha at Meethapur house, deceased shared this information with his father Khadak Prasad.A. Nos. 733/2017, 996/2017 & 623/2017 Page 2 of 32On 04.05.2011 at about 3 PM father of Accused Prabha calls father of deceased and tells him that his son had gone to Rajasthan to attend marriage of a friend and he (father of Accused Prabha) himself alongwith his wife is going to Jhansi to attend a marriage leaving behind his niece Mamta and his daughter Prabha in Meethapur house.He asked if deceased Rakesh would accompany the girls at Meethapur house.This information was given by Khadak Prasad to his son Rakesh (deceased), to which Rakesh agreed and went to Meethapur house on the same day.Deceased Rakesh on 05.05.2011 at about 9 AM came back to his own house.On same day at about 5 PM, brother of deceased, Balram, intimated to, Accused Prabha that deceased would not be joining them at Meethapur house on that night.Next day on 06.05.2011, Accused Prabha made a call to his Father in law Khadak Prasad for sending Rakesh to accompany them at Meethapur house as they feel frightened at night due to absence of male member in the house.He reached to house of Prabha on 06.05.2011 at about 8:30 PM and he informed the same to his younger brother Balram at about 9 PM.On the next day i.e. 07.05.2011 Balram calls deceased on his phone No. 9873813447 and the same was found switched off.Thereafter, Balram calls Accused Prabha to find out whereabouts of his brother, Accused Prabha tells to Balram that Rakesh left her house CRL.A. Nos. 733/2017, 996/2017 & 623/2017 Page 3 of 32 at about 6 AM.Subsequently, Balram keeps on calling the deceased, but the mobile phone of Rakesh was found to be switched off.Subsequently, father of the deceased (Khadak Prasad) visited the Meethapur house and had a talk with his Daughter in Law Accused Prabha who tells him that deceased left her house at about 6 AM, she further tells him that deceased was trying to leave at 10 PM on motorcycle but she stopped him by taking away key of his motorcycle.A. Nos. 733/2017, 996/2017 & 623/2017 Page 3 of 32On the basis of the missing report DD No. 32A was got registered, investigation was carried out by ASI Jitender who collected the call detail records of phone No. 9911751609 from office of ACP and investigated the call details.PW3/A was recorded which created suspicion on Prabha, Sachin and one Arjit.On basis of the statement, FIR No.134/11 was registered under Sections 364 IPC and further investigation was handed over to SI Dara Singh.Thereafter, further investigation was handed over to Inspector Surender Singh, who after going through CDR found frequent calls from Phone No. 9891417631, which on checking was found out to be of Sachin.He then formed a team including ASI Rajpal, ASI Jitender, Ct.Jagat and other police staff and apprehended Sachin at Old Bus Station, Ghaziabad, U.P. and after interrogation Accused Sachin was arrested vide Arrest Memo Ex.PW11/A. Later, Inspector Madan Pal Bhati too joined the investigation and accused Sunil was apprehended CRL.A. Nos. 733/2017, 996/2017 & 623/2017 Page 4 of 32 within 2 hours at the pointing out of accused Sachin.The accused Sunil was interrogated and was arrested vide Arrest Memo Ex.PW11/C. Accused Sachin and Accused Sunil made Disclosure Statement Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B respectively.A. Nos. 733/2017, 996/2017 & 623/2017 Page 4 of 327. Accused Sachin in his Disclosure Statement admitted his involvement and his guilt and stated that co-accused Prabha is known to him prior to the incident as both were classmates in DPMI Institute, Ashok Nagar.He stated that he and Prabha became friends about 6 months back and they both used to visit each others house in absence of their parents and also used to chat on mobile phone.Co-accused Prabha on 01.05.2011 disclosed to accused Sachin that her parents are going to Jhansi, U.P. on 06.05.2011 and her brother is already at Rajasthan for his friend's marriage at the same time and they made a plan to eliminate deceased Rakesh by calling him at her Meethapur house and accused Sachin should arrange sleeping pills.For the aforesaid purpose, he took help of his Alto Car driver Accused Sunil, as per the plan, Co-accused Prabha made a call to him on 06.05.2011 at about 10:30 PM that she has called her husband Rakesh at her house and she has already mixed Alprax in mirinda soft drink which she gave to Rakesh to drink and after consuming the said mirinda, Rakesh fell in CRL.A. Nos. 733/2017, 996/2017 & 623/2017 Page 5 of 32 deep sleep at her house and then Prabha instructed Sachin to come soon at her house to execute their plan.Accused Sachin conveyed this plan to Co-accused Sunil and told him that their duty is to strangulate Rakesh as he is already lying intoxicated in Prabha's house and they took Alto car No. UP 16 AC 1329 silver color belonging to Sachin and reached Prabha's house at about 12 AM on 07.05.2011 and Prabha opened the door.Rakesh was lying on the bed in front room in deep sleep, in one another room Mamta (Cousin sister of Accused Prabha) was lying in deep sleep too.Thereafter, Prabha handed over her chunni to strangulate Rakesh who was lying on the bed, Sachin alongwith Sunil strangulated Rakesh while Prabha held Rakesh's legs and eliminated Rakesh on the bed.Accused Sachin on the way threw away the Motorcycle in the bushes near Pushta Road and boarded Alto Car.Co-accused Sunil drove car towards Gopalpur Village and after crossing Gopalpur they threw away the dead body of Rakesh into the bushes and they came back to their house at Ghaziabad.The Co- accused Prabha remained in touch via Phone No. 8750240715 with Sachin on Phone No. 9891417631 and was keeping close watch to give effect to proper execution of their plan.Accused Sachin intimated the throwing of Motorcycle and dead body in the respective places to Prabha.A. Nos. 733/2017, 996/2017 & 623/2017 Page 5 of 32Both Accused Persons Sachin and Sunil led the police party to UPSIDC Jungle.I.O. alongwith the complainant Kharak Prasad took CRL.A. Nos. 733/2017, 996/2017 & 623/2017 Page 6 of 32 both the accused persons alongwith the police staff to PS Sikandarabad, Bulland Sher where necessary information was given and SI Dirender Singh accompanied the I.O. alongwith the other staff and left PS Sikandarabad towards the place where both accused persons Sachin and Sunil pointed out the dead body of Rakesh at Gopalpur Village near UPSIDC Jungle and pointed out the place where they threw the dead body of Rakesh.I.O. videographed the site with a private camera where dead body was found and made Site Plan Ex.PW11/DB.I.O. thereafter collected exhibits vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW13/A from the site and made Panchnama Ex.PW2/C of the skeleton of Deceased Rakesh all the exhibits were deposited into the Malkhana of PS Sikandarabad.He also called crime team, photographer took photo of the site and draughtsman made Scaled Site Plan Ex.PW17/DA.Thereafter, at the pointing out of the accused Sachin and Sunil skeleton dead body alongwith dark grey pant, grey shirt and shoes which complainant told that Deceased worn on the date of the incident, same was recovered.The skeleton, pant, shirt and shoes of the deceased were taken into possession vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW3/DA, same were deposited in Malkhana PS Sikandrabad, Bulland Sher and I.O. recorded statement of the witnesses and further investigation was handed over to Inspector Madanpal Bhati.A. Nos. 733/2017, 996/2017 & 623/2017 Page 6 of 32The I.O. Inspector Madan Pal Bhati on 23.05.2011 alongwith HC Shyamlal and W/Ct.Shakuntala left PS Jaitpur in search of Accused Prabha.They reached to house of Prabha, House No. B-401, Gali No.9, Om Nagar, Jaitpur, New Delhi, and interrogated Accused CRL.A. Nos. 733/2017, 996/2017 & 623/2017 Page 7 of 32 Prabha and later she was arrested vide Arrest Memo Ex.PW10/A. She made Disclosure Statement Ex.PW10/C.A. Nos. 733/2017, 996/2017 & 623/2017 Page 7 of 32In pursuance to the Disclosure Statement, accused Prabha led the police team to her house on 24.05.2011 and got recovered one chunni which was used to strangulate Rakesh, same was seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.She told first one was her own number and second one was given to her by Sachin, same were seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW36/A.On 24.05.2011, in pursuance to Disclosure Statement of Accused Sachin, he got recovered Alto Car No. UP 16 AC 1329 same was seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW9/A in which Dead Body of the Deceased Rakesh was transported from the house of the co-accused Prabha to Gopalpur Village near UPSIDC Jungle where the body was then thrown.Accused Sunil too got recovered the Motorcycle of Rakesh parked near his house, House No.282, Rajiv Colony, Ghaziabad, U.P. Motorcycle was without registration plate and was having engine No. MJC40E9043529 and chassis No. ME4JC402M88022539 which matched to the motorcycle of Rakesh and was seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.On 10.06.2011, I.O. Inspector Madan Pal Bhati joined Father and Mother of the deceased and took them to FSL Rohini for their blood collection for the purpose of DNA Matching.FSL Report Ex.PW31/C-1 and Ex.PW31/C was filed later.Thereafter, I.O. Inspector Madan Pal Bhati was transferred from PS Jaitpur.On CRL.A. Nos. 733/2017, 996/2017 & 623/2017 Page 8 of 32 21.07.2011 further investigation was carried out by Inspector Vipin Kumar Sharma.A. Nos. 733/2017, 996/2017 & 623/2017 Page 8 of 32In pursuance to her Disclosure Statement, On 16.08.2011 Prabha also got recovered Handkerchief and Socks of Deceased Rakesh which were seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW13/C. On the same day, I.O. Inspector Vipin Kumar Sharma alongwith Ct.Kishan Pal gone to Principal, DPMI and got admission documents of Accused Prabha and Sachin, same were seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW13/B.Shakuntala (PW12), Ct.Deceased being in the company of Prabha on intervening night of 6th and 7th May 2011 is corroborated with the statement of PW2 Balram (Brother of the deceased) who has stated that on 06.05.2011 Rakesh left house on his Motorcycle No. DL6S AD 1670 to reach house of Prabha in Meethapur.Balram called Rakesh at around 9:30 PM to his Phone No. 9873813447 and Rakesh confirmed that he has reached Prabha's house.He also deposed that he called Prabha on 07.05.2011 at about 8 AM to know whereabouts of Rakesh and Prabha told him that Rakesh already left her house at 6 AM.A. Nos. 733/2017, 996/2017 & 623/2017 Page 14 of 32"I neither called PW-2 Balram nor PW3 Khadak Prasad as alleged.However, it is correct that in the evening of 06.05.2011, at about 8-8:15 PM, Rakesh had come to my house on a motorcycle."It is thus clear that deceased Rakesh stayed at house of Prabha on the intervening night of 6th and 7th of May 2011 and thereafter he went missing which led to registration of missing person report vide DD No. 32A on 08.05.2011 by Khadak Prasad.CALL DETAIL RECORDSThe house of the Appellant Prabha is situated at House No. B- 401, Gali No. 9, Meethapur, Om Nagar, Delhi.The Appellant Sachin resides at House No. 454, Gali No.3, Sanjay Colony, Arthala, Ghaziabad, U.P. as per his Customer Application Form Ex.The CDR Ex.PW19/A of Mobile No. 9891417631 (Sachin) and CDR Ex.The Location chart of Vodafone, Delhi Ex.PW24/H shows that deceased Rakesh and Appellant Sunil were at the location Cell ID No. 3148 i.e. Om Nagar, Meethapur.The location of phone No. 9911751609 and 8750240715 was at Cell ID No. 11711 of IDEA (as per PW19) which also shows location of Om Nagar, Meethapur.Admittedly, deceased Rakesh was at House No. B-401, Gali No. 9, Meethapur, Om Nagar, Delhi after 8:30PM onward alongwith his Wife Prabha and Mamta.The Appellant Sachin resides at House No. 454, Gali No.3, Sanjay Colony, Arthala, Ghaziabad, U.P. The Appellant Sunil resides at House No. 282, Rajiv Colony, Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad, U.P. however, the mobile phone of appellant Sachin and Sunil shows that they were in the location of the Meethapur and the conversation taken place among them is reproduced as under:Date Time From To Duration Location of Cell ID Location Remarks in (Secs) 6.5.11 17:15 9891417631 9811713764 28 9891417631 46222 N/A Sachin calls Sunil.A. Nos. 733/2017, 996/2017 & 623/2017 Page 16 of 32A. Nos. 733/2017, 996/2017 & 623/2017 Page 17 of 32The CDRs indicates that deceased Rakesh was present at the house of his wife Prabha after 8:30 PM on 06.05.2011 and went missing before 8 AM on 07.05.2011 and both the appellant Sachin and Appellant Sunil were in the location of Meethapur instead of their respective residence.ARREST Sachin CRL.A. Nos. 733/2017, 996/2017 & 623/2017 Page 18 of 32A. Nos. 733/2017, 996/2017 & 623/2017 Page 18 of 32Prosecution has examined Ct.Gajender Pal Singh PW11 who joined investigation on 21.05.2011 alongwith SHO Insp.Surender PW34, HC Satyanarayan PW14, Complainant Kharak Prasad PW3 and other police officials and visited house of Accused Sachin where he was found missing and on 22.05.2011, on pointing out of the secret informer, Accused Sachin was arrested from Old Bus Stand, Ghaziabad, U.P. near Santosh Medical College.One LG Mobile phone from his possession was also got recovered vide Memo Ex.PW21/B.. The statement of PW11 is corroborated with statement of Insp.Surender (PW34), SI Jitender (PW21) and HC Satyanarayan (PW14).Accused/Appellant Sachin did not examine any witness to prove otherwise.Thus, it is apparent from Arrest Memo Ex.PW11/A, Personal Search Memo Ex.PW11/B, Disclosure Statement Ex.PW2/A and the ocular statement of aforesaid witnesses that Accused Sachin was arrested at Ghaziabad, U.P. from Old Bus Stand near Santosh Medical College on 22.05.2011 at about 2:15 PM.Prosecution has examined Ct.Gajender Pal Singh PW11 who joined the investigation on 21.05.2011 alongwith SHO Insp.Surender PW34, HC Satyanarayan PW14, Complainant Kharak Prasad PW3 and other police officials.Accused Sunil was arrested at the pointing out of Co-Accused Sachin from opposite Santosh Medical College Main Gate vide Arrest Memo Ex.PW11/C at about 4 PM.Accused Sunil have neither denied his arrest at the pointing out of Co-Accused Sachin nor he lead any evidence on this material point to prove CRL.A. Nos. 733/2017, 996/2017 & 623/2017 Page 19 of 32 contrary.Thus, the ocular statement of the aforesaid witnesses and available records prove that the Accused Sunil was arrested at pointing out of Co-Accused Sachin on 22.05.2011 at about 4 PM and was arrested from Opposite of Santosh Medical College Main Gate, Ghaziabad, U.P.Madan Pal Bhati PW36 and W/Ct.Shakuntala PW12 and they reached house of Prabha i.e. House No. B- 401, Gali No. 9, Meethapur, Om Nagar, Delhi and they met Accused Prabha.I.O. Insp.Madan Pal Bhati interrogated her and she made Disclosure Statement Ex.PW10/C and she was arrested vide Arrest Memo Ex.PW10/B. The statement of HC Shayam Lal PW10 is corroborated with statement of Insp.Madan Pal Bhati PW36 and W/Ct.Accused Prabha neither deny her arrest from her house nor she has lead any evidence on this material point to prove contrary.In pursuance to their Disclosure Statements both the Accused persons led the police team to a place where both of them threw away the dead body of Deceased Rakesh on 07.05.2011 into UPSIDC Jungle and got recovered the Dead Body and belongings of deceased Rakesh as per the Site Plan Ex.PW11/DB.They got recovered Skeleton (Jaw bone, big leg bone, 2-3 other bones), clothes i.e. grey shirt and dark grey pant and black shoes of deceased Rakesh which were identified by complainant Khadak Prasad and the articles were seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW13/A and Panchnama Ex.Or, two persons in custody may be interrogated separately and simultaneously and both of them may furnish similar information leading to the discovery of fact.Or, in rare cases, both the accused may reduce the information into writing and hand over the written notes to the police officer at the same time.We do not think that such disclosures by two or more persons in police custody go out of the purview of Section 27 altogether.If information is given one after the other without any break almost simultaneously, and if such information is followed up by pointing out the material thing by both of them, we find no good reason to eschew such evidence from the regime of Section 27. "The contention of Ld. Counsel for Appellant Sachin and Sunil that police already knew the place where Skeleton was thrown is not convincing as the suspicion against Sachin and Sunil arisen on the basis of CDR and not on the basis of telephonic call recording and there was no occasion for the prosecution to get information of the CRL.A. Nos. 733/2017, 996/2017 & 623/2017 Page 23 of 32 location of the dead body of deceased Rakesh.The recovery of dead body was got effected at the instance of both the accused persons.A. Nos. 733/2017, 996/2017 & 623/2017 Page 23 of 32Recovery of Sachin's Mobile (9891417631)The prosecution has examined SI Jitender PW21 who deposed that he joined the investigation in the present case and on 22.05.2011 Accused Sachin was apprehended on the pointing out of the secret informer and proved Ex.PW21/B which indicates during interrogation, one Mobile phone from his possession got recovered from Old Bus Stand, Ghaziabad, U.P., same was seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW21/B. This statement is corroborated with the statement of I.O. Insp.The Seizure Memo Ex.Accused Sachin does not deny in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that LG phone and phone number does not belong to him.Thus, the ocular statement of the aforesaid witnesses and available records prove that the said LG Mobile Phone was recovered at the instance of Accused Sachin on 22.05.2011 which goes against Accused Sachin.Recovery of Alto Car (UP-16-AC-1329)The prosecution has examined I.O. Insp.Madan Pal Bhati PW36 of PS Jaitpur who deposed that he on 24.05.2011 alongwith Ct.Gajender PW9, Ct.Ajay PW11, W/Ct.Shakuntala PW12 and Ct.Kiran Pal PW13 were lead by the accused Sachin to his house in Sanjay Colony, Ghaziabad, U.P. and there he pointed out his Alto Car CRL.The finding of the court below, the Alto car UP 16 AC 1329 which was used in the commission of the offence was in the name of Prabha is contrary to the records.The Ex.PW29/B indicates the Alto car does not belong to Accused Prabha.However, the Alto car is registered in the name of Girwar Singh, father of accused Sachin.Ajay PW9, I.O. Insp.Madan Pal Bhati PW36 and other police officials.Accused Sunil in pursuance to his further Disclosure Statement Ex.A. Nos. 733/2017, 996/2017 & 623/2017 Page 25 of 32MEDICAL EVIDENCE Post mortem ReportThe prosecution has examined Dr. Sachin Kumar PW25 who conducted the Post Mortem of the dead body of Deceased Rakesh on 24.05.2011 which was brought by Ct.The Post Mortem Report proved is Ex.PW25/A. The para 15 of said Post Mortem Report is reproduced as under:-"cause of death, sex, age and duration (since of death) could not be ascertain hence bones preserved for further examination."PW25/A indicates death but cause of death, sex, age and duration since death could not be ascertained.FSL Report (DNA Report)Prosecution has examined I.O. Insp.Madan Pal Bhati PW36 who deposed that on 10.06.2011 he took Kharak Prasad PW3 and Smt. Dharmi PW4 (Father and Mother of the Deceased) to CFSL Rohini for taking their blood samples for purpose of DNA Profile and Ct.Girish PW16 brought sealed pulanda of bones from PS Jaitpur MHC(M) to FSL Rohini and the same were deposited in FSL Rohini.FSL Officials took the blood sample of Khadak Prasad and Smt. Dharmi.A. Nos. 733/2017, 996/2017 & 623/2017 Page 26 of 32Prosecution has examined SI Manish Kumar PW32 who too deposed that on 25.05.2011 he was posted in PS Jaitpur.On that day, he alongwith HC Kanwar Singh PW15 went to PS Kotwali, Secunderabad, U.P. and collected exhibits i.e. One cloth pulanda, one other cloth pulanda containing clothes and shoes, one glass jar and one vial all of which were sealed with seal of PMBSR of that police station.He seized the same vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW3/DA and he recorded the statement of HC Prem Singh.He deposited the said articles in Malkhana and recorded the statement of HC Kanwar Singh.Prosecution examined HC Girish PW16 who deposed that he on 10.08.2011 was posted in PS Jaitpur.The aforesaid case property was deposited to the MHC(M) by him against the register of MHC(M) and the case property was not tampered with till it remained in his possession.Copy of RC in Ex.PW16/A and the receipt of FSL Rohini is Ex.PW16/B.Prosecution has examined HC Rajbir Singh PW29 who deposed that on 22.05.2011 he was posted as MHC(M) in PS Jaitpur, Insp.Madan Pal Bhati PW36 deposited two sealed pulanda with seal of "MP" in Malkhana.DESCRIPTION OF THE SOURCE Forensic Sample received Parcel 1: One sealed cloth parcel sealed with the seal of "PMBSR" containing exhibit '1'.Exhibit 1: One skull with teeth,two long bones and one piece of rib.Two teeth taken out from skull for Examination.DNA EXAMINATION:The exhibit '1' was subjected to DNA isolation.The DNA was isolated from the exhibit '1' and DNA profile was prepared for the exhibit 'I'.STR analysis was used for the sample.Data was analyzed by using Genescan and Genotyper Software.RESULTS OF EXAMINATION The alleles from the source of exhibit '2' (Blood sample of Smt Dharmi Bai) & exhibit '3' (Blood sample of Sh.Karak Singh) vide FSL No 2011/DNA-3060 are accounted in the alleles as from the source of exhibit '1' (teeth).A. Nos. 733/2017, 996/2017 & 623/2017 Page 28 of 32I. S. MEHTA, J.Instant Criminal Appeals arise from the Judgment dated 27.05.2017 and Order on Sentence dated 02.06.2017 in SC No. 2216/2016, arising from FIR No. 134/2011, PS Jaitpur, New Delhi, whereby the Appellant/Accused Sachin, Appellant/Accused Sunil and Appellant/Accused Prabha were convicted under Section 302, 120B and 201 IPC; and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 3,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC, and imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC; and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.Subsequently, on 21.05.2011 statement of Khadak Prasad Ex.The Trial Court framed the charge on 11.01.2012 against the accused persons Sachin, Sunil and Prabha under Section 120B, 328, 302 and 201 IPC and Accused Persons pleaded not guilty.Prosecution examined 38 witnesses SI Hira Singh (PW1), Balram (PW2), Khadak Prasad (PW3), Smt. Dharmi (PW4), Karamvir Singh (PW5), Rajvir Singh (PW6), Rati Ram (PW7), Smt. Mamta (PW8), Ct.Ajay (PW9), HC Shyam Lal (PW10), Ct.Gajender Pal Singh (PW11), W/Ct.Kiran Pal (PW13), HC Satya Narayan (PW14), HC Kanwar Singh (PW15), HC Girish Kumar (PW16), Ct.Joginder Singh (PW17), Ct.Amrendra Pratap Singh (PW18), Pawan Singh (PW19), Ct.Surendra Kumar (PW20), SI Jitender (PW21), Deepak (PW22), SI Dirender Singh (PW23), Anuj Bhatia (PW24), Dr. Sachin Kumar (PW25), Chander Seikar (PW26), CRL.A. Nos. 733/2017, 996/2017 & 623/2017 Page 9 of 32 ASI Prem Chand (PW27), Pratap Singh (PW28), HC Rajbir Singh (PW29), SI Dara Singh (PW30), Inspector Vipin Kumar Sharma (PW31), SI Manish Kumar (PW32), Inspector Mahesh Kumar (PW33), Inspector Surender Singh (PW34), Ms. Shashi Bala (PW35), Inspector Madan Pal Bhati (PW36), HC Hari Singh (PW37) and Ct.Ravinder Kumar (PW38).A. Nos. 733/2017, 996/2017 & 623/2017 Page 9 of 32Arguments were heard and evidence was recorded by the Trial Court.Appellant/Accused Persons aggrieved from the said judgment and Order on Sentence preferred instant appeals.Counsels on behalf of Accused/Appellant Sachin and Accused/Appellant Sunil submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove conspiracy in the instant case.Counsels further submitted that the arrest of Accused Sachin was dated 22.05.2011 at 2:15 PM from Old Bus Stand, Ghaziabad, U.P. and arrest of Sunil was on the same day at 4 PM from Opposite Santosh Medical College and both in pursuance to their Disclosure Statement got recovered Dead Body (Skeleton), clothes and shoes of the Deceased Rakesh from UPSIDC Jungle vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW13/A are of no consequence as the prosecution was already in knowledge of the place of recovery on the basis of electronic evidence available with them.Counsels further submitted that the subsequent recoveries at the instance of Sachin in pursuance to his Disclosure Statement of Alto Car (UP 16 AC 1329) vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW9/A on 24.05.2011 from near his house, CRL.A. Nos. 733/2017, 996/2017 & 623/2017 Page 10 of 32 House No. 454, Gali No.3, Sanjay Colony, Ghaziabad, U.P. and recovery by Accused Sunil in pursuance to his Disclosure Statement of Motorcycle Honda Stunner (DL 6S AD 1670) belonging to deceased Rakesh vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW9/B on 24.05.2011 from near his house, House No. 282, Rajiv Colony, Ghaziabad, U.P. are hit by Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act as all the facts were already in the knowledge of the police on the basis of the electronic evidence.He further stated that recovery of the car and motorcycle was effected 3 days later, hence the recoveries are not admissible evidence qua the Appellant/Accused Sachin and Sunil.A. Nos. 733/2017, 996/2017 & 623/2017 Page 10 of 32The Ld. Counsel Inderjeet Sidhu on behalf of Appellant Sunil further submitted that Appellant Sunil was not named in the FIR and the prosecution has failed to adduce any legal evidence against appellants for participating in conspiracy to murder and is entitiled to acquittal for benefit of doubt.He relied on Koli Mala Bijal v. State AIR 1954 Kutch 22, Jaffer Hussain v. State AIR 1970 Crl.L.J. 1659, Manoj Kumar v. State 196 (2013) DLT 243 (9DB) and Ram Kishore @ Romi v. State 2016 Law Suit (Delhi).Counsel Joginder Tuli on behalf of Accused Prabha has submitted that the prosecution failed to prove conspiracy against Appellant Prabha, the Call Detail Records of Co-Appellant Sachin Mobile No. 9891417631 and two other numbers 9911751609 is in name of one Varun and No. 8750240715 in name of one Beni Singh, both the owners of their respective mobile numbers have not been examined to prove that in fact said two numbers were not used by them.Counsel further submitted that the recovery of 2 SIM cards CRL.A. Nos. 733/2017, 996/2017 & 623/2017 Page 11 of 32 and mobile phone from Prabha is not legally proved as admitted by PW36 Inspector Madan Pal Bhati that the ownership of mobile phone alleged to be recovered from house of Prabha was from a room which was already open.Counsel further submitted that prosecution failed to examine the manager/owner of the DPMI institute to prove that Appellants Prabha and Sachin were student of DPMI institute and knew each other prior to the date of the incident.Counsel further submitted that the court below went wrong in saying that Alto car no. UP 16 AC 1329 recovered at the instance of Co-Accused Sachin was owned by Prabha.He relied on State of Karnataka v. M.V. Mahesh (2003) 3 SCC 353, Digambar Vaishnav & Ors.A. Nos. 733/2017, 996/2017 & 623/2017 Page 11 of 32On the contrary, Ld. APP for State submitted that prosecution has proved complete chain of the circumstance against all the accused persons and Court below has rightly convicted the accused persons.He relied on Inder Singh & Anr.Statement of Mamta PW8 is further corroborated with PW3 Khadak Prasad who too says that he received call from Prabha on 06.05.2011 at about 4 PM on his mobile and Prabha requested to send Rakesh to her house as she feel scared in absence of male members and thereafter Rakesh went to the house of Prabha on his motorcycle CRL.A. Nos. 733/2017, 996/2017 & 623/2017 Page 14 of 32 and on the next morning when his son Balram tried to contact Rakesh on his phone, his phone was switched off.The statement of PW8 Mamta is not disputed by Prabha in her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Answer to Q.12 is reproduced as under:The Appellant Sachin also applied for Driving Licence, the application Form of Driving Licence Ex.PW19/G bears same address as that in his Customer Application Form.The Appellant Sunil resides at House No. 282, Rajiv Colony, Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad, U.P. as per his Customer Application Form Ex.The Appellant Sunil also applied for Driving Licence, the application CRL.A. Nos. 733/2017, 996/2017 & 623/2017 Page 15 of 32 Form of Driving Licence Ex.PW22/D bears same address as that in his Customer Application Form.A. Nos. 733/2017, 996/2017 & 623/2017 Page 15 of 32PW10/A and her Personal Search was got conducted by W/Ct.Shakuntala vide Personal Search Memo Ex.Thus, the ocular statement of the aforesaid witnesses and available records prove that the Accused Prabha was arrested on 23.05.2011 at about 9:30 AM vide her Arrest Memo Ex.PW10/A.RECOVERY Recovery of Dead Body (Skeleton) at instance of Accused persons Sachin and Sunil CRL.A. Nos. 733/2017, 996/2017 & 623/2017 Page 20 of 32A. Nos. 733/2017, 996/2017 & 623/2017 Page 20 of 32During interrogation on 22.05.2011 Accused Sachin made Disclosure Statement Ex.PW2/A and confessed to his involvement in commission of the crime with the help of Accused Sunil and others, on his pointing out Accused Sunil too was arrested within 2 hours.Both the accused persons were arrested on the same day.A. Nos. 733/2017, 996/2017 & 623/2017 Page 22 of 32 person.But, that is too narrow a view to be taken.A. Nos. 733/2017, 996/2017 & 623/2017 Page 22 of 32A. Nos. 733/2017, 996/2017 & 623/2017 Page 24 of 32 bearing Number UP16 AC 1329 which was used in the commission of the offence, same was seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW9/A. The said statement is corroborated with the statement of Ct. Gajender and Ct.Accused Sachin in his statement under Section 313 Cr.A. Nos. 733/2017, 996/2017 & 623/2017 Page 24 of 32The car was released to Girwar Singh vide Malkhana register Ex.PW29/B.Recovery of Motorcycle of deceased Rakesh (DL-6S-AD-1670)Prosecution has examined Ct.PW9/C lead the police team to his house in a Moholla (Rajiv Colony, Ghazibad, U.P.) and pointed out a motorcycle belonging to deceased Rakesh which was without Number plate and was having engine No. MJC40E9043529 and chassis No. ME4JC402M88022539 which matched to the motorcycle of Rakesh and was seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW9/B. Accused Sunil in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C does not deny that the aforesaid CRL.A. Nos. 733/2017, 996/2017 & 623/2017 Page 25 of 32 motorcycle did not belong to Rakesh.Statement of Ct.Gajender is corroborated with the statement of Ct. Ajay and I.O. Insp.Madan Pal Bhati which goes against the accused Sunil.On the same day, Insp.Surender PW34 deposited cash Rs. 150/- belonging to Sunil which was recovered from personal search of Accused Sunil.He also deposited Cash of Rs. 2,650/- and one LG mobile phone of Accused Sachin.A. Nos. 733/2017, 996/2017 & 623/2017 Page 27 of 32The aforesaid statement indicates that the case property was never tampered with before it reached FSL Rohini.Khadak Prasad PW3 and Smt. Dharmi PW4 has already given their blood samples to FSL Rohini officials.The sealed pulandas were deposited with FSL Rohini, on analysing the samples, FSL Report Ex.PW31/C was given, same is reproduced as under:CONCLUSION The DNA profiling (STR analysis) performed on the exhibit provided is sufficient to conclude that the source of exhibit '2' (Blood sample of Smt Dharmi Bai) & exhibit '3' (Blood sample of Sh Karak Singh) vide FSL No 2011/DNA-3060 are the biological mother & father of the exhibit '1' (teeth).Remnants of the exhibits have been sealed with seal of SB FSL DELHI.Ms. SHASHI BALA Senior Scientific Officer (Biology) DNA UNIT; FSL DELHI"The prosecution in order to prove the motive examined Khadak Prasad PW3 who deposed that he heard accused Prabha threatening her husband after their quarrel in February 2010 that she would get him killed through some anti-social elements.Prosecution further examined Smt. Dharmi PW4 who too has deposed on similar lines i.e. Appellant Prabha in February 2010 threatened she would get Rakesh killed through anti-social elements as there was a matrimonial discord between the deceased and accused Prabha.Besides parents, prosecution has also examined Ct.Kiran Pal PW13 who deposed that he joined investigation on 16.08.2011 and had gone to DPMI Institute, New Ashok Nagar, New Delhi alongwith I.O. and seized Admission forms of Sachin and Prabha, Attendance register and other document vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW13/B.The statement of Khadak Prasad PW3 and Smt. Dharmi PW4 qua Appellant Prabha is not of much relevance as deceased Rakesh CRL.A. Nos. 733/2017, 996/2017 & 623/2017 Page 29 of 32 often used to go to the house of Accused Prabha and on the date of incident too, deceased Rakesh visited the said house on asking of his father PW3 and he reached the house at about 8:30 PM.The statement of PW13 Ct.Kiran Pal too doesn't inspire confidence in absence of proving the admission forms and attendance register i.e. Ex.PW13/B indicating both Accused Sachin and Accused Prabha were studying together in DPMI Institute.However, failure to prove motive in the case of circumstantial evidence is not fatal by itself, if motive is proved it would definitely strengthen the prosecution case.A. Nos. 733/2017, 996/2017 & 623/2017 Page 29 of 32As discussed above, what is emerging on the record before us is the chain of circumstance which is consistent and interdependent since deceased Rakesh went missing till his dead body was got recovered at the instance of Sachin and Sunil and each chain of the circumstance pin points towards the involvement of appellant Sachin and appellant Sunil.So far, the recovery of the Chunni vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW12/A and recovery of Handkerchief and socks of deceased from the house of Prabha vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW13/C at the instance of Accused Prabha is concerned, same is inconsequential as the Post Mortem Report does not show any ligature mark on the dead body/skeleton of the deceased.Moreover, It is apparent on the record that deceased Rakesh reached to the said house of Prabha at 8:30 PM.Therefore, no substantial legal evidence is coming on the record against Prabha.The recovery of Mobile phone with SIM number CRL.A. Nos. 733/2017, 996/2017 & 623/2017 Page 30 of 32 9911751609 and 8750240715 from possession of Prabha is inconclusive for want of proving the said numbers were used by Prabha.As Customer Application Forms of both the numbers indicate owner to be one Beni Singh and one another Varun who were not examined.A. Nos. 733/2017, 996/2017 & 623/2017 Page 30 of 32The contention of Ld. Counsel for Appellant Sunil that Accused Sunil was not named in the FIR is inconsequential in presence of the recoveries which got effected at his instance.The reliance placed by the Appellant Sachin and Sunil on Koli Mala Bijal (supra), Jaffer Hussain (supra), Manoj Kumar (supra) and Ram Kishore (supra) is of no help to them.The aforesaid facts are interdependent and leaves no room except to show involvement of accused persons in the crime committed.Therefore, we find no merit in appeals of accused Sachin and Sunil, same are dismissed.Judgment dated 27.05.2017 and Order on Sentence dated 02.06.2017 in SC No. 2216/2016 qua Sachin and Sunil is upheld.However, the accused/appellant Prabha is given benefit of doubt, consequentially, the appeal of Appellant Prabha (CRL.A. No. 623/2017) is allowed and impugned judgment and order on sentence against her is set aside.No orders as to cost.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
62,609,222 |
From the aforementioned figure 1/3rd should be deducted.After deduction, the amount of income comes to Rs.5,738/- per month [Rs. 8609/- - Rs.2871/-] and the amount of compensation should be determined by adopting the multiplier of 13, which comes to Rs.8,95,128/-"Applying the said principle to the facts of the present case, if we simply double the amount of Basic Salary and the Dearness Allowance, the victim used to get at the time of death without taking into consideration the other allowances payable to him, the notional figure comes to Rs.8178 x 2= Rs.16,356/-.Two-third of such figure is equivalent to Rs.10,904/-.In this case, the victim being aged 31 years and odd, we should apply the multiplier of 14 and thus, the amount of compensation would come to the figure of Rs.14,12,656/-.The widow of the victim, viz. Dipa Ganguly being aged 25 years at the time of accident as it appears from her statement made at the time of trial, she should get Rs.10,00000/- and the balance Rs.4,12,656/- should be paid to Sm.Tukurani Ganguly, the mother of the victim who was aged 61 years and odd as recorded in her voter identity card exhibited before the Tribunal.The appeal is, thus, allowed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
626,907 |
P.W.2 is the wife of the deceased Chokkan@ Chellapa.P.W.2 and her husband were living in Alangulam and P.W.1 was livingin a nearby village.There was a criminal proceedings initiated against thedeceased, alleging that he murdered one Kamaraj and the sessions case againsthim entered into an acquittal.From the time of the order of acquittal, he wasbeing threatened by A-1 to A-9, who were all close associates of the saidKamaraj.b)On the date of occurrence, namely on 29.01.2006, P.W.2 and the deceasedwent over to the house of P.W.1, since she was suffering from fever.Aftervisiting her, P.W.2 and her husband took P.W.1 to the nearby hospital by anAuto.While A-1 to A-3 werearmed with aruval, all the other accused dragged the deceased out of the auto.Thereafter, they caught hold of the deceased.A-1 attacked the deceased witharuval on his head and neck.A-2 attacked him with aruval on his chin and neck.A-3 attacked the deceased with aruval on his hands.A-3 also threatened thewitnesses, when they attempted to go for the rescue of the deceased.Thereafter,the deceased met his instantaneous death.All the accused fled away from theplace of occurrence.c)P.Ws.1 and 2 saw the entire occurrence.P.W.1 proceeded to therespondent police station, where P.W.13, the Sub Inspector of Police was onduty.She gave Ex.On the strength of the same, P.W.13registered a case in Crime No.30 of 2006 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 302 and506(ii) IPC.P.21, the F.I.R. was despatched to the Court.d)P.W.14, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the copy of the F.I.R.,took up the investigation, proceeded to the spot and made an inspection in thepresence of the witnesses.He prepared Ex.P.22, the observation mahazar andEx.P.23, the rough sketch.M.O.1 (series) photos and M.O.2 (series) negatives weremarked.Following the same, the dead body was sent to the Tenkasi GovernmentHospital for the purpose of autopsy along with the requisition.The Investigatorrecovered the bloodstained earth and sample earth under a cover of mahazar.e)P.W.8, the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Tenkasi, onreceipt of the requisition, has conducted post-mortem on the dead body of thedeceased and has issued Ex.P.17, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he hasopined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage dueto the injuries sustained.f)Pending investigation, On 30.01.2006, P.W.14 arrested A-1, A-2, A-3,A-4, A-5 and A-8. A-1 voluntarily came forward to give a confessional statement,which was recorded in the presence of the witnesses, the admissible part ofwhich was marked as Ex.Pursuant to the same, he produced aruval and thebloodstained shirt, which were recovered under a cover of mahazar.A-2 alsovoluntarily gave a confessional statement, which was recorded in the presence ofthe witnesses, the admissible part of which was marked as Ex.Pursuant tothe same, he also produced aruval and the bloodstained shirt, which wererecovered under a cover of mahazar.A-3 gave a confessional statementvoluntarily, which was recorded in the presence of the witnesses.The admissiblepart of the same was marked as Ex.Pursuant to the same, he produced aruvaland the bloodstained shirt, which were also recovered under a cover of mahazar.The accused were sent for judicial remand.both the appeals Both these criminal appeals are preferred under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track CourtNo.!For Appellants ... Mr.V.Kathirvelu for A4 to A8 in C.A.No.31 of 2007 Mr.P.Ramasami for A2 & A3 in C.A.No.31 of 2007 and for A1 in C.A.No.32 of 2007^For Respondent ... Mr.S.P.Samuel Raj, APP:COMMON JUDGMENT(The judgment of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) These two appeals challenge the judgment of the Additional Sessionsdivision, Fast Track Court No.1, Tirunelveli made in S.C.No.216 of 2006, wherebythe appellants in C.A.No.31 of 2007, who are shown as A-2 to A-8 and theappellant in C.A.No.32 of 2007, who is shown as A-1, stood charged, tried andfound guilty as follows:AccusedChargesFindingsSentencesA-1 to A-8S.147 IPCA-4 to A-8 found GuiltyA-4 to A-8 each 2 years RI and fine of Rs.1000/- i/d to undergo 3 months RI eachA-1 to A-3S.148 IPCGuilty3 years R.I each and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, i/d to undergo 3 months RI.A-1 to A-8S.341 IPCGuilty1 month SI eachA-1 to A-3S.302 IPCGuiltyLife imprisonment each and fine of Rs.1000/- each, i/d to undergo 3 months RI.A-4 to A-8S.302 r/w S.149 IPCGuiltyLife imprisonment each and fine of Rs.1000/- each, i/d to undergo 3 months RI.A-3S.506(ii) IPCGuilty3 years RI, fine of Rs.1000/-, i/d to undergo 3 months RI.A-1,2,4 to 8S.506(ii) r/w S.149 IPCNot Guilty2.Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts necessary for the disposal ofthese appeals can be stated thus:P.W.14 has conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in thepresence of the witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P.24, the inquestreport.On 1.2.2006, the InvestigatingOfficer arrested A-6 and he was also sent for judicial remand.All the materialobjects recovered from the place of occurrence, from the dead body of thedeceased and the M.Os recovered from the accused were sent for chemical analysisby the Forensic Science Department, which resulted in two reports, namelyEx.P.35, the Chemical Analyst's report and Ex.P.36, the Serologist's report.Oncompletion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed the finalreport.Pending investigation one accused died and hence the charge sheet hasbeen filed in respect of eight other accused.3.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and necessary chargeswere framed.In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 14witnesses and relied on 36 exhibits and 12 M.Os.On completion of the evidenceon the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence ofprosecution witnesses, which they flatly denied as false.No defence witness wasexamined.The trial court, after hearing the arguments advanced and looking intothe materials available, took the view that the prosecution has proved the casebeyond reasonable doubt, found the accused/appellants guilty as stated above andawarded punishments as referred to above, which is the subject matter ofchallenge before this court.4.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants in these appeals wouldsubmit as follows:a)In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined threewitnesses, out of three, P.W.3 has turned hostile.P.W.1 is the mother-in-lawand P.W.2 is the wife of the deceased.Thus, P.Ws.1 and 2 are interested andpartisan witnesses.Hence their evidence has got to be scrutinized carefully.There are lot of discrepancies found in their evidence.All would indicate thatthey could not have seen the occurrence at all.The occurrence has taken placeat about 21.30 hours, during night hours.According to them, with the assistanceof the torch light, they were able to see the occurrence and also to identifythe accused, but the said torch light has not been recovered.As per their evidence, A-1to A-3 were armed with aruval.It is further to be pointed out that so far asthe scene of occurrence is concerned, it is shown that the occurrence has takenplace near the Arunachalam Nadar's garden.But, the garden of Arunachalam Nadaris situated 1/2 Kms.from the main road and the dead body was found in the mainroad and thus the scene of occurrence is different.b)Further, the said Kamaraj, who was claimed to be the close associates ofthe accused, died long back and hence there was no immediate motive for theaccused to commit the crime.Further, the evidence of the witnesses are highlyunreliable to sustain conviction.He was not a juvenile, but he was an adolescent at the time of offenceand under these circumstances, no life sentence could be awarded and hence thejudgment of the lower court has got to be set aside and the appellants areentitled for acquittal in the hands of this court.5.The court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the abovecontentions and has paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.Following the inquest made by theInvestigating Officer, the dead body was subjected to post-mortem by P.W.8, theDoctor, who has issued Ex.P.17, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he hasopined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage dueto the injuries sustained.The fact that the deceased died out of homicidalviolence was never questioned by the appellants before the trial court.Hencethe prosecution has proved the said fact without any controversy and therefore,it has got to be recorded so.7.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against theappellants/accused, the prosecution examined three witnesses.Out of threewitnesses, P.W.3 has turned hostile.So far as P.Ws.1 and 2 are concerned, theyare the close relatives of the deceased.But, they have categorically statedthat at the time of occurrence, P.W.2 along with her husband, namely thedeceased, came to the house of P.W.1 and visited her, since she was sufferingfrom fever.When they went to the hospital in an auto, they were restrained bythe accused, nine in numbers.P.Ws.1 and 2 have categorically spoken about thefact that A-1 to A-3 were armed with aruval and it was these three accused, whocut the deceased indiscriminately and caused his death instantaneously.Despitecross examination in full regarding the overt acts of these accused, it stoodthe test.8.Further, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants isthat the occurrence has taken place on the road proceeding to Ambasamudram, butthe witnesses mentioned that the occurrence has taken place near ArunachalamNadar land.The court is of the considered opinion that it cannot be a reason toreject the testimony, because in the observation mahazar and the rough sketchprepared by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation, the road isshown as the scene of occurrence.Further, the witnesses have been examined tothat effect.Apart from that, sample earth and bloodstained earth have beenrecovered from the place of occurrence.So far as the scene of occurrence isconcerned, it has been clearly proved by the prosecution, leaving no doubt inthe mind of the court.Their evidence inrespect of A-4 to A-8 cannot be accepted in law.Apart from that, A-4 to A-8were not armed with any weapons and they have not attacked the deceased and theyhave also not caused any injury on the deceased.All would go to show that A-4to A-8 had no role to play in the case.Further, there is nothing to show thatA-4 to A-8 had any common object, in furtherance of which they have acted.Thelower court has erroneously viewed and convicted A-4 to A-8. Hence A-4 to A-8have got to be acquitted.10.So far as A-1 to A-3 are concerned, the ocular testimony of P.Ws.1 and2 stood fully corroborated with the medical evidence.Apart from that, thearrest and recovery of weapons of crime from A-1 to A-3 pursuant to theconfessional statements have also been proved.The scientific evidence is alsoin favour of the prosecution.All the material objects recovered from the placeof occurrence, from the dead body of the deceased and the weapons of crimerecovered from the accused were subjected to chemical analysis by the ForensicScience Department.Ex.P.35, the Chemical Analyst's report and Ex.P.36, theSerologist's report would indicate that all the material objects were found tohave the same blood group and this would indicate that the scientific evidenceis also in favour of the prosecution case.11.So far as A-3 is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellantsbrought to the notice of the Court that either at the time of offence or at thetime of conviction, A-3 has not completed 21 years.Therefore, he is anadolescent offender and he must be sent to Borstal School till he completed theage of 23 years.Under these circumstances, the court is of the consideredopinion that A-3 has got to be sent to Borstal school till he completed the ageof 23 years.12.Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by thelower court on A-1 and A-2 are confirmed.So far as A-3 is concerned, whilesustaining his conviction and setting aside the life sentence imposed onhim, he is directed to be sent to Borstal school and kept there till he attainsthe age of 23 years.It is reported that A-3 is on bail and hence the concernedSessions Judge shall take steps to secure his presence, send him into theBorstal school and keep him there till he attains the age of 23 years.Theconviction and sentence imposed on A-4 to A-8 by the lower court are set asideand they are acquitted of the charges levelled against them.The bail bondexecuted by A-4 to A-8 shall stand terminated and the fine amount if any paid bythem shall be refunded to them.13.In the result, C.A.No.31 of 2007 is allowed in respect of Accused Nos.4to 8 and is dismissed in respect of accused Nos.2 and 3 with the abovemodification.1.The Additional Sessions Court, Fast Track Court No.1, Tirunelveli .2.The Inspector of Police, Alangulam Police Station, Tirunelveli District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
62,871,472 |
The brief facts relating to the case giving rise to two appeals are that one Shiv Moorat Yadav son of Surya Bali Yadav on a tehrir scribed by Ram Bhawan Yadav, lodged a F.I.R. in P.S. Mubarakpur at Case Crime No.27 of 1996 at 10:30 a.m. on 22.01.1996 with the following story of incident."A civil suit by applicant Shiv Moorat is pending in the Court of Munsif Muhamdabad in respect of Sehan land with Nirhoo of his village in which Court has issued an injunction order.Today at about 7:00 a.m. when he was feeding she buffalo at his door Nirhoo Badhai, Gayatri @ Keshav, Raj Karan, Harish Chand Yadav, Makkhan, Inroo, Moti Yadav, Bal Chand Yadav, Nayanoo Yadav and Gyash Badhai of his village armed with lathis, Katta, came with common object/intention to set her Mandhai/hut on fire.On his alarm, Lal Bahadur, Balihari, Durga, Udai Bhan and several other persons of his village arrived and started extinguishing the fire and meanwhile on the exhortation of all the accused-persons, Harish Chand Yadav fired which caused injuries in chest and abdomen of Lal Bahadur and he fell on the ground.On his falling down, all the accused-persons fled away, his hut was burnt and when they were taking the injured to hospital, he died on way and they have brought his dead body to police station." Shiv Moorat.Upon investigation charge sheet was submitted and case was committed to sessions.Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.(Delivered by Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.) These two appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated 8.5.2000 passed by 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Azamgarh by which out of 10 accused-persons one Harish Chand Yadav was convicted and sentenced for the offences under sections 302, 148 and 436 IPC and section 25 Arms Act and rest 09 accused-persons were convicted and sentenced for the offences under sections 302/149, 147 and 436 IPC.Feeling aggrieved 09 convicted accused-persons jointly filed Criminal Appeal No.1058 of 2000, while one convict Harish Chand Yadav filed Criminal Appeal No.1118 of 2000 against the order of conviction and sentence under sections 302/149, 147 and 436 IPC and sections 302, 148 and 436 IPC and section 25 Arms Act respectively .The two sessions trials were decided together by a consolidated judgment and the two appeals against the one and same judgment were heard together and are being disposed of by one common judgment.During pendency to criminal appeal No.1058 of 2000 appellant No.1 Nirhoo and appellant no.6 Moti Yadav were reported to have died and appeal in respect of them stood abated.The Additional Sessions Judge framed charges under sections 148, 436 and 302 IPC and section 25 Arms Act against accused-appellant Harish Chand Yadav and under sections 147, 436 and 302/149 against the rest 09 accused-appellants, which were denied by them and they demanded trail.The prosecution in order to bring home the charges, produced first informant Shiv Moorat Yadav as P.W.1, Balihari and Udai Bhan eye witnesses as P.W.2 and P.W.3, Ghanshyam Sharma Head Constable to prove Chik F.I.R. as P.W.4, S.I. Prem Prakash Singh Investigating Officer as P.W.5, Moorat the marginal witness of memo of recovery of weapon of crime from Harish Chand Yadav as P.W.6, Constable Arjun Singh, who taken the body of Lal Bahadur for postmortem as P.W.7, S.I. Ajeet Kumar Mishra, who proved the papers and prosecution sanction under section 25 of Arms Act as P.W.8 and autopsy surgeon Dr. H.C. Srivastava as P.W.9 and closed.Thereafter statements of accused-persons were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. who did not adduce any oral evidence in defence.After hearing the parties, learned lower court delivered the impugned judgment and order holding all the accused guilty of charges framed against them and sentenced accused Harish Chand Yadav with life imprisonment under section 302 IPC, 2 years rigorous imprisonment under section 148 IPC, 4 years rigorous imprisonment under section 436 IPC and 3 years rigorous imprisonment under section 25 Arms Act and sentenced other accused-persons with life imprisonment under section 302/149 IPC, 1 year rigorous imprisonment under section 147 IPC and 4 years rigorous imprisonment under section 436 IPC.Feeling aggrieved the convicted accused-persons have preferred two appeals for setting it aside their conviction and sentence as well as for an order of acquittal in their favour.We heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri D.R.S. Chauhan and Sri R.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Sri N.K.S. Yadav, learned AGA for the State and perused the record, paper book as well as original record of court below summoned in this appeal.Perusal of record shows that prosecution has produced the first informant as P.W.1 and two witnesses of fact as P.W.2 and P.W.3, who are alleged to be eye witnesses of the incident Scribe of F.I.R. Ram Bhawan Yadav, and two other eye witnesses of incident Durga and Subedar were not produced.And Case Crime No.58 of 1996 was registered against him under section 25 Arms Act. Other witnesses P.W.4 to P.W.9 are formal and have duly proved the documentary evidence on record.As per averments made in F.I.R., all the accused-persons armed with lathis, kattas arrived with common object and ablazed his hut and upon exhortation by rest, accused-appellant Harish Chand Yadav fired at Lal Bahadur who succumbed to the injuries.In his statement as P.W.1 the first informant has assigned Ballam to accused-appellant Gayatri, Pistol to accused-appellant Harish Chand Yadav and lathis to all the rest and has assigned specific role of arson to accused-appellant Nirhoo Badhai, who has died pending appeal.As per post mortem report of Lal Bahadur deceased Ext. A-21 duly proved by autopsy surgeon Dr. H.C. Srivastava P.W.9, the death of 22 years old Lal Bahadur did take place about one and half day before the time of his post mortem at 3:00 p.m. on 23.1.1996 due to shock and hemorrhage, following ante mortem injuries, which tallies with the time of incident.At the time of postmortem, following injuries were found on the person of deceased :-ANTE MORTEM INJURIES (1) Multiple fire arm wound of entry in area of 22 cm x 12 cm on front of lower chest, upper abdomen and one present 3.0 cm below umblicus.Each measuring 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm x depth not probed with margins inverted, blackening present around the wound.(2) Multiple firearm wound of entry on dorsum of lt. hand measuring 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm x skin deep with margins inverted blackening around the wound present, five metalic pellets recovered from the wound.(3) Abrasion 2.5 cm x ½ cm on back of rt.(4) Abrasion 2 cm x 1 cm on back of lt. Elbow.The learned counsel for appellants have contended that(i) that since before the incident in question two cross cases are pending between parties as F.I.R. at Case Crime N.361 of 1994 was lodged by Suryabali (father of first informant) against Lochan and seven others of appellants party, under sections 147, 148, 307/149, 323, 504, 427 IPC and in counter blast another F.I.R. of cross case was lodged by Ram Vriksha Yadav at Case Crime No.361-A of 1994 against Shiv Moorat, (first informant) and six others under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323/504 IPC.(ii) the role of arson has been specifically assigned to Nirhoo and other co-accused-persons have been falsely implicated due to enmity and because of their being surety for accused-persons in Case Crime No.361 of 1994 filed by father of first informant of which cross case being Case Crime No.361-A of 1994 was pending against first informant and his associates.(iii) undisputedly in respect of hut in question, the first informant filed a civil suit for injunction and obtained an exparte decree during the period when accused-persons were in custody in this matter and the above exparte decree was set aside and civil suit is pending for disposal and matter is sub-judice before the Court.(iv) accused-appellant Harish Chand Yadav was doing pairvi in Case Crime No.361 of 1994 due to which he has been falsely implicated.He had no motive to cause death of Lal Bahadur or to participate in the incident.(v) there are material contradictions between the medical evidence and ocular evidence on record with regard to death of Lal Bahadur, who appears to have been killed in mid night by some unknown persons and since the assailants could not be identified, Harish Chand Yadav has been falsely implicated due to enmity.(vi) recovery of firearm, the weapon of crime from accused-appellant Harish Chand Yadav has been falsely planted, of which the own men of first informant were made false witnesses.No such fire arm was ever recovered from the accused-appellant Harish Chand Yadav.(vii) there are material contradictions in the averments made in F.I.R. and the prosecution evidence and various improvements have been made in evidence during trial.(viii) original written report is not on record and so also the prosecution case deserves to fail.According to Chik F.I.R. Exhibit A-2, on written report of Shiv Moorat Yadav, scribed by Ram Bhawan Yadav Case Crime No.27 of 1996 was registered on 22.1.1996 at 10:30 a.m. against the accused-appellants, ten named persons for the criminal incident allegedly committed by them at 7:00 a.m., under sections 147, 148, 149,34, 436 and 302 IPC, P.S. Mubarakpur, District Azamgarh.According to averments made in F.I.R., all the accused persons armed with lathi and Katta (pistol) came with common intention and ablazed hut of first informant and on his alarm Lal Bahadur, Balihari, Durga, Udai Bhan, Subedar and several other persons came and started extinguishing the fire, upon which all the accused-persons exhorted and upon such exhortation Harish Chand Yadav fired, which hit Lal Bahadur in chest and abdomen, he fell down on ground, the accused-persons fled away, his hut was burnt to ashes and when the injured Lal Bahadur was being taken to hospital, he succumbed to the injuries on way to hospital and his dead body was taken to police station.As per prosecution case, apart from first informant Shiv Moorat Yadav, Durga, Udai Bhan, Balihari, Subedar and Lal Bahadur (deceased) were eye witnesses of the incident out of which prosecution has produced the first informant as P.W.1, Balihari and Udaibhan as P.W.2 and P.W.3 to bring the eye witness account of the incident before the Court.The learned counsel for the appellants submits that P.W.2 Balihari is co-accused with first informant in Case Crime No.361-A of 1994, which is cross case of Case Crime No.361 of 1994, in which Harish Chand, Raj Mohan, Rudal, Sukhraj etc. of rival group are accused.In Case Crime Nos. 361 of 1994 and 361-A of 1994 persons of Gaderiya caste (of first informant's group) and Yadav caste (of accused group), respectively are accused.The prosecution has failed to produce independent and trustworthy witnesses of incident.It is noteworthy that in F.I.R. no specific role of arsoning the hut of first informant has been assigned to any of the ten accused-persons, but in his statement on oath before the Court as P.W.1 the first informant has assigned specific role of arson to accused-appellant Nirhoo Badhai only.He has stated that a civil suit for injunction in respect of land, over which hut in question situated, was filed by him against Nirhoo Badhai, who set his hut on fire at 7:00 a.m. on 22.1.1996 when he was feeding his she buffalo and other accused-persons armed with lathis, Harish Chand armed with Katta and Gayatri with ballam had arrived there with an intention to cause death, abused him and upon his alarm for extinguishing the fire witnesses, villagers etc. arrived and being exhorted accused-appellant Harish Chand fired at Lal Bahadur by Katta (pistol).He has also stated that accused-persons had no enmity with Lal Bahadur and they exhorted for killing him, only because he was also extinguishing the fire of his hut.In contradiction to above statement of P.W.1, Balihari P.W.2 has stated that upon hearing first informant, who was crying that these people are going to set his hut on fire , he reached on the spot and saw that accused Nirhoo was setting the hut of first informant on fire with match box in his hands and Gayatri with ballam, Harish Chand Yadav with Katta and others with lathi exhorted for killing whosoever extinguishes the fire and when he, Lal Bahadur, Subedar and Udai Bhan started extinguishing the fire, Harish Chand fired with an intention to cause death and the pellets of fire hit Lal Bahadur in abdomen, chest and left hand.In further contradiction with P.W.1 and P.W.2, Udai Bhan P.W.3 has stated that upon hearing alarm of Shiv Moorat that his hut has been put to fire, he reached the spot with bucket and poured few buckets of water to extinguish the fire while Balihari, Lalji, Subedar, Durga and six more reached to extinguish the fire.The statements of P.W.1 to P.W.3 are contradictory to each other.The first informant P.W.1 himself says that he raised alarm after his hut was set on fire, while his witness P.W.2 says that alarm was raised by him before the hut was set on fire and he, Lal Bahadur and few others were extinguishing fire while P.W.3 says that he reached the spot after the hut having been put on fire and apart from him Lal Bahadur and 9-10 other persons extinguished fire.Admittedly P.W.3 reached the spot after the hut was set on fire and has not assigned specific role of arsoning to any of the accused, while P.W.1 and P.W.2 have assigned specific role of setting the hut on fire to accused-appellant Nirhoo Badhai and none else.The other accused-persons except Harish Chand Yadav, have been assigned with the role of exhortation for killing whosoever extinguishes the fire, while Harish Chand Yadav has been assigned with the role of firing with pistol, causing fatal injuries to Lal Bahadur at the time of extinguishing fire, resulting in his death.It is noteworthy that P.W.2 is co-accused with the first informant in Case Crime No.361-A of 1994 under section 307 etc. IPC.P.W.3 is nephew of P.W.2 and son of P.W.6 while P.W.2 and P.W.6 are real brothers.The above witnesses have been stated to be interested witnesses and in absence of evidence of any other independent witness of the occurrence, we find force in the argument of learned counsel for the appellants that the testimonies of P.W.2 and P.W.3 are to be seen with extra caution.Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that there was civil dispute over land of hut in question between first informant and Nirhoo and other accused-persons have been falsely implicated merely because accused-appellant Harish Chand Yadav was co-accused in cross case, Case Crime No.361 of 1994 and accused-appellants Makkhan, Inroo, Bal Chand Yadav, Nayanoo Yadav had stood as surety for co-accused Harish Chand, Ramjeet, Rudal and Sukhraj etc. in above criminal case under section 307 IPC, which is proved from the documentary evidence produced by accused-persons in defence evidence per list No.112-B, while accused-appellant Moti Yadav was falsely implicated being father of accused-appellant Bal Chand Yadav.He submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that they formed any unlawful assembly or were even present on the spot or committed the incident in question in furtherance of common object of unlawful assembly allegedly formed by them.Upon analysis of evidence on record, we find that it is proved from the defence evidence on record that above mentioned accused-appellants were sureties for accused-persons in Case Crime No.361 of 1994 filed by father of first informant and though ballam has been assigned to accused-appellant Gayatri and lathis to other accused-appellants, but no injury is alleged to have been caused by any of them with lathis or ballam to first informant or his associates and no overt act except of exhortation has been assigned to any of the accused except Nirhoo and Harish Chand, who have been assigned with the role of ablazing the hut of first informant and making fire with pistol, respectively.There is no whisper by first informant even in his statement as P.W.1 that accused-appellant formed any unlawful assembly and the common object of such unlawful assembly was to cause his death or put his hut on fire and he is not alleged to have sustained even any simple injury.We find that there is no iota of evidence on record to show that all the accused-appellants armed with deadly weapons formed any unlawful assembly with common object of ablazing hut of first informant or killing any person or committed the offence in question in prosecution of common object of such unlawful assembly.It is not the case of prosecution that all the accused-persons came with burning torches (Mashals) and collectively torched the hut (Mandhai) of first informant Shiv Moorat Yadav, rather as per prosecution case, the hut of first informant was set on fire with match box only by accused-appellant Nirhoo.Undisputedly, a match box carries a size around 5 cm x 3 cm and can be easily put in the pocket.Usually villagers, who use to smoke Biri , Cigrette etc. also use to keep it in their pocket.Undisputedly habit of smoking was commonly prevalent in villages about 22 years ago at time of incident in question.There is no evidence on record to show that Nirhoo had any habit of smoking, but still he could have hidden the match box in his pocket without knowledge of co-accused-persons.Even if the presence of other accused-persons is presumed on the spot at the time of incident along with accused-appellant Nirhoo.Merely by their presence at the spot in absence of any reliable evidence to their active participation, it will not be correct to infer that they had formed an unlawful assembly with Nirhoo Badhai with common object to put the hut of first informant on fire and cause death of someone or first informant or Lal Bahadur and none of them except accused-appellant Harish Chand is alleged to have committed any overt act or cause any injury to the first informant or any other person with the alleged lathis or ballam in their hands.Since a match box would have been there in the pocket of Nirhoo in usual course or even hidden by him inside his pocket, the possibility of no knowledge about it and his intentions of arsoning the hut rather accompanying him only to threat first informant, may not be ruled out.In such situation, if Nirhoo Badhai suddenly set the hut (which was a thatched construction of Chappar (dry straws) etc.) on fire by his match box, the other co-accused persons may not be held guilty for sharing the common object with him with the aid of provisions of section 149 IPC.As far as the accused-appellant Harish Chand Yadav is concerned, he has been assigned with the role of firing with a pistol, resulting in death of Lal Bahadur.From his overt act it appears that he was sharing common intention with Nirhoo Badhai in putting the hut of first informant on fire and may be held guilty of offence.It is the prosecution case that all the accused-persons exhorted for killing whosoever extinguishes fire, upon which Harish Chand Yadav made a fire, which hit Lal Bahadur on chest, stomach and hand, resulting in his death on way to hospital.It is noteworthy that pistol or revolver can also be hidden in the pocket without knowledge to the others and such knowledge may neither be imputed on other accused-persons nor they may be held liable for his act particularly when there was no enmity with Lal Bahadur and the unlawful assembly is not alleged to be having common object of causing death of Lal Bahadur.Undisputedly there was dispute of land between first informant Shiv Moorat and accused-appellant Nirhoo Badhai and civil suit was pending between them.The other accused-persons were not claiming any rights or interests in the land of hut in question.Admittedly accused-appellant Harish Chand had no enmity with deceased Lal Bahadur.Shiv Moorat has specifically stated in his examination-in-chief as P.W.1 that "accused-persons had no enmity with Lal Bahadur".Since there was no enmity between Lal Bahadur deceased or accused appellant Harish Chand Yadav and he was not claiming any interest in the land of hut in question, accused-appellant, Harish Chand Yadav, may not be having any motive to cause his death.We find no force in this contention and find no reason to doubt his presence on the spot at the time of incident which is fully proved from the evidence on record.Balihari P.W.2 has stated that Harish Chand Yadav made a fire with an intention to cause death, pellets of which hit Lal Bahadur in abdomen, Chest and left hand.The above witness has not stated as to fire was made with an intention to cause death of which person, first informant or Lal Bahadur or any other person rather has made a vague statement that fire was made with an intention to cause death.In the circumstances even if the fire would have been made by accused-appellant Harish Chand Yadav without any intention to cause death of Lal Bahadur, be he had full knowledge that it may cause fatal injury to someone and, thus, by making such fire he caused fatal fire arm injury on vital parts of Lal Bahadur, resulting in his death.Undisputedly only a single fire is alleged to have been made by accused-appellant Harish Chand Yadav and he is not alleged to have repeated the fire.The blackening and tattoing over the gun shot and recovery of pellets from wound as well as seat of injury shows that Lal Bahadur sustained gun shot injury on vital part of body from a close range.In the circumstances it will not be correct to say that fire was made to disperse the crowed in which case fire would have been made upwards in the air.Though accused-appellants is not alleged to have repeated the fire and was not having any enmity with Lal Bahadur deceased and had no motive or intention to cause death of Lal Bahadur in pre planned manner yet since the act of firing was done by him with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death of the person to whom harm is caused in ordinary course of nature, he has committed an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and is liable to be held guilty for the offence under section 304 Part II IPC and not of offence under section 302 IPC.We are of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove by any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence that accused-appellant Gayatri, Rajkaran, Makkhan, Inroo, Moti Yadav, Nayanoo Yadav, Gayash or Bal Chand armed with deadly weapons formed any unlawful assembly with Nirhoo Badhai and Harish Chand Yadav or either ablazed the hut of first informant Shiv Moorat or caused death of Lal Bahadur in prosecution of common object of such unlawful assembly.All of them are alleged to have exhorted by calling accused-appellant Harish Chand Yadav to cause death, whosoever extinguishes fire, but none of the prosecution witnesses has stated as to what words were uttered by each and every of them or collectively by all of them.It is proved from the evidence on record two sessions trials under section 307 IPC were pending between the parties arisen out of Case Crime No.361 of 1994 in which persons of the group of accused party were charged under section 307 etc. IPC and case crime No.361-A of 1994 in which persons of prosecution party were charged under sections 307 etc. IPC, which are cross cases of each other.Several accused-appellants, stood as sureties for the accused in the case Crime No.361 of 1994, under section 307 IPC and since no overt act has been assigned to any of them, while all of them were alleged to be armed with lathis and ballam, the charge of exhortation levelled against them do not aspire confidence.An empty handed person may exhort the other for killing the victims but it is quite natural that if such person is armed with any weapon lathi, ballam etc, at the time of exhorting others, he will also assault the victim and actively cause him/them injuries whatever he may cause.There is a tendency to implicate some more persons in addition to real assailants by attributing them the role of exhortation.The evidence on record does note indicate participation of above accused-appellants in the incident in question by exhortation or in any other manner whatsoever.In absence of any independent, cogent and reliable evidence, we find that they have been falsely implicated by assigning them role of exhortation and it is not a fit case for upholding their conviction on the alleged role of exhortation.As far as the loss of written report is concerned, we find that it is proved from the evidence on record that Chik F.I.R. was prepared on the basis of written report Tehrir, and so there may be no reason to doubt the correctness of facts mentioned in Chik F.I.R. Exhibit A-2 and arguments of learned counsel for the appellants that due to loss of original Tehrir written report, the prosecution case deserves to fail, has no force.The evidence on record shows that the hut in question is not alleged to be ordinarily used as a place of worship or as a human dwelling or as a place for custody of property.The prosecution witnesses have not made any whisper as to what goods were turned to ashes due to fire in the hut in question rather Shiv Moorat Yadav, first informant as P.W.1 has specifically stated in para 24 of his statement "that in the hut in question there were no goods and only cattle were used to be tied." No cattle was allegedly tied inside the hut at the time of incident or died due to burns in the hut in question.Moreover P.W.2 in para 4 has stated that "when the hut in question was burnt there was no cattle inside the hut and he did not see any goods in the hut at that time."Upon careful analysis of evidence on record, we are of the considered view that since the hut in question was not being ordinarily used as a place of worship or as human dwelling or as a place for custody of property and there was no cattle or goods inside the hut at the time of incident, by putting the empty hut on fire with an intention to destroy the same, no offence under section 436 IPC can be said to have been committed by accused-appellants or any of them, rather above act of arsoning such empty thatched hut, falls within the ambit of offence under section 435 IPC for causing mischief by fire with an intention to cause damage to any property to the amount of Rs.100/- or upward.Since the prosecution has not stated as to what was the amount of loss, the offence of accused-persons Nirhoo Badhai and Harish Chand comes only under section 435 IPC.In view of discussions made above, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges of offences under section 302 read with section 149 or section 147 or section 436 IPC against accused-appellants Gayatri, Rajkaran, Makkhan, Inroo, Moti Yadav, Bal Chand Yadav, Nayanoo Yadav and Gayas Badhai or any of them and the impugned judgment and order of their conviction under section 302/149 IPC and under sections 147, 436 IPC as well as sentence under above sections are wrong and illegal and are liable to be set aside.The accused-appellant Nirhoo Badhai, who is alleged to have set the hut in question on fire and have exhorted Harish Chand Yadav has died and appeal in respect of him has abated.The prosecution has failed to prove offence under section 436 IPC against accused-appellant Harish Chand Yadav and his conviction and sentence under section 436 IPC is also liable to be set aside.On the evidence on record accused-appellant Harish Chand Yadav is liable to held guilty for the offence under sections 435 and 304 Part II IPC as well as section 25 of Arms Act. The impugned judgment and order convicting him for the offences under section 302, 148 and 436 IPC are liable to be set aside and appeal is liable to be partly allowed and his conviction is liable to be altered by convicting him for the offences under sections 304-II and section 435 IPC.The appellants are on bail, their bail bonds and surety bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged.They need not surrender unless wanted in some other case.Criminal Appeal No.1118 of 2000 is partly dismissed and conviction and sentence of appellant under section 25 Arms Act is upheld.The appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgment and order convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant Harish Chand Yadav for the offences under sections 302, 148, 436 IPC is set aside.The conviction of accused-appellant Harish Chand Yadav is altered from sections 302, 148 and 436 IPC to the conviction for the offences under sections 435 and 304(II) IPC and he is sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for a period of 07 years and fine of Rs.10,000/- under section 304(II) IPC and in case of default in payment of fine with imprisonment for an additional period of six months, and with rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and fine of Rs.5000/- under section 435 IPC and in case of default in payment of fine with imprisonment for an additional period of one month.All the sentences under sections 304(II) and 435 IPC and 25 Arms Act shall run concurrently.The appellant Harish Chand Yadav is on bail.His personal bond and surety bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged.He is directed to surrender forthwith to undergo remaining period of sentence.The two appeals are disposed of, accordingly.The material exhibits, if any, be disposed of in accordance with rules.Order Date :- 18/08/2018
|
['Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
62,945,594 |
Appellant stands convicted for the offences punishable under Section 376 (2) of IPC as well as Section 5/6 of POCSO Act and has been sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years with fine of Rs.3,000/-in each offence.Default stipulations have also been imposed by the trial Court.As per prosecution case, on 27.02.2017, on the information of seeing dead infant, the police registered a Dehati Nalshi and inquired the matter wherein it is found that the appellant and prosecutrix was in relationship and on account of which, the prosecutrix got pregnant.On 22.01.2017, her marriage was performed with another person.When the prosecutrix came back to her maternal home, on 26.02.2017, the appellant had given some medicines to abort the child, as a result of which, a dead infant was born who had been thrown by the appellant.He submits that the trial Court has failed to consider the fact that all the important witnesses including prosecutrix and her parents have turned hostile.The learned trial Court erred in disbelieving the aforesaid witnesses.He submits that the trial Court has convicted the appellant only on the basis of prosecutrix being minor and she was subjected to rape relying on the DNA report, but the Court has overlooked the point that prosecutrix and her parents categorically stated that the date of birth was written in the school record are 3 years lesser 2 CRA-1732-2020 than her actual date of birth.They have stated that the prosecutrix admitted in the school when she was 9 years old.With the aforesaid, he submits that the prosecutrix was not minor at the time of incident and if any sexual intercourse was done, same was with consent of prosecutrix.The appeal is of year 2020 and will take sufficient time in its conclusion.There is every possibility to get success in the appeal.Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has no objection if bail is granted to the appellant.Heard and perused the record.O n perusal, it is found that the appellant was facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 376 (2), 312, 313, 315 and 318 of IPC as well as Section 5/6 of POCSO Act and 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, but the learned trial Court has not found sufficient evidence to convict the appellant except the offences under Section 376(2) of IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act. However, the prosecutrix and her parents discarded the entire incident, but the corroborating the DNA report, the learned trial Court found that the prosecutrix was minor at the time of incident and she was subjected to rape and thus the Court has not given importance to her consent and passed the sentence.C.C. as per rules.(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE sp Digitally signed by SAVITRI PATEL Date: 2021.02.24 17:44:32 +05'30'
|
['Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
63,029,151 |
In view of COVID-19 pandemic, this case is being heard in Chamber through video conferencing.Heard Sri Arun Sinha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Siddhartha Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State and perused the material available on record.The Presiding Officer has rejected the bail application of the appellant vide the impugned order.On alarm by her daughter, they ran away and gave abuses by saying her caste name.After about one and half month i.e. on 01.12.2013, the prosecutrix made an application to the Circle Officer, Krishna Nagar, Lucknow stating therein that at the time of lodging the F.I.R., she did not know the parentage and address of Sunny and Babu and now she has come to know.She further narrated that another name of Sunny is Aman Yadav son of Raghunath Yadav resident of Sector C-1, LDA Colony, Kanpur Road, Lucknow whereas the second name of Babu is Devendra Pahadi son of Dhan Singh Pahadi, resident of E-110, Sector C-1, LDA Colony, Kanpur Road, Lucknow.Victim made allegation of rape against the aforesaid persons in her statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and Section 164 Cr.P.C.The applicant is not named in the First Information Report as an accused.No specific role has been assigned in the first information report against the appellant.Copy of the statement of Shalini Verma (victim) has been annexed as Annexure SSA-2 to the second supplementary affidavit.Learned counsel next submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case, as on the alleged date of occurrence, the applicant was present at his work place i.e. in the State of Himachal Pradesh.Copy of the judgment and order has been annexed as Annexure RA2 to the rejoinder affidavit.If he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty granted by this Court.(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.Order Date :- 29.5.2020 GK Sinha
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
58,416,634 |
Through: None.This leave to appeal by the State is belated and delayed by 252 days.Accordingly, an application Crl.M.A.No.13491/2015 has been filed for condonation of delay.However, before issuing notice on the said application, we deem it appropriate to examine the trial court record and the statements of the injured witness Ashiq-ul-Amin @ Chunnu (PW-3) and purported eye-witness Wasim (PW-6), to decipher whether the contentions raised in the leave to appeal have merit.Respondent Amit @ Vicky and Rajvinder Singh @ Arjun Singh were charged under Sections 307 and 341 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, CRL.L.P.655/2015 Page 1 of 4 1860 ("IPC", for short).As per the prosecution version in the charge-sheet, Rajvinder Singh @ Arjun Singh was the prime perpetrator who had inflicted injuries on the chest of Ashiq-ul-Amin @ Chunnu (PW-3) with a scissor.The respondent to the present petition, Amit @ Vicky, was charge-sheeted by relying upon Section 34 of the IPC on the ground that he had shared common intention and would be vicariously liable.The trial court in the impugned judgment dated 9th September, 2014 has elaborately dealt with the factual matrix emerging from the ocular testimonies and held that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge against the Amit @ Vicky beyond reasonable doubt.Amit @ Vicky has been acquitted.CRL.L.P.655/2015 Page 1 of 4Ashiq-ul-Amin @ Chunnu (PW-3) in his deposition asserts that on 2nd October, 2005 he alongwith his friend Ajay, while returning home, had stopped at the barber shop of Wasim.There one Gyani i.e. Rajvinder Singh gave him a blow with a scissor on the left side of his chest.At that time, Amit @ Vicky was present.No role or words were attributed and given to Amit @ Vicky, when the aforesaid injury was caused.Amit @ Vicky had, thereafter, as per PW-3, had caught him, as Gyani i.e. Rajvinder Singh had again tried to stab PW-3 with the scissor.PW-3 had pushed Amit @ Vicky aside and escaped.PW-3 has alleged that both Rajvinder and Amit @ Vicky had kicked and given fist blows to his friend Ajay.The said Ajay has not deposed and appeared as a witness.Ashiq-ul-Amin @ Chunnu (PW-3) has not elaborated and given reason and cause as to why the occurrence had happened.The cause of dispute and injury remains unexplained.Wasim (PW-6) has given a different version.He affirms that on 2 nd October, 2005 both Rajvinder and Amit @ Vicky had come to his shop at CRL.L.P.655/2015 Page 2 of 4 about 9:00 PM.They were drunk and sat inside the shop.In the meantime, PW-3 came to the shop and started talking to "him" (PW-6).Subsequently, Rajvinder and Amit @ Vicky went outside the shop.PW-6 had heard noise and Rajvinder suddenly came inside the shop and picked a scissor.When PW-6 went out of the shop, he noticed that PW-3 was bleeding from his stomach.There was hue and cry and PW-6 closed his shop.Referring to Amit @ Vicky, PW-6 has stated that he was the same person who had come with Rajvinder.For the record, we note that Rajvinder had expired before the testimony of PW-6 was recorded.CRL.L.P.655/2015 Page 2 of 4On reading and examining the versions given by Wasim (PW-6) and Ashiq-ul-Amin @ Chunnu (PW-3) it is apparent that the latter was stabbed with the scissor.PW-6 is categorical that Rajvinder had suddenly come inside, picked up the scissor and went outside.By the time PW-6 came outside of his shop, injuries had been inflicted and PW-3 was bleeding.PW-6 does not attribute any role to Amit @ Vicky, except that he had accompanied Rajvinder.PW-6 has not stated that Amit @ Vicky had come inside the shop when Rajvinder had come and picked up the scissor.Having examined testimony of PW-3, we notice that, in the first part of his statement, he has not named or attributed any act or spoken words to Amit @ Vicky.He has stated that after the injury was inflicted, Amit @ Vicky had caught hold of him, but PW-3 had managed to escape.No second injury was inflicted.It is this portion of PW-3's testimony which has been debated upon in the impugned judgment.It has been held and observed that the second part of the testimony by PW-3 does not apprise confidence and should not be accepted.The difference in the version given by Wasim (PW-He had not seen PW-3 escape or being caught by Amit @ Vicky.According to PW-6, PW-3 was already bleeding and Amit @ Vicky CRL.L.P.655/2015 Page 3 of 4 was standing.CRL.L.P.655/2015 Page 3 of 4In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment, which takes a possible view based on facts on record.Accordingly, we are not inclined to issue notice on the application for condonation of delay and the said application will be treated as dismissed.Consequently, the leave to appeal would be also treated as dismissed.SANJIV KHANNA, J R.K.GAUBA, J NOVEMBER 18, 2015 mr CRL.L.P.655/2015 Page 4 of 4CRL.L.P.655/2015 Page 4 of 4
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
58,417,284 |
as per rules.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with offences punishable u/Ss. 363 of IPC with further added Section 365 and 325 of IPC registered as Crime No.246/2015 at Police Station Gohad, District Bhind.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.The allegation of abduction of Ram Niwas Sharma is made against the applicant as well as the other co-accused including Umesh Sharma who has since been enlarged on regular bail by order dated 24.08.2015 in M.Cr.It is stated that because of some family dispute and also an earlier prosecution in shape of Section 498-A, 322 and 354 of IPC initiated by Smt. Aarti Sharma, wife of the abductee, animus exists between the rival parties who are closely related to each other and therefore the possibility of over/false implication cannot be ruled out, specially when the applicant has no criminal antecedents and the material placed on record does not disclose possibility of the applicant fleeing from justice,this Court is though inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the applicant but with certain stringent conditions in view of pendency of investigation.Accordingly, without expressing opinion on merits of the 2 M.Cr.C. No.9693/2015 case, I deem it appropriate to allow this application u/S 438 Cr.P.C in the following terms.The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.Till conclusion of investigation, the applicant will mark his attendance at the concerned Police Station once every week.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
58,419,869 |
Mahender too was sentenced to undergo 3 years' imprisonment.All the sentences were directed to operate concurrently.The incident in this case occurred in the late evening of 27-11-1999 at 11:55 PM.They went to the spot but the victims had been taken to the RML Hospital by the PCR Van.In the hospital they were informed that one Veer had succumbed to injuries and died.They Crl.317/2010, Crl.After the function, the Baba Dur, Bal Nath procession took place around 8:30 PM.The members of the Pareva family, including the accused were abusing loudly, in the street, that whoever had broken the stone in which their grandfather's name was engraved (and installed that day, apparently) would not be spared by them.As mentioned earlier the F I R was registered at around 2:30 AM in the morning.The judicial record reveals that the special report (about the incident recorded in the F I R) was received by the Magistrate concerned in terms of Section 157 Cr. PC.at 5:30 AM in the morning.In the cross-examination, the witness, on 15.03.2008, for the first time, admitted that there was no electricity supply in the area, when he was pulled down from the second floor and that it was dark.To a specific question, he said that though there was no light of any kind when he was brought to the road, 50-60 persons had gathered at the spot; 7-8 had brought him down from the second floor; He could not state how long the quarrel continued with any precision.The deposition of PW-3 shows that Satender knocked at his door, asking him to come out, he opened the door, and remonstrated that he had not broken the stone.Both were in their homes, at the time, around 11:00 PM.The incident, when the accused went around warning people in the neighbourhood about reprisals, took place around 8:30 PM.In these appeals three accused i.e. Devender, Pradeep and Parvesh were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34/452/149 IPC; the accused Satinder, Dharamvir and Gulab Rai were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 307/34 IPC and Sections for 452/149 IPC.The appellant Mahender was convicted for the offence punishable under section 452/34 IPC and acquitted of other charges.All the appellants were sentenced to undergo various prison terms; those convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC were sentenced to imprisonment for life; for other offences, they were sentenced to lesser sentences.Those convicted for offences under Sections 307/34 and 452/149 IPC were sentenced for 3 years' imprisonment and other sentences.A. 244/2010, Crl.A. 162/2010 & Crl.The F I R was produced as Ex. PW- 5/A.The police case was that Satinder, Gulab Rai, Dharamveer, Pravesh and Pradeep were arrested on 28-11-1999 from the spot and were identified by the complainant.Mahender and Devender were arrested on 16 December 1999; they surrendered in the court.The prosecution case against the accused was that on 27-11-1999 the stone laying ceremony had taken place in the locality where the deceased and his family members including PW-3 lived, in which the street was named as Prabhu Dayal Pareva street.Family members of Prabhu Dayal, who belonged to the Khatik Samaj, lived there.The locality was inhabited by members of another community i.e.the Raiger Samaj.PW-3 in his statement recorded to the police at the hospital, stated that about 11 PM the accused went up the first floor where he used to reside; they called him out, saying that they would teach him a lesson for breaking the stone.PW-3 stated that he opened the door and said that he had not broken the stone; Gulab Rai took hold of him and the Dharambir caught hold of his left hand.It was alleged that the Veer, his nephew came down, at which Dharmbir said that he ought to be taken down, and killed, to teach the Raigar (community) a lesson.PW-3 stated that Pradeep and Pravesh caught Crl.A. 244/2010, Crl.317/2010, Crl.A. 162/2010 & Crl.A. 163/2010 Page 3 hold of Veer, and Mahender caught hold of his collar and dragged him (Veer) down.The two accused who had caught the witness continued to hold him.Devender gave a knife or dagger blow to Veer.He told the other accused that he had finished his work and asked Satinder that he should finish off the others including the complainant.The complainant tried to escape, and staved off blows, but could not avoid a knife injury given by Satinder.He was rescued, by members of the general public.After completion of investigation and on the basis of the materials collected during its course, the police charged the accused for committing various offences.They denied guilt and claimed trial.During the trial the prosecution relied on the testimonies of 23 witnesses and various exhibits including the post-mortem report as well as the MLC's (i.e. medico legal reports) of the accused as well as the injured parties.On an overall analysis of these the Trial Court concluded that the three accused mentioned previously in the judgment were guilty for having committed the offence punishable under section 302 IPC along with other offences.The other accused were variously held guilty for offences under Sections 307 IPC and sections 452/149 IPC.The statement of injured witnesses were recorded at the hospital, since by then members of Crl.A. 244/2010, Crl.The evidence also indicates that the accused belonged to the Khatik community and the deceased as well as his relatives belonged to the Raigar community or Samaj.Both these communities lived in the same locality.In this background, PW-3 narrated that he used to live on the second floor of the building and his nephew Veer lived on the first floor.The witness claimed that he knew the accused by names and by their voices before the incident and that they belonged to the Khatik Samaj.His cross- examination, however, was conducted on different dates.In this regard, the Trial Court Crl.A. 244/2010, Crl.317/2010, Crl.A. 162/2010 & Crl.The Trial Court also reasoned that PW-3 and the accused used to live in the same locality and, therefore, the witness was in a position to identify them distinctly.The accused persons, however, were not to be mollified; Gulab Rai caught hold of his right hand and Dharamvir caught hold of his left and and Satinder pushed him down from the back and dragged him to the ground floor.He deposed that Devender and Satinder took out their daggers; the other accused continued to hold him.His nephew, Veer, the deceased, on hearing the commotion went outside.Parvesh and Pradeep caught hold of him and Devender inflicted the knife or dagger blow on his chest.The witness went on to say that Rajbir, his brother saved him with the members of the general public, who had collected by then.He also deposed to having reached the RML Hospital and that Veer was also taken there.In the hospital, Veer was declared dead.The witness deposed to having accompanied the police, on 8.11.1999, to Satinder's house which led to the recovery of dagger from beneath a mattress.Satinder had made a disclosure statement to the police, as a result of which the dagger was seized.He also deposed about arrest of Gulab Rai, Crl.A. 244/2010, Crl.317/2010, Crl.A. 162/2010 & Crl.A. 163/2010 Page 14 Pradeep, Parvesh and Dharamvir.Since the witness did not further depose about other recoveries seized from the house of Satinder, he was put leading questions at the behest of the prosecution.During the cross-examination of the witness, on 06.05.2005, PW-3 deposed that his house was situated at a distance of 5 minutes' walk; he was unable to say whether members of his family went to the police station at 11.00 PM when the incident happened.He also deposed that the hospital was at a distance of 4-5 kms.He testified that he went to the hospital on his brother's scooter but was unable to say how long it took to reach there.He was not aware whether Gulab Rai one of the appellants, had been injured and admitted in the same hospital; he did not state that the police enquired about Gulab Rai from him in the hospital.To a specific query, he stated that he was very scared and could not see the faces clearly but could identify the persons by their voices.A. 244/2010, Crl.A. 162/2010 & Crl.A. 163/2010 Page 15In the cross-examination on behalf of Satinder, Devender and Mahender, PW-3 admitted on 12.08.2008 ignorance about the work done by the members of the accused's family, the details of their family and also stated that he had neither played or had any dealings with them or any association or contact or association.In reply to another query, he stated that Satinder's house was a three-storeyed one and explained his ignorance as to how many rooms it had, or other details.He also did not know the particulars of Satender's family or who were living on the first floor.He mentioned about the recovery of the dagger from the second floor and signatures on the memo and also stated that the dagger was measured with an inch-tape.He denied the suggestion of having signed on blank paper and stated that he signed on written sheets; he confirmed to the contents of the statement recorded, Ex.3/A put to him by the learned counsel for the accused Gulab Rai and Parvesh.The first question which this court is to address itself is whether the incident took place at the time, and manner, alleged by the prosecution.PW- 3 stated that the attack and its aftermath, occurred around 11:00 PM.He also stated that the police station was nearby and the hospital was within 4-5 kms radius.His testimony further is that he went to the hospital on his brother's scooter.PW-23 corroborates the deposition of PW-3, saying that around 11:30 PM, someone went and told him on a scooter about the fight; he went there and saw that a crowd had collected at the spot.He took the injured (the deceased) lying there to the hospital, where he was declared dead.He informed another PCR van to reach the spot.The FIR was Crl.A. 244/2010, Crl.317/2010, Crl.A. 162/2010 & Crl.A. 163/2010 Page 16 registered at 2:30 AM; earlier, the intimation (rukka) forming the basis of the FIR was registered upon the statement of PW-3; it clearly implicated all the accused, and specifically named and assigned the roles the witness attributed to each of them.Two serious objections about the testimony of PW-3 articulated during the Appellants' submissions were that there was a black out, due to electricity failure; the area was covered in darkness.If one considered this with the PW-3's statement that the police had told him regarding the identity, and his further deposition during cross examination, that he had no occasion to talk to, interact or have any contact with them, the witness was untrustworthy.A. 244/2010, Crl.They were arrested.Gulab Rai caught hold of his right hand, Dharambir caught hold of his left hand; Satender pushed him down.Devender and Satender drew out their daggers.In the meanwhile, the Crl.A. 244/2010, Crl.The first is Satender asking the witness to go out and his being restrained.The second is the attack on Veer, by Devender, with a dagger; Pradeep and Parvesh facilitated this, by holding the deceased (Veer).He also said that Mahender had caught hold of Veer, by the collar, and dragged him down from the building.As far as the offence under Section 302 IPC is concerned, it is clearly made out against Devender.The nature of the weapon, and the planned manner in which the attack was executed, leaves no scope for doubt that the accused, set out to attack the victims, and had made up the minds to teach them a lesson.The Appellants were incensed over the stone bearing their grandfather's name being damaged; they took it as an affront.They suspected members of the Raigar community, and particularly the victim's family and with a view to punish them went to the building where they lived.In these circumstances, the accused went to the building where PW-3 and the deceased lived; pulled them out of their homes, and attacked them.Two of the accused were armed with daggers.The single knife blow on the chest, pierced the lungs.The stab wound, according to PW-18, was placed obliquely over the front of left side of the chest.The lower end was 3.5 cm upper and inner to the left nipple and the upper end 6 cm outer to the midline.The size of the wound was 2.8 cm x 1.2 cm; it was chest cavity deep.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
584,226 |
So far as applicants Anil Kumar and Dev Chand are concerned, it is alleged in the suicide note-cum- letter addressed to Superintendent of Police, Sagar that they were also responsible for his committing suicide as they also teased him and insinuated that he was impotent as his wife had not given birth to a child.These are the basic allegations.After going through the suicide note-cum-letter addressed to Superintendent of Police, Sagar dated 9-11 -95, which was read over to me during the arguments, it appears to this Court that the deceased suspected the character of his wife and he thought that Mahesh Kumar and Surya Kant Bhura were the chief guilty persons who had illicit relations with his wife.He suspected that Rajendra Kumar, Ashok Kumar and Neelesh too had enticed his wife.He blamed the father and mother of his wife, Vijay Kumar and Smt. Sarla, because according to him they encouraged their daughter to have illicit relations because they did not restrain her from meeting these persons.ORDER S.C. Pandey, J.This revision is directed against the orders dated 19-7-99 and 24-7-99 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar.The facts and the points of law involved in this revision as well as Criminal Revision Nos. 1205/99 and 1237/99 are of the same nature and therefore this order shall also govern the disposal of aforesaid two criminal revisions.The undisputed case of the prosecution is that on 15-11-95 the deceased Sushil Chand committed the murder of his wife Smt. Neelma Jain by means of knife because he suspected her to be of bad character and thereafter, he committed suicide by hanging himself.The deceased had left one suicide note-cum-letler dated 9-11-95 addressed to Superintendent of Police Sagar whereby he alleged that the applicant Vjjay and Sarla, father and mother of his wife deceased Neelma Jain were responsible for her illicit activities as they encouraged her to have clandastine relations with the applicants Mahcsh Kumar, Surya Kant Bhura, Ashok Kuroar, Rajendra Kumar and Neelesh.In Shakespcar's "The Tragedy of Othello, the Moor of Venice"; when Othello, misled by lago, begins to suspect the character of his wife Dcsdemona she complains to Emilia, the wife of lago, that she had given him no cause for suspicion."Desdemona : Alas the day, I never gave him cause ! Emilia : But jealous souls will not be answered so : They are not ever jealous for the cause, But Jealous for they're jealous.Tis a monster Begot upon itself, born on itself."Act III SC.In fact circumstances do indicate that real cause of committing suicide was that Sushil Kumar had planned to murder his wife and thereafter lo commit suicide.He succeeded in his plan but left an unsavoury tale in form of the letter to Superintendent of Police, Sagar that has hounded the applicants with the criminal prosecution.It is in the interest of justice that this Court must undo the injustice that is being done to them in accordance with the criminal law of this land.Consequently, all these revisions succeed and the impugned orders dated 19-7-99 giving reasons for framing of charge as well as order dated 24-7-99 whereby charges were framed against all the applicants under Section 306, IPC, are hereby set aside.The applicants are discharged of charges framed against them.All the three revisions filed by the applicants are allowed.Criminal Revision allowed.
|
['Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
584,269 |
Admittedly, one N.T.Radhakrishna Mudaliar and Girija Bai died leaving behind 3 sons and 6 daughters.They have left some family properties.1-10-2010srIndex:yesWebsite:yesToIt has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and cautiously, ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for which alone the court exists.It needs little emphasis that the inherent jurisdiction does not confer an arbitrary power on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice.The power exists to prevent abuse of authority and not to produce injustice.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that based on the complaint given by the respondents 2 and 3 the Central Crime Branch of Egmore, Chennai registered a case and investigated and examined 16 witnesses and filed a final report for the offences under Sec.120-B and 420 IPC.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.Therefore, the is an appropriate case to interfere and exercise the powers under Sec.482 CrP.CIn the result, both the criminal original petitions are allowed and the proceedings in CC No. 2 of 2007 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.The Inspector of Police (Crime) Central Crime Branch St. Thomas Mount ChennaiThe Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai G.M. AKBAR ALI,J., sr PRE-DELIERY COMMON ORDER IN CRL.O.P.No.27210 of 2008 and Crl.O.P.No.312 of 2009 1-10-2010
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
58,434,660 |
Heard on IA No.14689/15, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. and also on written objections filed by the State.The appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was on bail during the trial but he did not misuse the liberty granted to him.Actually the prosecutrix was shown to be 17 years and 3 months old on the basis of her educational record.However, the record filed by the trial Court was not of High School or Higher Secondary School.No basis has been shown for recording the concerned date of birth of the prosecutrix.No ossification test was performed.Looking to the physical appearance of the prosecutrix, as depicted by the concerned doctor, she may be above 18 years of age at the time of the incident.Looking to her statement, she resided with the appellant for a month without any resistance.Hence she was a consenting party.There are fair chances of success of this appeal.Under such circumstances, if the appellant is not released on bail, then his appeal may turn infructuous.Under these circumstances, he prays for bail.Learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application.Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.14689/15 is allowed.Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of the appellant namely Omprakash Kol shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 22/9/2015 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K. GUPTA)
|
['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
58,436,281 |
The incident of murder of the deceased Lakhmi Chand took place on 02.07.2009 at about 8:15-8:30 A.M. at Kalyan Puri in Delhi.The deceased Lakhmi Chand was an employee of Virender Singh (PW4) who owned a PCO/STD booth where the deceased was employed.On the day of the incident, the accused Chhote Lal came to the PCO/STD and asked Lakhmi Chand to come along with him to take oath in a temple situated nearby.The deceased went along with him, leaving the PCO in the charge of Vidya Ram (PW7).Not much time had elapsed when there was a heated exchange of words between the deceased and the accused which were overheard by Vidya Ram (PW7) and he moved towards the mandir to find out what happened.He saw the accused Chhote Lal running with a knife in his hand and the injured Lakhmi Chand lying with stab wounds on his stomach and hand.Chander Prakash (PW1) who lived in the gali nearby also heard commotion outside and came out to find the deceased lying in an injured condition with blood oozing out from the middle portion of Crl.A. No. 913/2011 Page 2 of 21 the body.At the same time somebody called the police using his mobile phone.Virender Singh (PW4), the owner of the PCO booth and the employer of the deceased was taking music classes of some children when he was informed by some children from the neighbourhood that Lakhmi Chand has been stabbed and is lying in injured condition.He went and saw Lakhmi Chand with injuries to his hand, chest and stomach.Both, Virender Singh (PW4) and Chander Prakash (PW1) took the deceased in a rickshaw to Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital.On the way, they were informed by the deceased that Chhotey Lal had stabbed him.Meanwhile, information received from the call made from the phone of Chander Prakash (PW1) related to the said incident was recorded at 9:04 A.M. vide DD No. 15/A (Ex.PW3/A) by HC Ashok Kumar (PW3).SI Love Atrey (PW16) along with Ct.Ajay Singh (PW13) left the police station for the spot.On reaching the place, they were informed that the deceased has been shifted to hospital.SI Love Atrey (PW16) left Ct.Ajay Singh (PW13) at the place of incident to secure it and went to the hospital.At 11:30 A.M. another DD No. 19A was recorded vide Ex.PW3/D of the information received from Ct.Amit Kumar (PW9) that Lakhmi Chand has died.The case was then taken over by Inspector Roshan Lal (PW18) and he also reached the crime scene.SI Love Atrey also reached back on the crime scene.Inspector Roshan Lal (PW18) supervised the seizure of earth control and blood stained earth sample, the shirt and the baniyan (vest) of the deceased which was seized in a pulanda vide Ex.PW13/C. The shirt of Virender Singh (PW4) which had blood stains on it as he shifted the deceased person to hospital was also seized vide Ex.PW4/A. Subsequently, secret information was received that accused Chhotey Lal was at his home.Inspector Roshan Lal (PW18), along with SI Love Atrey (PW16), Ct.Ajay Singh (PW13) and eye witness Vidya Ram (PW7) went to apprehend the accused, where Vidya Ram (PW7) identified the accused and he was apprehended.Search of the accused was conducted vide Ex.PW13/A where a knife was found to have been concealed on the right side dub which was seized vide Ex.PW7/B and its sketch was prepared vide Ex.The accused appeared in the Court.PW1 Chander Prakash heard the commotion outside his house and went out to see what had transpired.When he saw the deceased in an injured condition with blood oozing out from his middle portion of the body, he along with Virender Singh took the deceased to the hospital in a rickshaw.This witness has deposed that on 2nd July, 2009, at about 8:30 am to 9:00 am, he was sitting at the corner of the street outside the STD booth along with the deceased when accused Chhotey Lal came and started talking to deceased.Accused took the deceased towards the Mandir for taking oath.After some time he heard a noise and rushed towards the Mandir where he found accused and deceased indulging in heated exchange of words and then saw the accused running from the spot with knife in his hand and deceased, due to injuries on the stomach, fell on the ground.The owner of the STD booth Sh.Virender Singh, PW4 came at the spot and took the injured to LBS hospital in rickshaw.He also went to the hospital separately.Mandir was situated at the back side of the STD booth.It was visible from STD booth which was at a distance of 5 yards.Direction of wound was downward, backward and medially.Wound entered the abdominal cavity cutting costo-condral junctions of lower most ribs near xiphisternum, cutting the left lob of liver.: SUNITA GUPTA, J.Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order on sentence dated 19th February, 2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No.63/2010 arising out of FIR No.166/2009, PS Kalyan Puri whereby the appellant was convicted u/s 302 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple Crl.A. No. 913/2011 Page 1 of 21 imprisonment for a period of six months.The convict was granted benefit of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.A. No. 913/2011 Page 1 of 21HC Ashok Kumar (PW3) also received a rukka from SI Love Atrey on the basis of which FIR No. 166/09 (vide Ex.PW3/B) Crl.A. No. 913/2011 Page 3 of 21 was registered.HC Ashok Kumar (PW3) also made endorsement on rukka (vide Ex.PW3/C).PW7/C. Thereafter, Crl.A. No. 913/2011 Page 4 of 21 IO Inspector Roshan Lal (PW18) formally arrested accused Chhotey Lal at 9 P.M. vide Ex.PW7/D.A. No. 913/2011 Page 2 of 21A. No. 913/2011 Page 3 of 21A. No. 913/2011 Page 4 of 21After completing investigation, charge sheet was submitted under Section 302 IPC.On appearance of the accused, arguments on charge were heard.Charge for offence under Section 302 IPC was framed against him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.In order to substantiate its case, prosecution had examined 19 witnesses.All the incriminating evidence was put to the accused while recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the case of prosecution.According to him, Chander Prakash was living in the same locality at Khichripur.However, Chander Prakash was aggrieved with him and threatened to falsely implicate him in some case.In collusion with PW7 Vidya Ram, he got him falsely implicated in this case.He pleaded his innocence.In support of his defence, he examined two witnesses.A. No. 913/2011 Page 5 of 21A. No. 913/2011 Page 5 of 21After meticulously examining the evidence and other material on record, the learned Trial Court arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, as such, he was convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced as mentioned above.Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.We have heard Mr. Imran Khan, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Sunil Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and have perused the record.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that star witness of the prosecution is PW7 Sh.Vidya Ram on whose statement police machinery was set in motion.However, the witness is not consistent in his deposition, inasmuch as, at one stage, he claimed to be an eye witness of the incident but in the same breath he deposed that he did not see the accused stabbing the deceased.There is inconsistency in his statement even regarding the arrest of the accused as, according to him, when he was in the hospital he came to know that accused has been apprehended whereas as per the arrest memo he was arrested at Crl.A. No. 913/2011 Page 6 of 21 9:00 pm.Even the recovery of weapon of offence is doubtful inasmuch as according to the prosecution, the accused was apprehended while carrying blood stained knife in his pocket.It is highly improbable that after committing such a ghastly crime, the accused will move in the area while keeping the said knife in his possession.Motive to commit crime is not proved.As such, it was submitted that prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the appellant beyond shadow of doubt.As such, the appellant is entitled to be acquitted.A. No. 913/2011 Page 6 of 21Sunil Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, on the other hand, submitted that three key witnesses have been produced by the prosecution.On the way, they were told by the deceased that Chhotey Lal had stabbed him.Somebody informed the police from his mobile phone.PW4 Virender Singh was the employer of the deceased and used to run a PCO/STD Crl.A. No. 913/2011 Page 7 of 21 booth.He has deposed that he was taking music classes when he was informed by the neighbourhood children of the incident.He corroborated PW1 Chander Prakash regarding removing the deceased in rickshaw to Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital, in the process of which his shirt got stained with the deceaseds blood and on the way the deceased informed them that he was stabbed by the accused.The third witness PW7 Vidya Ram though had been oscillating on whether he saw stabbing of the deceased by the accused, has been consistent with regard to the accused having gone with the deceased in his presence and the abusive exchange that took place between the two and seeing the accused running with the knife in his hand.He also corroborates that Virender took the deceased to hospital and his shirt got stained with blood.The shirt of Virender Singh was found to have blood group B which was of the deceased as per the serological report and the same also proved the presence of Virender Singh at the spot.It was further submitted that PW11 Dr. Arvind Kumar conducted the post mortem on the body of the deceased and opined that out of three injuries, the two caused on the chest and stomach of the deceased were sufficient in nature to cause death, collectively and Crl.A. No. 913/2011 Page 8 of 21 independently of each other.On being asked about his opinion with regard to the weapon of offence, he opined that the injuries could have been caused by the weapon shown to him.It was further submitted that there were two defence witnesses examined by the accused namely Ranjeet Singh, who is a property dealer and Rajeev Sharma, who runs a milk dairy.Both the witnesses testified that they heard people saying that a robbery has taken place in the area.Their testimony is only hearsay.None has disputed the presence of the prosecution witnesses or the accused at the scene of crime.Under the circumstances, it was submitted that the eye witness account of Vidya Ram seeing the accused fleeing with knife, the dying declaration of Lakhmi Chand to Virender Singh, the recovery of weapon of offence and the serological report proves the case of prosecution and the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity which calls for interference.As such, the appeal be dismissed.A. No. 913/2011 Page 7 of 21A. No. 913/2011 Page 8 of 21We have given our considerable thoughts to the respective submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.A. No. 913/2011 Page 9 of 21A. No. 913/2011 Page 9 of 21PW7 Sh.Vidya Ram is the witness on whose statement the police machinery was swung in motion.However, he deposed that he had not seen the accused while giving the knife blow on the deceased and he had only seen the accused leaving from the spot with knife in his hand.Many public persons gathered there and some persons chased the accused but he succeeded in fleeing away.This witness was cross-examined by learned Public Prosecutor for the State and in cross-examination he admitted having seen the accused Chhotey Lal stabbing the Crl.A. No. 913/2011 Page 10 of 21 deceased and that accused Chhotey Lal took out the knife from inside the pocket of his shirt and had given 2-3 blows on the stomach of deceased.However, in cross-examination by learned counsel for the appellant, he again retracted from his stand by stating that he was inside the STD booth and when he came outside on hearing the noise, he saw accused running at the distance of about 20 yards.In pursuance to a court question put to the witness as to whether he had seen the accused stabbing the deceased, he replied in affirmative and deposed that he was behind the counter of STD booth when deceased asked him to take money from 2-3 persons who had made telephone call.Accused and deceased went outside the STD booth.He further deposed that the accused had taken the deceased to the temple to swear before the God as there was some money dispute between them.As such, in regard to actually witnessing the accused stabbing the deceased, the witness had been changing his stand, however, he corroborated PW4 Virender Singh that he had taken the deceased to hospital and his shirt was stained with blood.He had also seen three wounds, two on the Crl.A. No. 913/2011 Page 11 of 21 stomach and one on hand.Regarding the arrest of the accused, also a discrepancy has appeared in the testimony of this witness as according to him, when he was in the hospital, he came to know that accused has been arrested whereas the case of the prosecution is that the accused was arrested in the evening.Under the circumstances, there is some inconsistency in the testimony of the witness.However, same is not fatal to the case of prosecution, inasmuch as, there is ample other evidence available on record to substantiate the case of prosecution.A. No. 913/2011 Page 10 of 21A. No. 913/2011 Page 11 of 21PW1 Chander Prakash, who was doing the work of selling the edibles deposed that he heard the commotion outside his house and went out to know what had transpired.He saw the deceased in an injured condition with blood oozing out from middle portion of his body.Some public persons had also gathered there and used his mobile phone to call up police.He also stated that he had heard many bystanders saying that Chhotey Lal had murdered the deceased.He also deposed that he tied chunni in the stomach of the deceased so that the blood could stop.He along with Virender Singh PW4 took the deceased to LBS Hospital in a rickshaw.On the way to hospital Crl.A. No. 913/2011 Page 12 of 21 deceased himself informed them that Chhotey Lal had stabbed him.Though this witness has made some improvements, i.e., tying of chunni by him on middle portion of stomach of the deceased and that the deceased had informed him that accused Chhotey Lal stabbed him and that he also accompanied PW4 to the hospital but the witness clarified that he was with PW4 while deceased was being taken to hospital.Despite the improvements, nothing material could be elicited in cross-examination to discredit the testimony of the witness.The appellant has attributed the motive of false implication of the accused at his instance as he had asked the accused Chhotey Lal to depose in the Court in the murder case of his father.However, the witness has categorically denied this fact.Nothing has come on record from the side of the accused to prove this claim.A. No. 913/2011 Page 12 of 21When he came outside, he found crowd gathered there and deceased lying on the road in injured condition.Blood was oozing from his body.He Crl.A. No. 913/2011 Page 13 of 21 took the deceased to LBS Hospital in rickshaw and while he was taking deceased to hospital, he was informed by the deceased that accused Chhotey Lal after giving knife blow to him, ran away from the spot.He also corroborated the testimony of PW1 that he along with PW1 had taken the deceased to the hospital and during that process, his clothes were stained with blood and he gave his blood stained clothes to the police.This witness, however, has denied that while he was taking the deceased to the hospital, he also informed that accused suspected him (deceased) that he had stolen his Rs.24000/- and on that day, he had come to demand the aforesaid money.He denied having any knowledge about any transaction of Rs.24,000/- between the accused and the deceased.Except for this fact, the witness has substantially proved the case of prosecution.The fact that he had taken the deceased to hospital stands fortified by the MLC, Ex. PW5/A where in the column of "brought by", the name of this witness is mentioned.Moreover, blood stained shirt of this witness was handed over to the police which was sent to FSL and as per the FSL and serological report Ex. PW17/D and Ex. PW17/E, the shirt of Virender Singh was found to have blood group B which was Crl.A. No. 913/2011 Page 14 of 21 that of the deceased which further proves his presence at the spot.The witness has no axe to grind to falsely implicate the accused as no enmity, ill will or grudge has been alleged against him.He is neither the relative of the deceased nor is on any inimical terms with the accused and, in fact, the accused has also not imputed any motive of his false implication by this witness.The factum that while he was taking the deceased to the hospital he was informed by him that accused Chhotey Lal had stabbed him is an oral dying declaration which is admissible in evidence and is another clinching piece of evidence against the accused.A. No. 913/2011 Page 13 of 21PW5/A was prepared by Dr. Sushil Kumar, who on local examination, found the following injuries:-i) Stab wound present over left side lower chest about 3x2x7 cm with sharp margin with active bleeding.ii) Stab on present over right side umblical region with sharp margin about 4x2x7 cm with active bleeding.A. No. 913/2011 Page 15 of 21A. No. 913/2011 Page 15 of 21iii) Incised wound present over left hand on palmer aspect about 7x2 cm with fresh clot of blood.After giving the initial treatment, he referred the patient to Department of Surgery.However, shortly after, the injured died.His post mortem was conducted by PW11 Dr. Arvind Kumar, who on external examination found following injuries:-i) Incised stab wound having two stitches, on opening the stitches a wound of size 3.4 x 0.3 cm was present over epigastria region on left side obliquely placed.Wound was 1 cm left to the midline and 17.5 cm below to middle end of left clavicle.Upper lateral angle of wound was sharp while medical angle of wound as blunt.Extravasation of blood present in the tract.Blood clots present around the liver.Total depth of the wound was 14.2 cm.ii) Incised stab wound having two stitches.On opening the stitches wound of size 3.6 cm x 0.4 cm vertically placed was Crl.A. No. 913/2011 Page 16 of 21 present over right abdomen, 4.5 cm right to umbilicus and 8 cm below to lower margin of ribs.Upper angle of wound was blunt while lower angle was sharp.Direction of wound was backward, upward and laterally.Cutting the lower margin of right lob of liver, total depth of wound was 13.2 cm.A. No. 913/2011 Page 16 of 21iii) Incised wound of size 6.3 cm x 0.5 cm present over left palm, starting from second web space to hypothenar muscles obliquely placed.On internal examination, both lungs were adhered to chest wall and found pale on cut section.Peritonial cavity was containing about 3 ltr.of blood and blood clots.Liver was 1300 gm and pale.Injury as described in external injuries.Brain was 1200 gm and pale.The doctor opined that all the injuries were ante mortem in nature.Cause of death was haemorrhagic shock due to ante mortem injuries to liver produced by single edge sharp cutting/stabbing weapon.Injuries No. 1 & 2 were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature collectively or individually.Doctor has further deposed that on 4th September, 2009, Inspector Roshal Lal moved an application seeking subsequent Crl.A. No. 913/2011 Page 17 of 21 opinion regarding the weapon of offence and on opening the parcel, he found a single edged knife with metallic handle and opined vide opinion Ex.PW11/C that injuries 1 to 3 were possible by weapon under examination.A. No. 913/2011 Page 17 of 21As per the case of prosecution, on the same day, i.e., 2 nd July, 2009, on the basis of secret information, the accused was apprehended at about 9:00 pm.On his search, one knife dubbed in the right side of his pant was recovered which was having some reddish brown stains.Moreover, the knife along with other material seized at the spot was sent to FSL and as per the report Ex.PW17/D given by Sh.Indresh Kumar Misra, Sr.Scientific Officer, blood could not be detected on the knife.It is true that recovery of the knife from the person of the accused, under the circumstances of the case, seems doubtful, inasmuch as, the incident had taken place between 8:30 am to 9:00 am whereas the accused was apprehended at about 9:00 pm and it is Crl.A. No. 913/2011 Page 18 of 21 difficult to believe that after committing crime, the accused would roam around or remain in his house while keeping the same knife in his pant on which the blood was also not detected as per the report of the Senior Scientific Officer.However this itself does not cast any dent on the prosecution version in view of the aforesaid voluminous evidence coming on record.A. No. 913/2011 Page 18 of 21The appellant had examined two defence witnesses, namely Ranjeet Singh and Rajeev Sharma, both of whom have tried to give a colour of the incident as if some robbery has taken place in the area.However, this was not even the case of the appellant and their testimony was rightly not believed by the learned Trial Court.Although the motive to commit the crime could not be substantiated, inasmuch as, PW4 Virender Singh has denied that while taking Lakhmi Chand to hospital, he informed him that Chhotey Lal suspected that the deceased has stolen Rs.24000/- belonging to him and on that day he had come to demand the money.However, PW7 Vidya Ram has deposed that the accused had taken the deceased towards Mandir for taking oath as there was some money dispute.Assuming that the motive to commit crime could not Crl.A. No. 913/2011 Page 19 of 21 be substantiated even then as held in Tarsem Kumar vs. Delhi Administration, 1995 Cr LJ 470, where the case of prosecution has been proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of material produced before the court, motive loses its importance.That being so, there was no question of his being aggrieved with the accused.Moreover, such a suggestion given to Chander Prakash has been denied by him and no evidence to prove this fact has been given by the appellant.A. No. 913/2011 Page 20 of 21 Moreover, Vidya Ram as well as Virender Singh were residents of the same locality and no enmity has been alleged against them for which reason, they will falsely implicate the appellant in this case.Under the circumstances, the learned Trial Court, after meticulously examining the entire evidence, rightly convicted the appellant of the offence alleged against him.A. No. 913/2011 Page 20 of 21(SUNITA GUPTA) JUDGE (KAILASH GAMBHIR) JUDGE APRIL 22, 2014 rs Crl.A. No. 913/2011 Page 21 of 21A. No. 913/2011 Page 21 of 21
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
58,439,251 |
The complainant, who had earlier quarrelled with his father and later for some reason or other parted company with the appellant, who was his senior, lodged the complaint even without the knowledge of his father who had already received the amount of Rs. 612/- for which the complainant was said to have been cheated.The statements of accounts filed in the case clearly show that at different times the firm was liable to pay certain expenses and fees to the appellant and at other times the appellant was holding some money on client's account.The letter of Dinubhai (Ex. D-8) dated October 27, 1966, to the appellant is revealing in this respect.The letter states, inter alia, that--"indeed you have worked and you must receive your fees.There may be lot of recov- eries now due and may I request you to recover your fees out of the recoveries.You are aware that I have ventured to put Suryakant with your support at Indore and there can be no idea ever in existence to offend you.I think we are best friends and there should be no hitch in that at all.X X X X 105 May I therefore request you to please carry out all the recovery proceedings and take all your dues you think reasonable from the amounts so recovered".Similarly the letter from the complainant (Ex. D-39) to the appellant of March 29, 1967, written under instructions of Dinubhai was as follows :--"(1) That you have submitted the last statement of account on 16-8-1966 showing the cash on hand of Rs. 488.60P remaining with you for future expenses.Thus, you had Rs. 788.60P (Rupees seven hundred eighty eight and Np.(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 22-10-1971 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench) in Crl.A. No. 291 of 1970).R.L. Kohli, R.C. Kohli and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appel- lant.The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GOSWAMI, J. The appellant, an advocate of 25 years' standing, was charged under section 420, Indian Penal Code.He was acquitted by the trial court holding the matter to be of civil nature.The High Court of Madhya Pradesh on appeal at the instance of the complainant (the first respondent herein) set aside the acquittal and convicted the appellant under section 420 IPC and sentenced him to rigorous impris- onment for two years and to a fine of Rs. 600/-, in default further rigorous imprisonment for six months.The complainant is the son of one Dinubhai, a senior partner of Dinubhai & Co., with its head office in Bombay and a branch office in Indore.There were two partners, namely, the complainant's father and one M.C. Mehta.A civil suit was instituted by Dinubhai against Nai Duniya, Indore, a daily newspaper, impleading M.C. Mehta also as a co-defendant.The suit Was decreed against Nai Duniya but was dismissed against M.C. Mehta with costs amounting to Rs. 612/- awarded to him.The complainant was acting as a junior to the appellant in this suit as well as in several other suits filed by the firm against others.It is alleged by the complainant that about February 8, 1965, the appellant made a demand from him, along with other amounts, of a sum of Rs. 612/- being the costs awarded to Mehta in the aforesaid suit by making a representation that he had already deposited the amount in court from his own funds.Depending upon this statement, the complaint pro- ceeds, the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 1000/- which in- cluded the amount of Rs. 612/- towards the costs awarded.The firm appealed against the decree and it appears a compromise was entered with Mehta whereby Mehta relinquished his claim for costs of Rs. 612/-.On that very date the appellant returned to Dinubhai the sum of Rs. 612/- by a crossed cheque stating that "this appeal is just now disposed of by the Honble High Court, Indore.I am, therefore, expected to remit this sum to you".Even so, the complainant, Dinubhai's son., lodged a complaint in the court of the Additional District Magis- trate, Indore City, on September 21, 1967, bringing a charge of cheating against the appellant by citing the only witness in the complaint being the Record Keeper of the High Court.Dinubhai, his father, was not even mentioned as a witness in the complaint nor was he later examined in the case.8--240SCI/77 104 In the trial the complainant examined himself and one Vijaykumar, a clerk in the office of the High Court.The latter has proved from the records of the first appeal in the High Court that the costs of Rs. 612/awarded to the defendant, Mehta, in the suit had not been deposited on behalf of the complainant's father, Dinubhai.The complainant reiterated his allegations in the complaint and further stated that after the compromise with Mehta which had taken place on March 10, 1967, he perused the record of the case and came to know that the appellant had not deposited any money of the costs to Mehta in the court.He, however, admitted that after the compromise the appellant had sent a cheque of Rs. 612/- to his father at Bombay.In the course of cross-examination his attention was invited to his following statement given before the Magis- trate under section 200, Criminal Procedure Code:"Thereafter when Shri V.V. Kulkarni told me the aforesaid thing I knew and had knowl- edge of the fact that he had not deposited Rs. 612.00 in the court.Still Shri Kulkarni deceitfully demanded Rs. 612.00 from me".In the printed paper-book before this Court at page 3, paragraph 6 there is an error in adding the word "not" before the word "knowledge".This is clear from the original High Court paper-book which we have examined.The trial court found that it was a case of accounting between the parties and was a matter of civil nature.The trial court thus acquitted the appellant.The High Court on appeal, as mentioned earlier, reversed the acquittal and convicted and sentenced the appellant under section 420 IPC.Hence this appeal by special leave.sixty) cash on hand with you.(3) It is, therefore, requested that kindly give the detailed statement of account to my client, as it is required for the pur- poses of Income tax".On the top of that we find from the copy of the complaint (Ex. D-10) in Civil Suit No.. 8 of 1968 B filed by Dinubhai against the appellant on February 16, 1968, claiming a decree for the amount of Rs. 11492,85 after acknowledging the receipt of Rs. 612/-, the subject matter of the cheating case (para 3 of the plaint).It is, therefore, crystal clear that the appellant's relationship with the complain- ant's father was that of a lawyer and a client and anything outstanding from one or the Other party was a matter of accounting between them.The complainant has no part to play on his own and his prosecution of the appellant even without examining his father as a witness is absolutely unauthorised and uncalled for.Even the receipt (Ex. P-1) upon which the High Court principally relied goes to show that a sum of Rs. 350.90 had already been spent by the appellant and it is only on Febru- ary 11, 1965, the date of the receipt, that this money was received by him from the complainant on behalf of Dinubhai.Even this receipt (Ex. P-1) shows that a round figure of Rs. 1000/- was paid to him leaving Rs. 37.10 as "cash for ex- penses".By no stretch of imagination it can be said that any deception was practised upon the complainant on February 11, 1965, when the latter parted with one thousand rupees including the amount of Rs. 612/- towards the costs payable to Mehta.Apart from this the costs of Rs. 612/-were indeed a liability of Dinubhai to Mehta and not a fictitious claim.There was accounting between the parties and even the correspondence shows that there have been adjustments between the parties from time to time.That being the position dishonest intention which is the principal ingredi- ent of an offence under section 420 IPC is lacking in this case.Apart from that since the amount was actually payable by the firm to Mehta, there was no need for making any representation to the complainant for obtain- ing this amount.It is even probable that this amount had been received towards payment of costs even without making any representation as alleged.The High Court has unnecessarily given exaggerated importance to the typed receipt (Ex. P-1 ) of February 11, 1965, signed by the appellant wherein against the amount of Rs. 612/- it was recited that "the costs of Shri Mehta in the matter of Nai Duniya, deposited by me in the court from my person".It is suggested by the appellant in the course of cross-examina- tion of the complainant that this receipt was got typed by the complainant and the appellant only signed it in good faith in the usual course.The complainant, however, denied the suggestion.There is also no evidence to show as to who typed the receipt or who even dictated the contents in the receipt.The High Court, therefore, had no reason whatsoever in appeal against acquittal to interfere with this conclusion which is clearly justified on the evidence.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
58,439,498 |
Heard on point of admission.Appeal is admitted for final hearing.Heard on I.A. No.6085/2017, which is second application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant Nitin S/o Deepak Suryavanshi.His first application was dismissed as withdrawn without arguing the matter on merit.The appellant suffered conviction and sentence as under:-It is alleged that he was having an affair of heart with sister of the wife of the complainant and as he was not allowed to visit the house of the complainant for the last two years, he entered into a conspiracy with other accused person to commit the crime.He was not present when the crime was committed.Looking to the role assigned to the present appellant, benefit of bail may be granted to him.Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the applications.Certified copy as per rules.(ALOK VERMA)
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
5,844,935 |
/436/147/149 IPC in connection with Sessions Case No. 241/2013 now pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Hooghly, have approached this court for quashing of the said charge so far that relates to the offences punishable under Sections 436/149 IPC.It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that police submitted charge-sheet under Sections 147/148/149/448/342/427/435 IPC but while framing charge, the learned Judge also framed a charge against the petitioners for committing an offence punishable under Sections 436/149 IPC.He submitted that there is no materials to support the order of framing the charge, since the subject matter of offence was never a dwelling house.On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the State submitted that from the case diary it is found that a car was set on fire and not any dwelling house.Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house, etc. - whoever commits mischief by fire or any explosive substance, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, the destruction of any building which is ordinarily used as a place of worship or as a human dwelling or as a place for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."However, going through the materials collected during investigation, I do not find that there is any iota of materials to show that any building used as a place for human dwelling, was set on fire.It is the categorical case of de facto-complainant and his witness that a car was set on fire.This position has also not been disputed from the side of the State.This applications stands allowed and disposed of.Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties within a week from the date of making such application.
|
['Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
5,845 |
The case of the Prosecution is as follows:-Based on the confession of A1, the admissible of which is Ex.P4, PW.6, proceeded to the house of A2 at Aminjikarai along with A1 and PW.1 and seized the blocks and ink bottles (Mo.2 and Mo.3) under a house search jabitha Ex.P2, in which PW.2 singed as a witness along with Raja and thereafter, proceeded to A2's press at Perambur where A3 and A4 were found to be present.PW.6 prepared Ex.P3 search list and took impression of counterfeit currency note Rs.2/- denomination MO.5 and sent an advance intimation to the Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore under Ex.PW.3 is the land owner of the building where A3 is running the press and PW.3 signed in the search list Ex.P7 and saw the seizure of blocks, machines, inks and forged blocks of diploma certificates.b. PW.6 prepared Ex.P6 observation mahazar and Ex.These Criminal Appeals are filed against the judgement dated 7.10.2002 passed in SC.No.392/1999 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC-V) Chennai, convicting and sentencing the appellants/A1 to A5, as stated above.P9 the sketch and came back to the CBCID Office along with A1 to A4 and the parties and registered a case in Cr.No.2/1994 and prepared FIR Ex.P10 against A1 to A5 for offences under Sections 120B, 489A, B, C and D of IPC and 473 of IPC and prepared Exs.P11 and P.12 sketch and enquired the witnesses and the sent A1 to A5 for judicial custody along with Form 98 and Ex.PW.6 took A3 in police custody and conducted search in A3's house and went to the shops identified by A3 where he had purchased ink paper, acid etc. and recorded the statements of Manickam, Gopi and Deepak Stanly and after completing investigation, filed a final report against the accused under Sections 120B, 489A, B, C and D of IPC and 473 of IPC of IPC.The case was taken on file in SC.No.392/1999 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC-V) Chennai and necessary charges were framed.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses (PW.1 to PW.7} and also relied on Exs.P1 to P20 and fourteen material objects (Mos.1 to 14).On side of the defence, one Venugopal was examined as DW.1 and no document was marked.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.PC as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the accused denied the same as totally false.The court below, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and looking into the materials available on record, found the accused/appellants guilty and awarded punishments as referred to above, which is challenged in these Criminal Appeals.Their evidence disclosed that on information the Inspector of Police PW.6 along with his party which included PW.2 went to the Barracks Road in the junction of Kariappa Road and the informant identified A1 from whom a two rupee denomination of counterfeit note Mo.1 and 2 were seized in the presence of Pw.1 and one Rajah.P4, they proceeded to A2's house and from the drawer of the table in the front room of his house Mo.2 block of two rupee currency notes and MO.3 ink bottles were seized.It is seen from their evidence that at the instance of A1 and A2, they gone to the press run by A3 and from there Mo.4 blocks and another block MO.7 used for printing fake diploma certificate had been seized.P9 rough map had been drawn by Pw.6 exhibiting that the printing and cutting machine was attached to the ground.The above said seizure establishes that the instruments and materials seized were used for the process of counterfeiting currency notes.As far as A1 is concerned, a counterfeit denomination indisputably, which did not contain any serial number, was found in his possession and the same had been seized from his pocket.On his confession, A2 and 3 have been identified and blocks used for preparing counterfeit notes have been seized.His evidence cannot be viewed with any suspicion, as he has given the reason for being at the spot of seizure.The evidence of PW.2 and 6 cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they are the police officers who effected the search and seizure.The fact of possession of counterfeit note in A1's pocket and the events that followed after his confession are sufficient to draw an inference that A1 was in possession knowing it to be counterfeit.The Prosecution has established that the counterfeit note was seized from the pocket of A1 and that he had kept the same knowingly thus indicating conscious possession.A conspiracy need not be established by evidence of an actual agreement between the conspirators and the overtact could raise a presumption of an agreement and the knowledge of the purpose of conspiracy.From the acts and conduct of A1 to A4 and the incriminating seizure effected on their confession, an agreement for illegal object could be inferred in this case.In his cross examination PW.3 asserted that he had let out the house only to A3 and had been dealing only with him in that regard.It is admitted by him that he did not state those facts to the investigating officers at the time of investigation.1.The Additional Sessions Judge (FTC-V)2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
58,456,178 |
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA for the State and perused the record.This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed with the prayer to quash the charge-sheet, cognizance order dated 9.12.2019 as well as the entire proceedings of S.S.T. No. 211 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 421 of 2019, under Sections 354-A, 323, 506 IPC and 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Bilhaur, District Kanpur Nagar, pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 8/ Special Judge (POCSO Act), Kanpour Dehat and further to stay further proceedings of the aforesaid case.It is submitted by the learned counsel of the applicants that the FIR has been lodged on false grounds while the applicants have not committed any offence.The police has also submitted charge sheet on the basis of insufficient evidence against the applicants.Essential ingredients to constitute offence are lacking.The present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention.Learned counsel for the applicants pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.Learned AGA has opposed the prayer.Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs.P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs.From a perusal of the material available on record and keeping in view the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that offences levelled against the applicants are not made out.Hence, prayer made in the application is refused.With the aforesaid observations, the application stands disposed of.Order Date :- 3.3.2020/safi
|
['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.
|
58,456,294 |
A.No.31/2010 Page 1 of 16A.No.31/2010 Page 1 of 16Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on 01.03.2001 at about 4:00 pm, Constable Neelam of police control room informed P.S. Dabri about stabbing of one Pankaj near Solanki Public School, Durga Park.This information was recorded as DD No.30A (Ex.PW18/A) and copy thereof was entrusted to SI Manjeet Tomar (PW18) for further action.SI Manjeet Tomar, on receipt of copy of the DD report, proceeded to the spot of occurrence along with Constable Subodh.On reaching the spot, SI Manjeet Tomar (PW18) found that the injured had been removed to DDU Hospital.He, therefore, went to the Hospital and collected the MLC of the deceased Ranbir Ex.PW13/A, who had been declared brought dead.At the Hospital, SI Manjeet Tomar met Rajender Kumar (PW17) and Azimullah (PW10), who had brought the deceased to the Hospital.He recorded the statement of PW Rajender Ex.PW17/A and obtained his signatures thereupon.Thereafter, SI Manjeet Tomar along with PWs Rajender Kumar and Azimullah and the Constable came back to the spot of occurrence.He inspected the spot and got it photographed by a private photographer.A knife was found lying at the spot of occurrence.SI prepared the sketch of the knife Ex.PW18/B, converted the knife into a sealed packet and seized it vide seizure memo Ex.PW18/C. A blood stained cloth was also lying on the spot.It was also converted into a sealed packet and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW18/D. The Investigating Officer also seized the samples of blood-stained earth and control earth, vide respective memos Exhibits Crl.A.No.31/2010 Page 2 of 16 PW18/E and PW18/F. He appended his endorsement on the statement Ex.PW17/A of PW Rajender and sent that rukka Ex.PW18/G to the Police Station for the registration of the case.He also prepared the site plan Ex.PW18/H.A.No.31/2010 Page 2 of 16PW17/B on 02.03.2001 and pursuant to the disclosure statement, on 03.03.2001, he got recovered a knife with a cover from a heap of cow dung lying in the open ground in Durga Park.The recovered knife and its cover were taken into possession after preparing their sketches and converting them into a sealed packet vide memo Ex.PW5/C.PW17 Rajender Kumar in his statement Ex.PW17/A disclosed that on 01.03.2001 at about 3:15 pm, he and his friends Ranbir @ Kari, Deepak, Punit and Alok were present near a Pan Shop at Durga Park, main Nasir Pur Road.PW Azimullah also came and joined them.In the meanwhile Manoj @ Chintu and his friend Sanjay Mishra (appellant) were seen coming from the side of Solanki Public School.On seeing them, PW Azimullah and one PW Deepak informed them that Manoj @ Crl.A.No.31/2010 Page 3 of 16 Chintu and Sanjay were the boys who had quarrelled with them on the preceding day on the issue of their friendship with the self proclaimed sister of Chintu.When deceased Ranbir @ Kari asked the appellant and Chintu about that incident, the appellant Sanjay Mishra exhorted Chintu by saying "Ye Kari Hi Jyada Badmash Banta Hai, Isi Ko Pahley Thikane Lagao".On this, PW Deepak and the deceased Kari started arguing with them.Accused Chintu pushed Deepak and he suddenly took out a knife from his pant and gave a knife blow on the chest of Ranbir @ Kari.As result, deceased Ranbir @ Kari fell down behind the Pan Kiosk and his friends, because of fear, ran away.However, he and Azimullah took the injured deceased to Deen Dayal Hospital, where they were told that he has expired.Rajender Kumar also stated that the incident took place in the open ground behind the Kiosk of Pan vendor at around 3:30 pm.A.No.31/2010 Page 3 of 16He testified that on a day before 01.03.2001, accused Chintu (juvenile) had slapped Hazimullah (should have been Azimullah).On 01.03.2001, he along with the deceased, Punit, Alok and Azimullah was going to the house of Mahawal Mishra, near Dugra Park when they saw the appellant and his co-accused Chintu.On seeing them, he and Azimullah told the deceased, Punit, Alok and Rajender that the appellant and Chintu were the boys who had given them beating on the previous day.He further stated that the accused persons stopped them and the deceased Ranbir asked Sanjay Mishra (appellant) as well as Chintu as to why they had beaten Azimullah and Deepak.On this, accused Chintu retorted that they (Deepak and Azimullah) have called bad elements Crl.Thereafter, the deceased had an altercation with the appellant and Chintu @ Manoj inflicted a knife blow on the person of the deceased.As a consequence of the knife injury, Ranbir (deceased) fell down.He further stated that PW2 Punit ran away from the spot.They fetched an auto and PWs Rajender and Azimullah took the deceased to the hospital and they went to the house of deceased to inform his parents.This witness turned hostile as regards the arrest of the appellant.Therefore, he was cross-examined by learned APP with the permission of the court and in the cross-examination, he admitted that the appellant Sanjay Mishra was arrested on the same day by the police in his presence.A.No.31/2010 Page 6 of 16PW2 Punit has testified that on 01.03.2001, he along with his friend Kari (deceased), Deepak and Alok were standing near the Pan Shop where they were joined by their friend Hazimullah (should be Azimullah) and were talking with each other.In the meanwhile, appellant Sanjay Mishra came there along with Chintu.Appellant told Chintu that the deceased Kari used to pose as "chaudhary" and first of all, he should be dealt with.On this, the appellant Chintu took out a knife and stabbed the deceased Kari.Appellant Sanjay Mishra, having been tried in Sessions Case No.62/09, FIR No.160/01, P.S. Dabri and convicted for the murder of Ranbir @ Kari (hereinafter referred to as the "deceased") under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC in terms of impugned judgment dated 26.10.2009 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default whereof to undergo SI for further period of three months in terms of the order on sentence dated 30.10.2009, has preferred this appeal.Constable Subodh came back to the spot after the registration of the case and handed over copy of the FIR to SI Manjeet Tomar.Thereafter, he proceeded in search of the accused persons along with the above witnesses and Constable Subodh as well as PW Deepak.Appellant Sanjay Mishra was arrested near Durga Park at 11:00 pm on the identification of PWs Rajender, Azimullah and Deepak.On interrogation, appellant Sanjay Mishra made a disclosure statement Ex.On completion of the formalities of the investigation, both the appellant and his co-accused Manoj @ Chintu were challaned and sent for trial for the murder of the deceased Ranbir @ Kari in furtherance of their common intention.An inquiry into their respective pleas of juvenility was conducted by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Delhi and the concerned Magistrate, Crl.However, the concerned Magistrate, on the basis of inquiry, found that the appellant Sanjay Mishra was not a child or juvenile on the date of commission of offence, as such, his case was tried separately in accordance with the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure.Above referred order dated 19th July, 2005 of the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board was not challenged by the appellant.A.No.31/2010 Page 4 of 16The appellant was charged for committing murder of the deceased Ranbir @ Kari in furtherance of his common intention with his co-accused Chintu under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.In order to bring home the guilt of the appellant, prosecution has examined 25 witnesses in all.Out of the said witnesses, PW1 Deepak, PW2 Punit, PW3 Alok Kumar, PW10 Azimullah Khan and PW17 Rajender Kumar are claimed to be the eye-witnesses.Besides the eye-witness account of the occurrence given by the prosecution witnesses, the prosecution is also relying upon the evidence of recovery of the weapon offence i.e. Knife Ex.PW8/P1 and its cover Ex.PW8/P2 at the instance of the appellant.PW8 Ram Chander, PW9 Om Prakash, PW18 SI Manjeet Tomar, PW5 Head Constable Subodh Kumar, PW20 Head Crl.A.No.31/2010 Page 5 of 16 Constable Baljeet Singh and PW21 Head Constable Ashok besides subsequent Investigating Officer Inspector Lakhwinder Singh are claimed to be the eye-witnesses of recovery of knife.We may, however, note at this juncture that nothing much turns on the purported claim of recovery of knife Ex.PW8/P1 because the prosecution has not been able to connect said knife with the crime from CFSL report Ex.PW22/A, according to which, no blood could be detected on the said knife.Thus, it is apparent that the case of the prosecution hinges mainly on the eye-witness account of the incident given by the witnesses.A.No.31/2010 Page 6 of 16 and took him (Deepak) aside by catching hold of him from the neck.He also took out a knife.The deceased Ranbir tried to intervene and on this, the appellant Sanjay Mishra exhorted Chintu by saying that Ranbir was projecting himself as a badmaash.Thereafter, both the appellant and Chintu ran after him.He, however, managed to escape.A.No.31/2010 Page 7 of 16A.No.31/2010 Page 7 of 16PW3 Alok Kumar is a hostile witness.He has not fully supported the case of the prosecution.He, however, has testified that on 01.03.2001, while he was returning from the house of his fathers sister (bua), he met his friend Rajender at about 03:15 pm.PWs Deepak and Punit were also along with him.They started talking about their quarrel with somebody.In the meanwhile, he heard a big noise "mar diya mar diya".He has stated that he could only see that two boys had stopped his friend Ranbir @ Kari.He identified one of those two boys as Sanjay Mishra.In the cross-examination by the learned APP, he stated that he could not say if Chintu @ Manoj was present along with appellant Sanjay Mishra at the relevant time.In his cross-examination by the learned defence counsel, he stated that he was not able to see the incident which took place behind khokha.PW10 Azimullah Khan and PW17 Rajender Kumar, who had taken the deceased to the hospital, are totally hostile to the case of prosecution.According to them, they reached at the spot after the occurrence and they took the deceased to the hospital.Though PW17, in his cross-examination by learned APP has admitted his signatures on his purported statement Ex.On conclusion of prosecution evidence, appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to afford him an opportunity to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him.The appellant, in Crl.A.No.31/2010 Page 8 of 16 his statement pleaded innocence and claimed to have been falsely implicated.He, however, did not lead any evidence in defence.A.No.31/2010 Page 8 of 16The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on consideration of the evidence, found the appellant guilty of committing murder of the deceased Ranbir @ Kari in furtherance of his common intention with his co-accused Manoj @ Chintu and convicted him under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.Sheikh Israr Ahmad, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant took us through the evidence as well as the impugned judgment and submitted that the case of prosecution is mainly based upon the testimony of PW1 Deepak, PW2 Punit and PW3 Alok Kumar.He has submitted that the Trial Court has committed a grave error in relying upon their testimony as they are not worthy of credence and their presence at the spot of occurrence is highly doubtful.Expanding on this argument, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that PW1 to PW3 claim themselves to be the friends of the deceased.They also claim that they had seen the occurrence yet admittedly, they neither accompanied the deceased to the hospital nor they informed the parents of the deceased about the incident nor they reported the matter to the police, which conduct of the witnesses, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, is highly unnatural and raise a doubt against the their presence at the time of occurrence.Learned counsel submitted that the aforesaid doubt is further compounded from the Crl.A.No.31/2010 Page 9 of 16 fact that PW18 SI Manjeet Tomar, who conducted initial investigation of this case and who prepared the site plan Ex.PW18/H, has not shown the position of these witnesses at the time of occurrence in the Site Plan, which circumstance also rules out a possibility of these witnesses being present at the time of occurrence.A.No.31/2010 Page 9 of 16We do not find merit in the above argument of the appellant.PW1 Deepak in his examination-in-chief has explained that after the deceased suffered injury, they brought an Auto-rickshaw in which PW10 Azimullah and PW17 Rajender Kumar took him to the hospital.This version of PW1 finds corroboration in testimony of PW10 Azimullah as well as PW17 Rajender Kumar, who otherwise have not supported the case of prosecution.Auto-rickshaw is a small vehicle meant to carry three passengers.Since Azimullah (PW10) and Rajender Kumar (PW17) had accompanied the deceased to the hospital, we find nothing unnatural in the conduct of PW1 to PW3 in not going to the hospital as all the five friends could not have been accommodated in the Auto- rickshaw.PW2 Punit has deposed that after stabbing the deceased, the appellant and co-accused Chintu started running towards him.Therefore, he escaped from the spot.His version finds corroboration from the testimony of PW1 Deepak, who has also stated that after the stabbing of Ranbir (deceased), Punit started to run away.We do not find anything surprising or unnatural in Punit running away from the spot.It is important to note that PW1 to PW3 were young boys of around 17 to 18 years at the time of occurrence.Therefore, it is not Crl.A.No.31/2010 Page 10 of 16 surprising that because of shock and fear of the occurrence, they did not go to report the matter to the police or to inform the parents of the deceased.Failure of the Investigating Officer to show the location of these witnesses in the Site Plan of scene of crime is also of not much significance because SI Manjeet Tomar has nowhere stated that he had met and examined these witnesses before the preparation of Site Plan.Otherwise also, the lapse on the part of Investigating Officer cannot be taken as a reason to suspect the version of PW1 and PW2, who are otherwise reliable.A.No.31/2010 Page 10 of 16Another criticism against the reliability of the version of PW1 and PW2 is that they claim to have been examined by the police on the same night but when they were confronted with the judicial record, their statements dated 1st of March, 2001 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. could not be located by them.We do not find any merit in this contention.Both of them are categoric that on the exhortation of the appellant Sanjay Mishra, his co-accused Manoj @ Chintu stabbed the deceased with a knife, as a result of which the deceased fell down and he was taken to the hospital by PW10 Azimullah and PW17 Rajender Kumar.PW3 Alok Kumar, who turned Crl.A.No.31/2010 Page 11 of 16 hostile to the case of prosecution however has admitted his presence near the spot of occurrence and he has stated that his attention was drawn to the spot of occurrence on hearing noise "maar diya maar diya" and he could see the boys, who had stabbed the deceased and one of them was Sanjay Mishra.From this version, at least the presence of Sanjay Mishra at the spot of occurrence immediately after the stabbing of Ranbir @ Kari (deceased) is established.This also gives an assurance that PW1 Deepak and PW2 Punit are telling the truth.Even PW10 Azimullah and PW17 Rajender Kumar who are totally hostile to the case of prosecution have admitted their presence at the spot immediately after the occurrence and that they took the deceased to the hospital in a TSR.Thus, we find no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW1 and PW2 implicating the appellant as the person who exhorted the co-accused Manoj @ Chintu, who actually stabbed the deceased.A.No.31/2010 Page 11 of 16Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that as per the testimony of PW10 Azimullah , the police had apprehended Deepak (PW1), Punit (PW2), Alok (PW3) and other boys in connection with investigation of this case and they were beaten.From this, he has urged us to infer that PW1 to PW3 were not the eye-witnesses and they have been falsely introduced as witnesses against the appellant by the police under pressure.We do not find merit in this contention.PW10 Azimullah is a hostile witness, who resiled from his earlier statement made to the police during investigation of the case.Thus, in our view, Crl.A.No.31/2010 Page 12 of 16 he is an unreliable witness and his version regarding apprehending of PW1 to PW3 and beating given to them by the police cannot be relied upon.Otherwise also, PW1 to PW3 in their cross-examination were not given any suggestion to this effect, which circumstance also shows that PW10 was won over and the version of beating given to PW1 to PW3 was introduced by him at the instance of the accused to create a doubt against fairness of investigation.A.No.31/2010 Page 12 of 16It was next contended on behalf of the appellant that the first information about the incident was received at the police station vide No. 30A (Ex.PW18/A), which recorded that one Pankaj had stabbed a boy near Solanki Public School, Durga Park.The information also mentioned a telephone number 5043052 from which the information was conveyed to Police Control room.Despite of that, the Investigating Officer did not bother to verify the correctness of said information either by trying to locate Pankaj or trying to locate the owner of the telephone number so as to find out as to who conveyed that information to the police.From this, learned counsel for the appellant has urged us to infer that this is a case of unfair investigation, indicating that Investigating Officer wanted to falsely implicate the appellant.We do not find any substance in this submission.PW18 SI Manjeet Tomar, initial Investigating Officer, when cross-examined in this regard has clarified that he did make inquiry about said Pankaj Crl.A.No.31/2010 Page 13 of 16 referred to in DD No. 30A at the spot on the same day.Thus, it cannot be said that no effort was done by the Investigating Officer to trace Pankaj with a view to falsely implicate the appellant.Further, from the testimony of SI Manjeet Tomar (PW18), it is apparent that at the spot of occurrence, he was told that the deceased has been removed to DDU Hospital, so he went there.At the hospital, he met PW17 Rajender Kumar and recorded his statement Ex.PW17/A about the occurrence in which Rajender Kumar had implicated the appellant and his co-accused Manoj @ Chintu.Therefore, nothing suspicious can be read into the failure of the Investigating Officer to find out as to who made the call to the PCR or to fix the identity of Pankaj who may be fictitious person.A.No.31/2010 Page 13 of 16In view of the above, we find that the learned Trial Judge has rightly relied upon the evidence of PW1 and PW2, which also finds corroboration from the testimony of PW3 Alok, though he turned hostile, to find the appellant guilty of exhorting his co-accused Chintu, which prompted him to inflict a fatal knife blow on the person of the deceased.Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that even if, for the sake of argument, it is assumed that the deceased was inflicted fatal stab injury with a knife by the co-accused Manoj @ Chintu on the exhortation of the appellant, from the facts on record, it cannot be Crl.A.No.31/2010 Page 14 of 16 inferred that the appellant, at the time of exhortation shared common intention with his co-accused Manoj @ Chintu to commit murder of the deceased.A.No.31/2010 Page 14 of 16As per the case of prosecution, the fatal blow was inflicted on the person of the deceased by the co-accused Manoj @ Chintu.The role attributed to the appellant is that he exhorted his co-accused Manoj @ Chintu by saying that the deceased thought himself as a badmash.Therefore, first of all, he should be settled.The words used in the FIR are "ye Kari hee zaada badmash banta hai, isiko pehle thikane lagao".As per the case of prosecution, the incident took place in a chance encounter between the parties when the deceased and his friends were standing near the Pan Shop and the appellant and his co- accused, by chance, came there and they were asked by the deceased as to why they had beaten Azimullah (PW10) and Deepak (PW1) on the previous day.From the aforesaid facts also, it appears that the incident took place in the heat of moment because of sudden altercation between the parties.Thus, we find that the learned Trial Judge went wrong in inferring from the aforesaid words used by the appellant that he shared a common intention with his co-accused Manoj @ Chintu to commit murder of the deceased, particularly when apart from the aforesaid exhortation, the appellant did not physically participate in the incident in any manner whatsoever.Since co- Crl.A.No.31/2010 Page 15 of 16 accused Manoj @ Chintu was carrying a knife, at best, it can be inferred that while exhorting his co-accused Chintu, the appellant intended Chintu to cause grievous hurt to the deceased.The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
|
['Section 34 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.
|
5,846,032 |
This petition has been filed to call for the records in Cr.No.914 of 2017 on the file of the Villupuram West Police Station and quash the same, insofar as the petitioners are concerned.The deceased Arunkumar was in the services of Adaikalaraja [A1], who was into finance business.On 04.12.2017, Arunkumar committed suicide by hanging in Room No.201, Ananda Lodge, Villupuram.On the complaint lodged by Ramya, the widow of Arunkumar, the Villupuram West Police registered a case in Cr.No.914 of 2017 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. During the course of investigation, the police recovered empty liquor bottles from the said room."The petitioners are innocence, my husband was employed as a collection agent of the 1st petitioner of the company.My husband was utilized the company's amount.One Saravan who is my sister's husband.He had with the assistant of Government employees has been acting as agent and canvassing to secure job in the Governments.The petitioners are very innocent.And he is very highly influenced person in political level.The police also recovered the mobile phone of Arunkumar and a suicide note written in Tamil.On the strength of the suicide note, the case was altered into one under Section 306 IPC and the police arrested Jayaseelan [A2] and Arokyaraj [A4].While so, Adaikalaraja [A1], Jayaseelan [A2] and Liyoni [A3] have filed the present quash application.On the directions of this Court, Mr.Kamaraj, Inspector of Police, Villupuram West Police Station and Ramya, the widow of Arunkumar are present.Ramya has filed an affidavit dated 19.06.2019, wherein, she has stated as follows:The 1st petitioner's demanded the collection amount from my husband.Hence my husband left out from house on 30.11.2017 and switched off his mobile phone.I further submits that, they are no way connected of my husband's death.The 2nd petitioner who was working with my husband of the company of the 1st petitioner.Myself and my husband were the God father and god mother of the Baptism of the 2nd petitioner's children.The 2nd petitioner was treated as a one of the our family member.He was cheated many more person to obtained the job in Governments Saravanan was demanded money from my husband and for repay the creditors amount.My sister and her husband and his family have been in bad financial position.They are trying to exhort the money from the 1st petitioner by making false allegation against the petitioners.The said Saravanan instigated to me lodge a false against against the petitioners before the 1st respondent police.But now way connected the petitioners on the death of my husband.Further, he has made general allegations against the character of Adaikalaraja [A1].
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
58,462,383 |
The first accused is the brother of the deceased Arukaniammal and the second accused is the wife of the first accused.On 27.07.2004 at about 4.30 p.m. it is alleged that the deceased Arukaniammal and PW1 went to the disputed land where the accused were engaged in field work and questioned them as to how they can remain in possession of the land inspite of the judgment dated 19.11.2003 passed by the Civil Court granting permanent injunction against the accused and in favour of the deceased Arukaniammal.At that time, the second accused said to have instigated the first accused and handed over to him Aruval (Mo1) to the second accused and asked him to cut the deceased so that all the problems will be solved.On such instigation, the first accused caused cut injuries on vital parts of the body of the deceased Arukaniammal such as neck and legs.On seeing this, PW1, son of the deceased came to her rescue but he was also inflicted with cut injuries by the first accused with MO1 on several parts of his body.The revision petitioner, who was examined as PW2 during the trial in the Sessions Case and husband of the deceased Arukkaniammal, has come forward with this Criminal Revision Case challenging the Judgment dated 19.01.2007 passed by the trial Court.By the said Judgment dated 19.01.2007, the trial court convicted the first accused/first respondent herein for the offences punishable under Section 326 and 304 Part (ii) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 326 with fine of Rs.1,000/- failing which to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment.For the offence under Section 304 part (ii) of IPC, the first accused was sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- failing which to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment.However, the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.However, the trial court acquitted both the accused for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 309 read with 34/109 and 307 read with 34/109 of IPC.In other words, the second accused was acquitted of all the charges.PW1 also sustained grievious injuries in his finger and one of his fingers was almost severed.PW1 was immediately taken to the police station from where he was referredto Government Hospital with a memo.During the course of treatment of PW1, the respondent police recorded his statement and registered the case in Crime No. 388 of 2004 for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 307 of IPC.After investigation, the respondent police filed the charge sheet against the respondents 1 and 2 herein for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 307 of IPC and 302 read with 34/109 and 307 read with 34/109 of IPC respectively.During the course of trial, in order to strengthen the case of prosecution, as many as 17 witnesses were examined and Exs.P1 to P17 were marked.The prosecution also produced Mos 1 to 11 before the trial Court.On behalf of the accused, Ex.D1, order passed in WP Nos. 30442 of 2002 and 44800 of 2002 dated 26.07.2002 was marked.After conclusion of trial, the trial court, while convicting the first accused for the offence punishable under Sections 326 and 304 Part (ii) of IPC, acquitted the second accused of all the charges.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would mainly contend that the motive for the occurrence has been clearly established by the prosecution.Even according to the accused there were prior enemity between the accused and the family of PW2 owing to possession of the land and the deceased Arukaniammal also filed O.S. No. 190 of 1998 in which a judgment dated 19.11.2003 was granted restraining the accused from interfering with the possession of Arukaniammal.It is also an admitted fact that inspite of the judgment passed by the Civil Court, the accused were in possession of the disputed land and when that was questioned, the deceased was murdered by the accused person.When the motive for the occurrence is established, the trial Court ought to have convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and awarded maximum punishment, instead the trial court convicted only the first accused for the simple offences under Section 326 and 304 Part (ii) of IPC.The theorey put forward by the accused that there were commotion at the time of occurrence and it was not known as to who caused the cut injuries on the deceased and PW2 was rejected by the trial Court.Further, the presence of the second accused in the occurrence spot is not disputed by the accused.The death of the deceased Arukaniammal was caused only by the cut injuries inflicted on her by the first accused and it was proved beyond reasonable doubt.The postmortem report of the deceased clearly indicated the number of injuries and the nature of injuries sustained by her.It is also an admitted fact that the deceased Arukaniammal died on the spot and PW1 sustained greivous injuries at the instance of the first accused by using MO1, Aruval.In fact, the right thumb finger of PW1 was almost severed.While so, the punishment imposed by the trial Court is not proportionate to the overt act attributable against the first accused.As regards the second accused is concerned, she was instrumental for the occurrence to take place as she had instigated her husband, first accused, to do away with the deceased Arukaniammal and it is only on her command the first accused caused the cut injuries on her.There are eye witnesses to the occurrence and they have corroborated the version of each other.The occurrence took place in broad day light.In such circumstances, the trial Court erred in concluding that the occurrence had taken place due to a spur of moment, anger or sudden provocation.Merely because the occurrence took place in the land where the accused were engaged in field work, it cannot be concluded that it is not the accused but PW1 is the aggressor.The reasons given by the trial Court for letting off the accused for the offence under Section 307 and convicting only the first accused under Section 326 and 304 Part (ii) of IPC and acquitting the second accused of all the charges is legally unsustainable.Both the accused had knowledge that the injuries that were inflicted on the accused would lead to their death and accordingly the mother of PW1 Arukaniammal died on the spot and PW1 sustained grievous injuries on vital parts of his body.In such circumstances, the trial Court ought to have awarded punishment for both the accused under Section 307 of IPC read with Section 34/109 of IPC and he prayed for allowing this Criminal Revision Case.The occurrence had taken place due to a sudden provocation and in a spur of moment, which is evident that it is the deceased Arukaniammal and PW1 have invaded into the land where the accused were engaged in field work and entered into a wordy quarrel.As regards the possession of the disputed land, even according to PW1, from the date of judgment passed in Civil suit namely 19.11.2003 till the date of occurrence on 27.07.2004, the possession of the land vests only with the accused and this has triggerred the occurrence.PW1 in his deposition has stated that it is the second accused who had handed over MO1, Aruval to first accused and instigated him to kill the deceased Arukaniammal so that all the problems will be solved.On the contrary, PW3 has stated that second accused had given MO1 to the first accused by stating that she is the root cause for all the problems.At the time of occurrence first accused was 62 years and now he is 71 years old.The second accused was 43 years old at the time of occurrence and she is now 52 years old.The occurrence took place on 27.07.2004 due to a sudden provocation without any pre-plan.The trial Court had carefully appreciated the oral and documentary evidence projected by the prosecution and awarded the punishment to first accused alone and it does not call for any interference by this Court.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the prosecution would contend that the trial Court has appreciated the oral and documentary evidence produced before it by the prosecution and convicted the first accused for the offence under Section 326 and 304 Part (ii) of IPC.In so far as the second accused is concerned, except the deposition of PW1 to 3 that she instigaged the second accused and handed over MO1, Aruval, there is no other corroborative evidence to implicate her.The Court below also taken note of the fact that it is the deceased Arukaniammal and PW1 have entered in to the land and questioned their possession over the said land.In such circumstances, the trial Court held that the deceased Arukaniammal and PW1 are the aggressor inasmuch as they went to the land of the accused which led to the occurrence.Therefore, the learned Government Advocate would contend that the trial Court is justified in convicting the first accused for the offences punishable under Section 326 and 304 Part (ii) of IPC and acquitting the second accused of all the charges.I heard the counsel for both sides and carefully perused the materials placed on record.Though, initially the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be convincing, on careful examination of the records, judgment of the court below and the material records made available, this Court could see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Court below.According to the case of the prosecution, on 27.07.2004, the deceased Arukaniammal and PW1 went to the land of the accused and questioned their right to remain in possession of the said land pursuant to the judgment rendered by the Civil Court in favour of Arukaniammal.A wordy quarrel emanated between the accused and Arukaniammal.At that time, it is alleged that the second accused handed over MO1, Aruval to the first accused and instigated him to do away with the life of the deceased so that all the problems will be solved.Accordingly, the first accused caused cut injuries on the deceased Arukaniammal due to which she died on the spot.On seeing the first accused causing cut injuries to her mother, PW1 came to her rescue and he also received cut injuries.The thumb finger of PW1 was almost severed due to the cut injuries received by him.The main point for consideration in this case is whether the offence under Section 307 and 302 of IPC is attracted against the first accused and whether the trial Court is justified in acquitting the second accused from all the charges.Admittedly, there was a land dispute between the parties.The deceased Arukaniammal has filed a suit in O.S. No. 180 of 1998 on the file of District Munsif Court, Avinashi for bare injunction against the accused in which a judgment dated 19.11.2003 (marked as Ex.P4) was passed granting permanent injunction in favour of Arukaniammal.In this context, there were quarrel and ultimately the first accused caused cut injuries on the deceased with MO1 which caused her death on the spot.PW1, son of the deceased Arukaniammal also received cut injuries when he came to the rescue of her mother.Therefore it is clear that it is the deceased Arukaniammal who went to the land where the accused were engaged in field work which led to the occurrence.The deceased can therefore be construed as the aggressor.It is not the case that the accused, with a criminal conspiracy to cause the death of the deceased, have invaded into her land.Thus, the occurrence had occurred out of a sudden provocation and in a spur of moment.The death of the deceased Arukaniammal has caused suddenly without any pre-plan on the part of the accused.While PW1 deposed that the second accused provoked the first accused to do away with the life of the deceased Arukaniammal so that all the problems will be solved, PW3 deposed that she instigated the first accused by saying that she is (Arukaniammal) the root cause for all the problems.By pointing out this inconsistency, the trial Court acquitted the second accused.Further, PW3 is projected as an eye witness in this case.In other words, except PW1 and 3, there is no other eye witness to speak about the occurrence or the alleged overt act on the part of the second accused.In fact, PW4 was projected as an eye witness, however, it is clear that PW4 reached the occurrence spot only after hearing that the accused have killed the deceased Arukaniammal.Therefore, in my view, the court below has rightly acquitted the second accused from all the charges and it does not call for any interference by this Court.In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
584,713 |
The appellant was convicted under Section 37 of the Arms Act and also under Section 397 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one and a half years and seven years respectively.He was also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 200 for the offence under Section 397 and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, we think that the second offence really falls under Section 392 at the Penal Code.We alter the conviction accordingly and reduce the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for three years.The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
58,473,880 |
The abortion "pill" is actually two pills, taken on two different days.The first tablet, RU=486 or Mifepristone, acts by blocking progesterone, a hormone essential in pregnancy, and hence kills the fetus.The second pill, Misoprostol, is taken three days later.(iii) The places at which the registered medical practitioners may undertake MTP {Section 4}.JUDGMENT [Per M.S. SONAK, J.] 1] In all these matters, we have heard Mr. D.J. Khambatta, learned Senior Advocate who was appointed as Amicus Curiae in the matter.Similarly, we have heard Mr.In the said petition, Ms Flavia Agnes also appeared on behalf of legal Guardian-mother.We have also heard Mr.AB.::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 04:17:36 :::5] In all these petitions, the petitioners had basically applied for appropriate orders to permit them to medically terminate pregnancies, even though the length of their respective pregnancies had exceeded 20 weeks.In two of the petitions, i.e., Writ Petition No. 10835 of 2018 and Writ Petition No. 9748 of 2018, declaration was sought to declare section 3(2)(b) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (MTP Act) to the limited extent that it stipulates a ceiling of 20 weeks for an abortion to be done under section 3 of the MTP Act is ultra vires Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.However, this relief was not ultimately pressed, because the petitioners in the said petitions had also applied for a declaration that their case was fit for exercise of jurisdiction under section 5 of the MTP Act, which, under certain circumstances, permits the medical termination of pregnancy, regardless of the ceiling of 20 weeks as prescribed in section 3 of the MTP Act.6] Since, the consideration of reliefs sought for by the petitioners could not brook any delay, by various orders, we 3 of 78::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 04:17:36 ::: dss 4 Judgment-wp-10835-18-g.doc directed the constitution of Medical Boards comprising experts in various fields such as Gynecology, Medicine, Radiodiagnosis, Pediatric, Psychiatry etc. on emergent basis, in order to examine the petitioners and submit reports to this Court.In all these petitions, relying upon the reports and upon decisions of the Supreme Court in similar cases, we permitted the Petitioners to undertake medical termination of their pregnancies even though the length of the pregnancies had exceeded twenty weeks.::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 04:17:36 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 04:17:36 :::In keeping with the British Law on the subject, the IPC had criminalized the medical termination of pregnancy (abortion).The mother as well as abortionist could be punished, except where abortion had to be induced in order to save the life of the mother.::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 04:17:36 :::12] The S.O.R. then proceeds to state that the proposed measures in the MTP Act, seeking to liberalize certain existing provisions relating to termination of pregnancy have been conceived, primarily, for the following three purposes:(i) As a health measure - when there is danger to the life or risk to physical or mental health of the woman;(ii) On humanitarian grounds - such as when pregnancy arises from a sex crime like rape or intercourse with a lunatic woman, etc.; and(iii) Eugenic grounds - where there is substantial risk that the child, if born, would suffer from deformities and diseases.Again, the Statement of Objects and Reasons to this Amendment Act refers to how MTP Act legalised termination of pregnancy on various social socio-medical grounds and how the MTP Act was aimed at eliminating abortion by untrained persons and in unhygienic conditions, 6 of 78::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 04:17:37 ::: dss 7 Judgment-wp-10835-18-g.doc thus reducing maternal morbidity and mortality.The Statement of Objects and Reasons to the Amendment Act then refers to the expert group which was constituted to review the provisions of MTP Act with a view to making it more relevant to the present environment.There is reference to suggestions from the National Commission for Women, in order to remove provisions discriminatory to women.::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 04:17:37 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 04:17:37 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 04:17:37 :::20 of 78::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 04:17:37 ::: dss 21 Judgment-wp-10835-18-g.doc::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 04:17:37 :::(ii) The requirement of opinion by two registered medical practitioners {Section 3 (2)(b)};52] In A vs. Union of India - (2018) 14 SCC 75, the Supreme Court was concerned with pregnancy which had advanced to the 26th or the 27th week.The antenatal ultrasonography had revealed a single live intrauterine foetus of 26 weeks +/- 7 to 10 days.He further stated that majority of those who may survive, have serious form of morbidity and succumb within 24 to 48 25 of 78::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 04:17:37 ::: dss 26 Judgment-wp-10835-18-g.doc hours of birth.56] In Mamta Verma (supra), there was no danger to the life of the pregnant mother.::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 04:17:37 :::The appellant was thirty-five years old at that time.She was a major.She was able to allege that she had been raped and that she wanted to terminate her pregnancy.::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 04:17:37 :::117] The Writ Petition, in such cases, must disclose the details of the Petitioner, along with identity proof.The Petition must state the reasons for seeking medical termination of pregnancy, express consent and request for termination of pregnancy, the hospital/clinic at which the termination is proposed to be undertaken and such other details as may be necessary in such matters.Thereafter, within a period of 48 hours, the medical board must submit a report to this Court in sealed cover, indicating inter alia the status of the pregnant mother and the 65 of 78::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 04:17:37 ::: dss 66 Judgment-wp-10835-18-g.doc foetus within, in the context of the request of the pregnant mother for medical termination of her pregnancy.::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 04:17:37 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 04:17:37 :::123] Mr.Vagyani and Ms.Besides, as prescribed in Rule 6 of the MTP Rules, 2003 the Chief Medical Officer of each of the Districts will have to undertake periodic inspections of such approved places with a view to verify whether termination of pregnancies is being done therein under safe and hygienic conditions.124] In all such cases, where permission is granted to 67 of 78::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 04:17:37 ::: dss 68 Judgment-wp-10835-18-g.doc medically terminate pregnancies the provisions in the MTP Rules, 2003 and the MTP Regulations, 2003, will have to be complied with by the registered medical practitioners, hospitals/clinics and the approved places in terms of section 4(b) of the MTP Act. Therefore, the directions which we have issued, are in addition to and certainly not in derogation of any of the requirements prescribed under the MTP Act, the rules and regulations made there under.::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 04:17:37 :::125] In some cases, including, in one of the cases in this batch of Petitions, the medical board suggested that the pregnant mother and/or her family members give an undertaking that if, despite attempts at medical termination of pregnancy, the child is born alive, then the pregnant mother and/or her family members take full responsibility for such child.126] At the outset, we make it extremely clear that if despite attempts at medical termination of pregnancy, the child is born alive, then, first and foremost the registered medical practitioner and the hospital/ clinic concerned will have to assume the full responsibility to ensure that such child is offered the best medical treatment available in the circumstances, in order that it develops into a healthy child.Though there is debate as to whether the fetus (child in the womb) is a person, entitled to rights, there is no debate on the issue that a child, born alive, is a person, in whom, the right to life and personal liberty inheres.The extreme vulnerability of such child is itself reason enough to ensure that everything which is reasonably possible and feasible, in the circumstances, will have to be offered to such child, so that it develops into a healthy child.131] In such matters, the instinct of the parents, will no doubt take over when it comes to the love and care to be offered to such child.However, in the unfortunate situation, where for 70 of 78::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 04:17:37 ::: dss 71 Judgment-wp-10835-18-g.doc several myriad factors, the parents of such child are unwilling to or genuinely not in a position to care for such child, then, the "parens patriae" doctrine, will oblige the State to assume parental responsibility in relation to such child.::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 04:17:37 :::134] The learned Government Pleaders, on the basis of instructions, have assured this Court that the State and its agencies like CWC etc. will, after compliance prescribed procedures, declare such children legally "free for adoption", in case the enquiries establish that such children have no one to care for or are abandoned or surrendered.In any case, we direct the State and its agencies to take all steps in this regard, keeping in mind the principle of the best interests of such children.135] The learned Government Pleaders pointed out that at least, at major Government Hospitals in Metros as well as at District places, there are specialized adoption agencies, which facilitate adoption of such children.In any case, the learned Government Pleaders, again on basis of instructions, assured this Court that the State and its agencies will take care of such children, as obligated under the Juvenile Justice Act, till suitable means of rehabilitation are found or till such children attain the age of 18 years.136] We make absolute, the interim orders made in these petitions, on the basis of which, the petitioners, were permitted to medically terminate their pregnancies in circumstances made clear by us, in the said interim orders.138] Accordingly, we dispose of these petitions, with the following orders:(a) We hold that a registered medical practitioner may medically terminate pregnancy which has exceeded 20 73 of 78::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 04:17:37 ::: dss 74 Judgment-wp-10835-18-g.doc weeks, without permission from the High Court, only where he is of opinion, formed in good faith, that the termination of such pregnancy is immediately necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman, which means that the registered medical practitioner is of the opinion that unless pregnancy is terminated immediately, the pregnant woman might succumb (die);::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 04:17:37 :::(c) We hold that where a pregnant woman, the length of whose pregnancy has exceeded 20 weeks seeks to terminate such pregnancy on the ground that its continuance would involve grave injury to her physical or mental health or where there is a substantial risk that if the child were born, it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped, such pregnant woman will have to seek permission from the High Court and unless such permission is granted, no registered medical practitioner can terminate such pregnancy, inter alia on the basis of the interpretation of the provisions in section 5 of the MTP Act;74 of 78::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 04:17:37 ::: dss 75 Judgment-wp-10835-18-g.doc::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 04:17:37 :::(e) We direct the State to constitute and establish, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within a period of three months from today, Medical Boards as indicated in this judgment and order, in each of the districts, to examine pregnant women and to furnish reports in cases where permission to medically terminate pregnancy whose length exceeds twenty weeks, is sought for by institution of writ petitions in this Court.The Secretary (Health), Government of Maharashtra, to file affidavit of compliance on 1st July 2019, in this Court;(f) We direct the State and /or the District Level Committees to ensure that there are sufficient approved places in terms of section 4 (b) of the MTP Act in each of the districts of State of Maharashtra, where, pregnancies may be terminated consistent with the provisions of the MTP Act. We also direct the Chief Medical Officers of each of districts to undertake periodic inspection of such approved places as contemplated by Rule 6 of the MTP Rules, 2003 with a view to verify whether termination of 75 of 78::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 04:17:37 ::: dss 76 Judgment-wp-10835-18-g.doc pregnancies is being done therein under safe and hygienic condition and to document and maintain such inspection reports.The Secretary (Health), Government of Maharashtra, to file a status report in this regard on 1 st July 2019 in this Court;::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 04:17:37 :::(g) We direct the State to consider formulating a suitable policy to deal with cases of medical termination of pregnancies, with special emphasis upon rural areas, so that, pregnant women have access to safe and hygienic facilities and there is avoidable wastage of mother's health, strength and sometimes, life.The Secretary (Health), Government of Maharashtra, to file a status report in this regard on 1st July 2019 in this Court;(h) We hold that where, this Court, in exercise of of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has permitted medical termination of pregnancy and the child is born alive, then, the registered medical practitioner and the hospital/clinic concerned will have to assume full responsibility to ensure that such child is offered best medical treatment available in the circumstances, in order that it develops into a healthy child;(i) We further hold that where, this Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has permitted medical termination of pregnancy and the child is born alive, if the parents of such child are not 76 of 78::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 04:17:37 ::: dss 77 Judgment-wp-10835-18-g.doc willing to or are not in a position to assume the responsibility for such child, then, the State and its agencies will have to assume full responsibility for such child and offer such child medical support and facilities, as may be reasonably feasible, adhering always to the principle of best interests of such child as well as the Statutory provisions in the Juvenile Justice Act;::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 04:17:37 :::(k) We make absolute all the interim orders made by us in these petitions, on the basis of which, the petitioners were permitted to medically terminate their respective pregnancies and we reiterate our reasons set out therein;(l) We express our gratitude to Mr. D.J. Khambatta, Amicus Curaie , who was ably assisted by Ms Naira 77 of 78::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 04:17:37 ::: dss 78 Judgment-wp-10835-18-g.doc Jejeebhoy and Mr. Pheroze F. Mehta in these matters.We also express our gratitude to all the learned counsel and the learned Government Pleaders who assisted us in these matters;::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 04:17:37 :::(m) Though, these matters are disposed of, the same may be placed before the appropriate Bench on 8 th July 2019 to consider the affidavits of compliances.::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 04:17:37 :::
|
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
585,939 |
By the impugned order, the High Court vacated itsinterim order recorded on 23.02.2004 with a direction to theCrime Branch of the State of Maharashtra to complete theinvestigation in FIR No.10 of 2004 registered at the DeccanPolice Station, Pune, against the appellants-applicants andProf.James W. Laine, the author of the book, under Sections153, 153A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code [for short `IPC'].On hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length, thisCourt in paragraph 21 of the judgment concluded as under:In the result, for the above-said reasons, the respondents shall not proceed against Professor James W. Laine, the author of the book, for offences under Sections 153, 153A and 34 of the IPC being the subject matter of F.I.R. No. 10 of 2004 registered at the Deccan Police Station, Pune."In paragraph 12 of the judgment, contentions of Mr. SoliJ. Sorabjee, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf ofManzar Sayeed Khan - appellant were noted in detail andconsidered.Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, learned counsel for VinodHansaj Goyal-appellant, adopted the arguments advanced byMr.Having gone through the judgment dated 05.04.2007, weare of the opinion that manifestly the tenor and import of thejudgment was to grant same and identical relief to Mr. ManzarSayeed Khan, Publisher and Mr. Vinod Hansraj Goyal, Printerof the Book, which was granted to Prof. James W. Laine, theauthor of the Book.But, it appears that by inadvertence or bymistake, the names of the Publisher and Printer of the Bookhad not been recorded in paragraph 21 of the judgment.Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we feelit expedient in the interest of justice to the parties to ordernecessary clarification/modification in paragraph 21 of thejudgment, which shall get clarified and read as follow:In the result, for the above-said reasons, the respondents shall not proceed against Professor James W.Laine, the author of the book, Mr. Manzar Sayeed Khan, Publisher of the Book and Mr. Vinod Hansraj Goyal, Printer of the Book, respectively for offences under Sections 153, 153A and 34 of the IPC being the subject-matter of F.I.R. No. 10 of 2004 registered at the Deccan Police Station, Pune."The Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions filed by theapplicants - appellants shall stand disposed of......................................CJI.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
58,595,049 |
Accordingly, he has prayed for grant of bail.Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and has stated that there are injuries which are seen in the medical report and has prayed for rejection of grant of anticipatory bail.The applicant shall mark his attendance before the concerned police station in the first week of every month, till conclusion of the investigation.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.CC as per rules.(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE van VANDANA VERMA 2019.07.27 15:14:28 +05'00'
|
['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
585,964 |
The prosecution case is that one Dipak Sarkar since deceased was an active Congressman and along with others was member of a club known as Taruner Ahavan' situated at 23, Bidhan Sarani near the crossing of Kailash Bose Street and Bidhan Sarani and near the Srimani Market, There was a saloon named "Saloon De Style" adjacent to the club and within the said Premises No. 23, Bidhan Sarani.Dipak and others, members of the club were active supporters of the local Congress candidates in the General Election held on the 19th February, 1967, Accused Prokash and Rabi who are brothers.resided at 5, Kailash Bose Street and were supporters of Communist Party of India (Marxist) and worked for candidates set up by the left parties for the said election.There was political rivalry between Dipak and other congressites on the one hand and accused Prokash, Rabi and others on the other.When the election results were out on the 23rd of February, 1967, it was found that prominent congress candidates like Sri Prafulla Chandra Sen and Atul Chandra Ghose were defeated.The club "Taruner Ahvan" was attacked with bombs and crackers and the same was closed.The keys of the club room were usually kept with Dipak.On the 26th of February, 1967, Dipak came to the Saloon De Style and had his shave where Arun Bhattacharya (P.W. 3) and Samir Roy (P.W. 4), two other members of the club also happened to be present.As Dipak came out of the saloon at about 9 A.M. he was suddenly surrounded and assaulted in front of the club and the saloon by accused Prokash and Rabi along with Monotosh Gupta, Ajit Das alias Bhoda and Babu Srimani.The prosecution case is further that on being stabbed Dipak sat down on the footpath with his hands on the abdomen.Accused Prokash and Rabi along with others immediately ran along Kailash Bose Street.Samir and Arun gave them chase and then returned and took Dipak in a taxi to Medical College Hospital where he was admitted at about 9.15 A.M. Dipak was operated at the hospital but died at about 1.15 P.M. on the same day.Apart from Samir and Arun one Priya Ranjan Saha (P.W. 7), a local youth who was passing in a motor cycle also saw major part of the incidents.Mitualal Shaw, a local vendor of eggs and potato who sold his ware in the nearby footpath saw parts of the incident when he went to the sweet-meat shop of the Habu at the junction of Bidhan Sarani and Kailash Bose Street.He found accused Prokash thrusting a knife into the abdomen of Dipak and he also saw accused Rabi standing behind the accused prokash.After purchasing 'kochuri' and 'zilapi' he came away.One Kartick Chandra Barui, P.W.6 who was also a local vendor selling eggs near the crossing of Tarak Paramanick Road and Bidhan Sarani also saw parts of the incident.He also saw Prokash piercing a dagger into the abdomen of Dipak and Rabi striking with a dagger on the back of Dipak.On receipt of news about disturbance Kanai Dutt, S.I. of Jorasanko P.S. and some officers from Amherst P.S. arrived at the place of occurrence and went to the Medical College Hospital.The investigation was taken up by S.I., Kanai Dutt who recorded the statement of five eye-witnesses and some other persons.According to the prosecution the residence of the accused was searched on the same day but they were found absent.Accused Prokash was employed as a Class Four Staff in the Diocession Girls School and Rabi was an employee in a workshop, but both were found absent from their respective place of work.Later on Prokash was arrested on 21-10-1967 at about 10.30 P.M. near the Curzon Park and accused Rabi was arrested on 24-10-1967 at Siliguri.They came near the swing door and pushing the same open, they saw the incident.The club was to be opened that morning and usually Dipak had the key with him.It was he who was to open the club.Even on behalf of the prosecution it was conceded that this witness could not be said to be a stranger which he feigned to be.The two other eye-witnesses were Mitualal Shaw and Kartick, the two pavement hawkers.The former went to purchase 'Zillapi and Kochuri' from the sweetmeat shop of Habul at the junction of Bidhan Sarani and Kailash Bose Street.Both he and Mitua said that the Police came to them nearabout half past eleven and twelve in the noon.This witness was contradicted on some points with what he had said in the earlier trial.This witness saw Mitualal coming out of the said sweetmeat shop at the time of incident but he never had any talk with him about the incident although both of them alleged to have seen the occurrence.It was suggested in course of examination that he must have X-ray eyes to have been able to see Dipak being stabbed from behind by Rabi.The incident, according to this witness took place between 8.30 and 9.00 a.m. He noticed the time as he looked at a clock of sweetmeat shop.This witness also admitted that he was convicted in many petty cases and was taken to police custody on many occasions.The defence naturally commented that Kartick and Mithua were men of the under world and had to humour the police.Mithua was a convict who could be at the beck and call of the police and Kartick was no better.JUDGMENT Sudhamay Basu, J.In course of the incident Prokash stabbed Dipak with a dagger on his abdomen and Rabi stabbed on the back of his chest.On hearing a row Samir and Arun pushed the swing door of the saloon and saw the incident from a distance about 8 to 10 feet.K.J. Sengupta, J., acquitted all the accused persons of the charges read with Section 34, I.P.C. The Jury, however, returned a divided verdict of 5 : 4 in respect of the accused Prokash under Section 302 and in respect of accused Rabi under Section 326, I.P.C. respectively.The learned Judge then ordered retrial of accused Prokash and Rabi under Sections 302 and 326 respectively and discharged the jury.44 witnesses were examined including five eye-witnesses.The jury found Prokash not guilty on a divided verdict of 8 : 1 under Section 302, I.P.C. and also unanimously found him not guilty under Section 304 Part I, Part II and Section 326, I.P.C. By a divided verdict of 8 : 1 the jury also found accused Rabi not guilty under Section 326, I.P.C. and unanimously found him not guilty under Section 324, I.P.C. Accepting the verdict of the jury Mukherjee, J., acquitted the accused and released them forthwith.The present appeal is directed against the said order.Before entering into the merits it is necessary to dispose of some points of law which were raised on behalf of the respondents and which, according to the respondents, go to the root of the matter.The first of such points relates to limitation.That was more than three months after the order was passed by N.C. Mukherji, J., on the 15th of January, 1973, acquitting the accused.On 17-1-1973 application was made for a certified copy and requisition was given on 3-1-1973 (sic).We have to note that the accused in the first trial with regard to Section 302/34 were five in number but there are only two accused in the subsequent trial with the new jury which has been appealed against.We, are.therefore, constrained to negative this part of the submission of Mr. Mitra as well.So far as the merit is concerned the prosecution story, in brief, has already been noted at the outset.There is no doubt in this case that Dipak died as the result of injuries inflicted by one or more persons.It is also nut disputed that he was taken into the Medical College Hospital, The dispute is mainly as to who caused death and how.Five eyewitnesses have been examined in the case.Two of the eye-witnesses, Samir Roy and Arun Bhattacharyya who were members of the club 'Taruner Ahavan' more or less corroborate each other.According to their evidence, on the day of occurrence, Arun came from his residence at Park square and he met Samir alias Manju Roy near the club which was still then not opened.They then went to the Saloon De Style to have shave where they chanced to meet Dipak who was having his shave.The evidence given showed him to be a dumb spectator of the assault allowing himself to be killed.If Samir and Arun did not dare intervene at least they could raise alarm.Their evidence is that after everything was over and Rabi had struck Dipak they cried 'Dhar Dhar' (Catch Catch them) and chased the assailants up to the mouth of the junction of Kailash Bose Street and Bidhan Sarani, a small distance.Soon after they, returned stopped a passing taxi and took Dipak to the Medical College.The third eye-witness Priya Ranjan Sana substantially corroborated Samir and Arun who was also a resident of the locality.But another person took the place of Bhoda.He was Prokash and had a bloodstained dagger in his hand, He was facing Dipak, He saw Dipak pressing his hand at the abdomen and stooping down but Dipak was pulled up.Although a resident of the locality this witness feigned that he did not know names of the assailants or who were their associates at the time of occurrence.In cross-examination a group photo was shown in which the witness was alleged to be present with Rabi but he denied.This witness further, it transphes, along with another friend of his.apprehended, without the aid of the Police, one of the five accused persons namely Monotosh on the 14th of August, 1967, at the Burra-bazar area.It was suggested by the defence that the witness and Tapan were two local bullies belonging to the Congress party.The facts that after seeing the incident this person who was later so bold as to apprehend Monotosh did not intervene or even after any assistance to Dipak were commented upon.Even after seeing the incident this witness did riot disclose anything to the members of his family nor inform the police.The witness said that he made statement before Police "sitting on the ledge of Phillips Roy".As police was making enquiries he went there and made the statement.I.O. (Q. 830-32) Kanai Dutt said that he examined the witness in front of the Habul Modak's Sweetmeat's shop.He found five or six persons surrounding Dipak.Accused Prokash thrusted a knife into the left abdomen of Dipak.Dipak pressed his hand at the abdomen and cried 'Oh' when accused Rabi was standing behind the accused Prokash but the witness without seeing anything further came back with his 'Zillapi and Kochuri'.This witness obviously is a person of the underworld who was on bail at the time he was deposing before the Court.There was a charge of theft against him.He also paid fine after conviction in another case.He admitted in course of the cross-examination that he used to be taken to the Police Station by the police and were implicated in petty cases.Comment was made also about the casual manner in which this witness is supposed to have seen the occurrence.He saw Prokash stab Dipak when Rabi was standing behind Prokash but instead of seeing what followed he just went back to his place of occurrence nor did this witness tell anybody about what he saw.Kartick Barui was also an egg-seller in the pavement.At about 9.00 a.m. he heard an alarm "Dhar Dhar" at the beginning of the incident which of course was not spoken of by anybody else.He collected his money, stood up and saw Dipak being surrounded by a few persons of whom Prokash pierced a dagger in the abdomen of Dipak.Dipak then fell down.Babu Srimani lifted up Dipak and Rabi struck with a dagger on the back of Dipak.Thereafter the boys came out of the saloon and started chasing the assailants who fled away.On behalf of the prosecution Mr. Chowdhury analysed the evidence of the; witnesses in great detail and with meticulous care.As to the place of occurrence he relied on the answers of the main witnesses viz., Arun (Q. 81), Samir (Q. 375 to 735).Mithua (Q. ), Kartick (Q. ), Priya Ranjan Para-manick (Q. 29-30), Cross-examination (129, 97 and 900).Kanai Dutta (Q. 129, 30, Q. 212 to 2,16).This shows that the place of occurrence was in front of the saloon and the club 'Taruncr Ahaban'.He pointed out the questions viz., Arun (Q. 102) Samir (Q. 15, 16 and 26), Mithua (Q. 18), Kartick (Q. 12) Paramanick (Q. 53), Ext. 12 and Ex. Y, the history sheet of Dipak at the Medical College Hospital, and argued that the occurrence was about 9.00 a.m. and the patient was taken to the Hospital near about 9.15 a.m. Mr. Chowdhury argued that there was nothing serious in cross-examination to contradict the eye-witnesses.The statements made by them were not just bald statement but made in great detail.Priya Ranjan sees a part of the incident.So does Mithua, Arun was taken by the I.O. to show the spot from the Hospital.Arun (Q, 61, 63, 74 and 102).Samir (Q. 34 and 35).Mithua (Q. 20, 23, 31 and 32).Kartick (Q. 12 to 21).Priya Ranjan (Q. 12 to 48), Pasupati Paramanick (Q. 24 to 30 and 129), Not only the five witnesses identified both the accused as being present at the time of occurrence, four witnesses mentioned them by name.The accused Prokash was arrested on 22-10-1967 and Rabi on 24-10-1967, T.I. Parade was held on 14-11-1967, There is no question of any honest mistake in identity.Mr. Chowdhury stated that it was either a case of deliberate falsehood or not.Apart from the I.O. Witnesses Pasupati Pramanick P.W. 30 broadly corroborates the time and place of incident.The general background of rivalry and hostility between the Congress and the C.P.I. (M) was also there.There is no evidence that there was ill feeling between Dipak on the one hand and Rabi and Prokash on the other.Moreover Dipak's father, Pannalal examined by the police on the same day named the two accused.Ext. 12 the attendance report, Ext. 17 the emergency slip and/or the short history before admission Ext. Y the history sheet also were to be taken note of.The keys of the club being found in sealed packet by Dr. J. B, Mukherjee and the club being found closed at the time of the incident lent support to the prosecution case that Dipak came to open the club.Absconding by both Rabi and Prokash were also to be taken note of.In this connection the evidence of P.W. 10, the Headmistress of Diocesion School (Q. 38 to 41) and 62 to 64 and 950 were relied on.Mr. Chowdhury, however, stressed the gravity of the abdominal injury which was a fatal one and the back injury (Dr. Arora Q. 324, and Dr. J.B. Mukherjee Q. 326).Reliance was placed on the general diary Ext. 10 which was made at about 3.00 P.M. on the date of the occurrence.It showed that Arun was examined at the hospital and statement was recorded.By 3.00 p.m. the case had been started against the two accused.Mr. Chowdhury pointed out that there was no reason why two innocent persons would be falsely implicated by the father of the deceased or the friends of Dipak, specially when accused Rabi claims that Priya Ranjan was a friend of Prokash.Mr. Chowdhury also referred to Ext. 17 and the evidence of Dr. Dhiraj Chowdhury, P.W. 25 on the nature of the document.He also addressed the court on Ext. 12 and Y. He pointed out fairly some of the circumstances that favoured the accused.As already noted the defence has not disputed the foul murder of Dipak in broad day-light on that Sunday but has seriously challenged the time of occurrence and the presence of the eye-witnesses.It was argued that the occurrence took place much earlier than 9.00 a.m. To contrive a plausible meeting between Arun and Samir on the occasion of the opening of the Club 'Taruner Ahavan' at 9.00 a. m, the time was purposely shifted.It was argued that the police itself at least S.I., Arun Dey and I.O. Kanai Dutta visited this spot around 9.00 a.m. Pasupati Pramanick, P.W. 30 the barber of the Saloon de Style in course of his deposition said that the police came to the saloon at 9.00 a.m. According to him there were two police officers - The police again came at about 12.00 noon and for the third time a hour late.If the occurrence took place at 9.00 a. m, it was not possible for the police to visit this spot around that time.Pasupati's evidence in this respect was sought to be corroborated by a G.D. Entry at the Jora-sanko Police station which was recorded by S. I, Arun Dey, Ext. 'X9' entry No. 2950 dated 26-2-1967 at 9.00 a.m. It states "left for enquiry into cases".There is no reference to any particular case but entry made by this officer on return to the police station which is again 'Ext. X8' being No. 2972 at 1.40 p.m. lends some support to this argument.Although he records that he returned from enquiry into cases, no detail with regard to any case is given but he said that he went to the "Medical College and waited to record the statement of Dipak Sarkar who was still in the operation theatre and under influence of anaesthesia.He could not hence record the statement.O.C. (N) was at the Medical College with force.The entry, therefore, relates more or less to the present case.It was strongly argued on behalf of the defence that his evidence that he casually met the other police Officer who took him to the Medical College could not be relied on at all.If he really was out to enquire into other cases that would have found place in the G.D. Entry.Again, according to prosecution.the earliest information received at the police station was at 9.45 a.m. G.D. Entry 'X/I' which is relied on for this purpose reads that a telephone call was received from S.I. Sahapoddar that a disturbance was going on at Bidhan Sarani "in front of 'Taruner Ahavan'".Accordingly, S.I. Kanai Dutta left' with force for this spot but S.I. Sahapoddar's evidence reveals that at 9.40 a. m, he had information from D.C. North at Amherst Street' Police Station (which he recorded in the G.D. 'X9') that a disturbance was going on at the crossing of Kailash Bose Street and Bidhan Sarani.He left for the spot.Therefore, at that time he could not be aware, and he admitted in his evidence that he was not, that the disturbance took place in front of club 'Taruner Ahavan'.Mr. Mitra argued with force that G.D. Entry Ext. 10 must have been written later on.That the entries in the G.D. are not free from suspicion would be apparent when it is noted that as many as three entries are made simultaneously at 9.45 a.m. Two of the entries even bear the same number viz., 2956 and Ext. 10 on the basis of which S.I.S.K. Saha is supposed to have left is written at the bottom of the page.There is little doubt that all the entries arc not made duly or in regular course as they should have been.The Entry No, 2956 Ext. 10 to say the least, is very suspicious.Mr. Mitra suggests that it was at 9.00 a.m. that the police got information when S.I., K. Dutta with Arum Dey had left the police station on the basis of the information recorded in Ext. 'X9' by Arun Dey already referred to above.Again it is the evidence of I.O. Kanai Dutt that he rang up from Medical College to Inspector Ajit Chatterjee at the Police Station.Ajit Chatterjee in his deposition before the court this time, of course, said that he received 'the ring at 10.45 a.m.' but sufficiently he was contradicted with his statement in the previous trial when he had said that he received a telephone call near about 9.45 a.m. The earlier deposition of Mr. Chatterjee fits in with the defence case.If I.O., Dutta and Arun Dey had left at 9.00 a.m. and went to the spot which could not take more than three to four minutes, they could be near the saloon as indicated by Pasupati and then it would be possible for Dutta to ring from the Medical College at 9.45 a.m. That also explains why at 9.45 a. m, while recording the entry the police betrayed their knowledge that the occurrence had taken place near 'Taruner Ahavan'.The indication of the place of occurrence 'near Taruner Ahavan' at the alleged first entry must have been an inadvertence which could be possible because the author had prior knowledge by 9.45 a.m. about the incident.In cross-examination Sahapoddar has stated that he rang up and conveyed the information that a disturbance was taking place on the crossing of Kailash Bose Street and Bidhan Sarani.However, upon further enquiry being made to identify the spot he mentioned 'Near Taruner Ahavan'.This is obviously an eye wash and inspires no confidence.Nobody would normally require-much less the police officer-details about the crossing of two such important streets as Kailash Bose Street and Bidhan Sarani and even if he did, that crossing would hardly be identified with reference to a club whose name few people were aware of except locally.Mr. Mitra on behalf of the defence strongly argued that Arun and Samir were not there at the time of the incident which took place much earlier than at 0.00 a.m. Even the prosecution case that Samir and Arun's statements were recorded at the Medical College receive no cor-roboration from the G.D. Entries.Ext. 'X8' which is recorded by Arun Dey at 1.40 p.m. after a vigil of about two and half hours makes no mention of any statement by Arun or Samir.The said Police Officer stayed at the Medical College for two and half hours in course of which many people including prominent leaders visited the Medical College.But he heard no names of the assailants.Even the.G.D. Entry recorded by I.O. Ext. 10 Saha on his return to the thana at 3.00 p.m. does not mention any statement by Samir.Some of the facts and circumstances which emerge in support of the defence case that Arun and Samir were not there at the time of the incident seem to be as follows (i) there was no mention about them at Arun Dey's diary recorded at 1.40 p.m. (ii) There is no mention of Samir Roy's name in the I.O.'s diary at 3.40 p.m. (iii) it is the evidence of the prosecution that I.O., Kanai Dutt looked for the accused at their residence at noon but no seizure list witness was produced in Court, Why was not Arun made to sign the seizure list if he was there? (iv) Even Pasupati of the saloon-de-style was not shown, at the time of his deposition either Arun or Samir to be identified.This would have proved the fact that they were present at the saloon nearabout the time of occurrence, (v) The taxi by which Samir and Arun alleged to have brought Dipak to the Medical College was not produced by the Police.At the first trial the evidence was that somebody paid the fare but in the second trial it seems that nobody took pains to pay the fare at all.There must have been blood in the taxi if Dipak was carried in it.No serious attempt was made to trace the same (vi) None of the stretcher bearers who helped to take Dipak from the taxi has been examined, (vii) Ext. 17, the earliest document of the hospital regarding Dipak's admission was not produced by prosecution.At a later stage on the 2nd trial the prosecution brought it before the Court, (viii) Dr. Mahapatra, Dr. Chowdhury or the nurses or anybody else from the Medical College has not identified either Samir or Arun being present at the Emergency; (ix) While it is admitted that neither Arun nor Samir went upstairs yet evidence of Dr. Mira Sen shows that she had talks with a gentleman whose identity has not been established; (x) Arun and Samir, if they really carried the deceased in the manner they said they did should have blood on their clothes, Arun admitted the same in the first trial but denied it in the second.Their garments were not seized at all.Another very important aspect of the defence case is that although all the five eye-witnesses spoke of stab injuries at the abdomen and back of the deceased, post mortem examination revealed a big and serious injury at the buttock.Dr. J.B. Mukherjee, head of the department of Forensic Science who performed the post mortem examination on Dipak at 11.00 a.m. on 27-2-1967 found, besides the incised stab injuries at the abdomen and the back of the chest, a third injury which was ( a incised stab injury) l1/4" X 1/2" X 3" placed more or less obliquely over the upper part of the left side of the buttock at it's mid part.On dissection the track and the wound was found to have passed through the underlying skin and muscles to terminate over the gluteal service of the ilium 11/4" below iliac crest producing a cut correspondingly for at the outer surface of ilium, Later on the doctor said that the buttock injury was about 1" below the waist line.He was unable to give any explanation as to how the doctors of the Medical College failed to detect the injury at the buttock, The injury on the buttock, according to the doctor, would endanger life.Mr. Mitra argued that if the eyewitnesses really saw the incident - Samir and Arun are supposed to have watched it from a distance of about 9-10 cubits - they could not have missed the same.The left side of Dipak was exposed to them.The first two reports emanating from the Medical College, Ext. 12 and Ext. 17 did not mention this injury at the buttock nor did the doctors at the Medical College who presumably were busy with the serious wound at the abdomen notice the same, Dr. Mohapatra who was on the emergency duty at 9.10 a.m. on 26-2-1967 and who was the author of the report, Ext. 12, in course of his examination said that he was compelled "to write under pressure subsequent entries" and the names of the two assailants later.He was declared hostile.Ext. 12 when examined clearly shows that some of the names there were interpolated.Mr. Mitra on behalf of defence urged, and not without force, that if the eye-witnesses had really seen they could not have missed the injury on the buttock.With the background of political rivalry between the victim and the alleged assailants when evidently interpolations were made in the documents in the custody of officer and when even a Doctor was pressurised, the Court should be very cautious, he submitted, in dealing with the evidence of this case.Again, the police took the sealed packet from the hospital under 'production list' but without any formal seizure.When the seal was broken at the Forensic Laboratory the contents as written outside, did not tally with what was found inside.The packet which was labelled with the seal of the Medical College was collected by I.O., Kanai Dutt from the Medical College on 18-3-1967 (Q. 363-66), The discrepancy between the contents of the packet and what were written outside naturally evoked adverse comments.No satisfactory explanation was forthcoming from the prosecution.The defence suggested that the seals must have been broken and the key inserted later on to fit in with the story of the prosecution.Dr. Mukherjee's (Q 88 and 1303) suggestion was that the shirt which was opened might have flown up.The trouser also did not show any cut mark.It was suggested by the prosecution that as the trouser was used below the waste line the stab injury on the abdomen might not have cut the trousers (Mukherjee Q. 16, 55, 96, 97 and Dr. Aurora Q. 93, 302 to 305).Some of the important documents besides the general diary also came in for criticism.Ext. 12 is the attendance report written by Dr. Mahapatra when Dipak was admitted to the hospital.In the column "brought by" names of Arun and Samir are there.It is also stated that at about 9.00 a. m, Dipak Sarkar when coming out from the saloon after shaving was stabbed by two persons then names follow which are five (i) Habi, (ii) Prokash (iii) Monotosh (iv) Babu Srimani and (v) Bhoda.There is no doubt that some names were interpolated later on.As already noted Dr. Mahapatra said in his evidence that he was pressurised to alter the document.As already noted Ext, X/l in the general diary which the I.O. recorded on his return to the police station does not mention this important document.S.I. Arun Dey who heard talks between I.O. and another police officer and who returned to the thana at 1.40 a.m. and made an entry therein also does not refer to this document.Again, if the document was really in existence there is no reason why the I.O. would not seize it' at once.From the evidence it transpired that the document by its nature was more for the police.If it was written simultaneously with the admission of the patient there was no reason why it should not have been treated as F.I.R.Comments were also made about Ext. 17 which is an emergency slip and is also written at the time of the admission of the patient to the hospital.The documents Exts.12 and 17 are stated to be written more or less at the same time Ext. 17 being the earliest.This exhibit, however, states that one Dipak Sarkar was brought from Sarkar Lane being stabbed by Prokash, Rabi and Monotosh.The discrepancy in the two documents.Ext. 12 and Ext. 17 has not been explained.What is extra-ordinary is that this Ext. 17 was never brought to light before the second trial.The book containing the emergency slips would also show that they were not always kept regularly or with reference to dates.Mr. Mitra at one stage commented that this document was withheld as it initially contained no names of the assailants but Mr. Chowdhury stated that if it was really interpolated, the name of Monotosh would not be inserted therein.Ext. Y is the history sheet of the indoor patients.The columns to be filled up were not the same and therefore some discrepancy might have arisen between the two.Mr. Mitra pointed out that names of the assailants were not recorded in Ext. 12 and Ext. 17 originally or they would be mentioned in the General Diary of the I.O.The next thing to be noticed is that there was no blood detected near-about the place of occurrence.The I.O. also denies it.Absence of one Ganesh Singha Thakurda was referred to by one P.W. 9 was commented upon.Police however could not trace him.Let the accused persons be released of their bail bond.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
58,600,855 |
W.P.(CRL) 2729/2015 Page 1 of 6Two male children namely Master Chaitnya and Master Aryan have been born from the said wedlock on 11.01.2003 and 25.12.2007 respectively.On a complaint filed by the respondent No.2 (wife) against her husband (petitioner No.1) and his family members, the subject FIR was registered.Eventually better sense prevailed and the parties decided to settle all their matrimonial disputes with the advice and intervention of relatives of both sides.The settlement agreement dated 12.03.2014 is annexed to this petition as Annexure B. The salient terms and conditions of the said settlement agreement dated 12.03.2014 are as follows:-That the first party today in presence of the mediator Shri Pankaj Nanda has returned all W.P.(CRL) 2729/2015 Page 2 of 6 dowry articles, istridhan, ornaments, belongings, gifts, clothes etc. and now nothing belong to the second party is lying with the first party or his parents/relations etc. and similarly nothing belonging to the first party is lying with the second party or her parents/relations etc. There is no claim whatsoever left between the parties with respect to any article of any nature.W.P.(CRL) 2729/2015 Page 2 of 6That it has been agreed that the first party shall apply to the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for quashing the FIR bearing No.302/2013, PS- Vikas Puri, District West, Delhi, under Sections 406/498A/34 IPC registered against the first party and his relations and after the recording of the statements on the first motion divorce petition.Thereafter both the parties shall file a petition for second motion for grant of divorce as per the existing law.It has been agreed that the first party shall keep the custody of the two sons Master Chaitnya and Master Aryan.W.P.(CRL) 2729/2015 Page 3 of 6That it has been agreed that the first party shall pay a total sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the second party by way of cheque/draft woards the past, present and future maintenance, expenses incurred in the marriage and all other remaining claims of the second party.c) An amount of Rs.50,000/- shall be paid at the time of recording of the statements on the second motion divorce petition by mutual consent before the Court.That the second party shall have no visitation rights to meet her two sons Master Chaitnya and Master Aryan.That the second party shall have no right, title or interest over the properties (movable or immovable) of the first party or of the parents of the first party and similarly the W.P.(CRL) 2729/2015 Page 4 of 6 first party shall have no right, title or interest over the properties (movable or immovable) of the second party or of the parents of the second party.W.P.(CRL) 2729/2015 Page 4 of 6That the second party shall cooperate in all manners in disposing of the complaints, litigations etc. in the interest of justice in terms of this Compromise Agreement and during the subsistence of this agreement, both the parties shall not initiate any further legal proceedings/complaints against each other."In pursuance to the aforesaid settlement a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- has already been received by Geetu Wadhawan alias Geetu Kohli.The balance sum of Rs.50,000/- has been brought to the Court in the shape of a Demand Draft bearing No.025668 dated 19.10.2015 in favour of Geetu Kohli drawn on Axis Bank and has been handed over to the respondent No.2 (wife) in Court today.Geetu Wadhawan alias Geetu Kohli, the complainant-wife acknowledges receipt of the demand draft subject to realization thereof.Geetu Wadhawan alias Geetu Kohli, who is present in Court and has been duly identified by IO SI Rajesh Yadav, Police Station- Vikas Puri states that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, she is no longer keen to proceed with the subject FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom.W.P.(CRL) 2729/2015 Page 5 of 6W.P.(CRL) 2729/2015 Page 5 of 6SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J NOVEMBER 30, 2015 dn W.P.(CRL) 2729/2015 Page 6 of 6W.P.(CRL) 2729/2015 Page 6 of 6Through: Ms. Megha Bahl, Advocate for Mr. Avi Singh, ASC (Criminal) and SI Rajesh Yadav, PS- Vikas Puri for R-1 Respondent No.2/Complainant in person CORAM:HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL) CRL.M.A.17307/2015 (Exemption) Exemption granted subject to all just exceptions.The application is disposed of accordingly.The present is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) W.P.(CRL) 2729/2015 Page 1 of 6 seeking quashing of FIR No.302/2013, under Sections 406/498A/34 IPC registered at Police Station- Vikas Puri, Delhi and the proceedings arising therefrom.The above said amount shall be paid in the following stages:-a) An amount of Rs.50,000/- shall be paid at the time of the recording of the statements on the first motion divorce petition by mutual consent before the Court.In view of the foregoing, since the dispute which resulted in the registration of the subject FIR has already been resolved amicably by the parties without any undue influence, pressure or coercion, no useful purpose will be served by proceeding with the subject FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom.Consequently, FIR No.302/2013, under Sections 406/498A/34 IPC registered at Police Station- Vikas Puri, Delhi and the proceedings arising therefrom are hereby set aside and quashed qua all the petitioners subject to their depositing an aggregate sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with the Victims' Compensation Fund, Government of NCT of Delhi within a period of two weeks from today.The receipt of the deposit be provided to the IO in the subject FIR.The petition is disposed of accordingly.
|
['Section 406 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.
|
58,606,845 |
It is directed that the applicant Dinesh, shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.The applicant shall abide by the conditions as enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C. and in the event of breach of condition of bail, the trial Court will be competent to take coercive action against the applicant.C.C. as per rules.(MOHD.FAHIM ANWAR) JUDGE M.Digitally signed by SANTOSH P MATHEWS Date: 2019.03.30 13:23:39 +05'30'Case diary perused.This is first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the applicant.The applicant has been arrested in connection with Crime No.55/2019, registered at Police Station Mundi, District Khandwa, for the offences punishable under Sections 454, 354, 354-A of IPC and section 7/8 of POCSO Act.The allegation of prosecution is that the on 28.2.2019 at about 3:00 pm when prosecutrix, aged about 15 years was alone in her house, applicant, who is brother-in-law (Jija) of prosecutrix had come there and taken hold of her and squeezed her breast.Prosecutrix somehow escaped and fled from there and narrated the incident to her neighbour Ghanshyam.It is also alleged that in the evening when her mother had come back from work, then she narrated the whole incident to her.Lateron her father had returned back on 5.3.2019 from Khandwa, then accompanying him she has lodged the report.On that basis, the aforesaid crime has been registered against the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent person.The trial will take a long time to conclude.Therefore, it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail.Learned Government Advocate for State has opposed the application for bail.The High Court of Madhya Pradesh M.Cr.C.No.11818/2019 (Dinesh Vs.State of M.P. ) 2 The statement of prosecutrix under section 164 of Cr.P.C., has been recorded.Learned counsel for applicant has highlighted some contradictions in the statements recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C., and FIR.At this stage, it is not proper to weigh the evidence, which is led in the case diary, but looking to the duration of custody of applicant, who is in jail since 7.3.2019, I am inclined to grant bail to him.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this application is allowed.This M.Cr.C. stands allowed and disposed of.
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
58,607,997 |
Heard on I.A. No.2511/2015, which is an application for suspension of jail sentence of the appellant No.1 - Dhul Singh @ Banti S/o Mohar Singh, appellant No.6 - Dhannalal S/o Kashiram and appellant No.7 - Bhavsingh @ Pappu S/o Morsingh, who have been convicted under Sections 148, 302/149, 307/149, 323/149 (4 counts) and 427 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo 1 year RI, life imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-, 5 years RI with fine of Rs.200/-, 3 months RI and 6 months RI respectively with default stipulations.Learned counsel for the appellants submit that as per prosecution story and statement of injured witnesses Bharatsingh, Dhulsingh, Chandersingh, Ratansingh, Vinaysingh, Jodharam and lakhansingh, the allegation of causing injuries are against Shivnarayan, Vikramsingh, Jitendra and other co-accused persons whereas, from the present appellants, no recovery of weapon has been made and only key of motorcycle from appellant No.1 and motorcycle from appellant No.7 has been made.She submits that with the aid of Section 149 of the IPC, the present appellants have been implicated and prays that this application for suspension of jail sentence of the appellants be allowed and they be released on bail.On the other hand, learned Dy.A. G. opposed the prayer but very fairly submitted that from appellant No.1 - Dhulsingh and appellant No.7 - Bhavsingh @ Pappu, key of motorcycle and motorcycle has been recovered whereas, from appellant No.6 - Dhannalal, Farsi has been seized and as per FSL report, human blood was found on the same and prays for its rejection.On due consideration of the aforesaid, we reject the application for suspension of jail sentence of appellant No.6 - Dhannalal but looking to the nature of allegation and role attributed to the appellant Nos.1 and 7, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I.A. No.2511/2015, application for suspension of jail sentence is allowed in part.The substantive jail sentence of the appellant No.1 - Dhulsingh and appellant No.7 - Bhavsingh @ Pappu are suspended subject to their depositing the fine amount and furnishing a personal bond to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before this Court/Registry on 28.09.2015 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf.Shri Amit Purohit, Advocate who has filed I.A. No.2928/2015, which is an application for suspension of jail sentence of the appellant No.9 - Jitendra Singh prays for time.Prayer allowed.List in the next week.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
5,861,368 |
<p style="margin-right: 0.07in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none" align="JUSTIFY"> <font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><font size="3"> <span lang="en-US"><span style="background: transparent">This is an application for bail under section 439 of Cr.P.C. for offence under Sections 376D and 506II/34 of IPC in connection with Crime No.325/2014 registered at Police Station Junnardeo Chhindwara.</span></span></font></font> </p> <p style="margin-right: 0.07in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none" align="JUSTIFY"> <font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><font size="3"> According to prosecution on 23/05/2014 petitioners and co-accused kidnapped prosecutrix aged 19 years and committed gang on her.</font></font> </p> <p style="margin-right: 0.07in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none" align="JUSTIFY"> <font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><font size="3"> Learned counsel for State submits that sufficient evidence available to show that prosecutrix was kept in threat and pressure and father of prosecutrix came to know the fact of gang rape by some outsider, though on interrogation her daughter revealed this fact.This bail shall continue during the pendency of the trial.In the event of jumping the bail, this facility will be withdrawn from petitioners.</font></font> </p> <p style="margin-left: 0.07in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none" align="JUSTIFY"> <font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><font size="3"> </font></font></p> <p style="margin-left: 0.07in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 100%; text-decoration: none" align="JUSTIFY"> <font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><font style="font-size: 13pt" size="3"><font face="Bitstream Vera Serif, serif"><font size="3">(</font></font><font face="Bitstream Vera Serif, serif"><font size="4">Tarun Kumar Kaushal)</font></font></font></font></p> <p style="text-indent: 0.5in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%" align="JUSTIFY"> <font face="Bitstream Vera Serif, serif"><font size="4"> Judge</font></font></p> <p style="margin-right: 0.07in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none" align="JUSTIFY" lang="en-US"> <font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><font style="font-size: 13pt" size="3"><span style="background: transparent"><font face="Bitstream Vera Serif, serif"><font style="font-size: 6pt" size="1">tarun</font></font><font style="font-size: 11pt" size="3"> </font></span></font></font></p> <!--<object type="application/pdf" data="../../MPHCJB/2014/SA/125/SA_125_2014_Order_03-Jul-2014.pdf" id="ggg_object" style="display: none"></object>--> <object type="application/pdf" id="ggg_object" style="display: none"></object> <!--<iframe src="../../MPHCJB/SA_125_2014_Order_03-Jul-2014.pdf" id='ggg_object' width="800px" height="600px" >--> </div> </font>
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
796,892 |
JUDGMENT B.H. Marlapalle, J.The Confirmation Case under Section 366 and the Appeals under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. arise from the order of conviction and sentence dated 18th December 2004 passed by the learned Addl.Though there were three accused initially, the trial against accused No. 3, who was a juvenile accused, was separated and, therefore, accused Nos. 1 and 2 came to be tried in the said Sessions Case for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 364A simplicitor or Section 364A read with Section 34, Section 302 simplicitor or Section 302 read with Section 34, Section 201 simplicitor or Section 201 read with Section 34, Section 384 simplicitor or Section 384 read with Section 34 and Section 506 simplicitor or Section 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.The learned Addl.Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit both the accused for the offences punishable under Section 120B, Section 384 read with Section 34, Section 506 read with Section 34, Section 364A read with Section 34 or simplicitor under all these Sections.Both the accused have been found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 of IPC and each of them has been sentenced to suffer RI for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to suffer RI for six months.Subject to the provisions of Section 31 of the Cr.P.C., the substantive sentences of imprisonment (excluding the death sentence) have been directed to run consecutively in the order they are given.Dr. Ashok Mainkar - Gynaecologist and his wife Dr. Ashwini Mainkar -Ophthalmologist, who were amongst about 30 to 40 medical practitioners at Saswad, Purandar taluka, were blessed with two children -daughter-Ruta aged 14 years and son-Rishikesh aged 13 years at the relevant time and today they are a childless couple.On 4th February 2001 Dr. Mainkar left his home at Saswad for Pune between 4-30 and 5 p.m. to pick up his wife who was attending a medical transcription class and when he returned at 10 p.m. his daughter Ruta was waiting in the porch and informed that Rishikesh who had left home to attend the computer class at 6 p.m. had not returned till then.Little did the doctor know at that time that his son Rishikesh was kidnapped and murdered for a ransom.His daughter Ruta, while a college student at Pune, could not bear the shock of her brother's gruesome murder, and committed suicide in October 2003. .The doctor started making enquiries about his son's whereabouts from his teacher at the computer class as well as friends and around 11 p.m. went to the Saswad police station to inform the police but was sent back by the duty police constable with a belief that the minor son must have gone out with one of the friends and would return may be late in the night or early morning.On 5th February 2001 when the doctor could not get any clue about the whereabouts of his son, he went to the police station around 10 a.m. and filed a missing report (Exhibit 122) on the basis of which PSI Kshirsagar (PW 41) of Saswad Police Station issued an alert call (Exh.140) to all the neighbouring police stations.On 4th February 2001 Rishikesh had left his home at about 6 p.m. on a Hercules bicycle, wearing wrist watch of Escort make with an apparel of greyish black colour jeans trouser and yellowish chocolate colour strip T-shirt.On 5th February 2001 the doctor couple continued their search for Rishikesh at various places but in vain.Ruta had received a call on 4th February 2001 at about 8 p.m. from a boy named Jagtap who had informed her that Rishikesh was with him and would return on the next day.Around 8.40 p.m. on 5/2/2001 he received a telephone call from a person who did not disclose his name but told the doctor "Tumhara bachha hamare pas hai.Internet khel raha hai, hamne use kuch nahi kiya".When the doctor told the caller to return his son, the caller told the doctor to keep an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs ready by next day morning.The doctor was advised not to inform the police and threatened "Amchyashi gath aahe" (You have to face us).On 6th February 2001 the doctor approached the police station once again at about 6 a.m. and informed about the telephone call.This complaint was also reduced in writing (Exhibit 123), and subsequently treated as the FIR.In the mean while the police officer had contacted the telephone engineer and requested him to keep the doctor's telephone No. 22553 under surveillance (the number was common for the residence as well as the hospital).Two police constables were posted at the doctor's house to monitor his telephone from 6th February 2001 onwards.At about 6.45 p.m. the doctor received a call from the same person who had called him on the earlier day and the caller disclosed his name as Salimbhai.The caller asked the doctor "Hamara kam kiya kya" and the doctor answered in the affirmative and requested the caller to hand over the phone to his son.The doctor was informed on phone that his son was playing on internet and he could talk to him after one hour.The doctor was again threatened not to contact the police and the caller disconnected the phone.The phone was monitored by the police.On 7th February 2001 the same person called the doctor at about 7.15 a.m. and asked whether the money was ready.The doctor informed him that the money was ready on the earlier day itself but nobody came to collect.The caller disclosed that he was busy and would contact the doctor around 12 noon.He received the second call at 7 p.m. and in the mean while nobody came to collect the money.In this call also the caller disclosed his name as Salimbhai and angrily asked the doctor why he had informed the police about the demand of Rs. 5 lakhs.He also enquired with the doctor whether the telephone was tapped and threatened him with the consequences including elimination of his son and the entire family.The doctor was informed that on 8th February 2001 some unknown person would meet him at 12 noon and collect the money of Rs. 5 lakhs and thereafter Rishikesh will be released.Both these telephone calls received on 7th February 2001 were monitored.On 8th February 2001 the doctor received the first call at 12.30 noon and the caller disclosed his name as Salimbhai and informed the doctor that the person would come to collect the money at 1 p.m. The second call came between 1-45 p.m. and 2 p.m., whereas the third call was received at 3.30 p.m. when the caller shouted at the doctor and told him that his man had visited the hospital and found the police around it.The fourth call was received at 4 p.m. from the same Salimbhai informing the doctor that he was calling from Hadapsar, Pune and the money was required to be kept near the junk jeep lying in front of a small temple on the Pune -Jejuri road after village Belsar and on which the slogan "Chalo Nashik" was written.The doctor agreed and the phone was disconnected.This call was also monitored.Salimbhai called the fifth time at 5 p.m. and uttered only one sentence, "my man will not come" and the phone was cut off.The caller was taken in custody between 5.30 to 6 p.m. on 8th February 2001 by Ashok Dagadu Kshirsagar (PW-41) PSI, Saswad police station at the relevant time by drawing arrest panchanama at Exhibit 46, from the road near Jejuri side octroi post at Saswad.His house search was made to find out whether Rishikesh was confined / locked in the house but the police did not find Rishikesh and they had to be satisfied by seizing the clothes of the arrested accused No. 1, under seizure panchanama (Exhibit 47).On 9th February 2001 and as per the disclosure made by accused No. 1 while in police custody, the police team went to the agricultural farm of accused No. 1 at village Kumbhar valan which is also known as "chaver" and the accused No. 1 showed the place where the dead body of Rishikesh was buried.The dead body was exhumed from the pit at about 9 a.m. and was found to be in a deteriorated condition.Dr. Mainkar was called and he identified the dead body to be of his son Rishikesh.(a) preparation for digging a pit by collecting the digging / burying equipments like arrow (fawda), tikas for burying the dead body;(b) purchase of salt to be used for burying the dead body on two different dates and from two different shops;(c) deceased Rishikesh last seen by Dr. Mainkar between 4 to 5 p.m. on 4/2/2001 and Rishikesh leaving the house at 6 p.m. on that day to go to Aptech Computer Institute as was seen by his sister-Ruta;(d) Rishikesh met in Aptech Computer Institute to Atul (PW 26) around 6 p.m. and enquired about Rohit Jagtap.Accused No. 1 had sent Dattatray Tupe (PW 25) to call Rishikesh from Aptech Computer Institute at 6 p.m. on 4/2/2001 and Dattatraya had gone to the said Institute but did not find Rishikesh there.At that time Rishikesh was sitting on the rear seat of M-80 and accused No. 1 was driving the said vehicle;(e) all the three accused seen by Vimal Borkar (PW 22) while going on M-80 and accused No. 1 at about 7 p.m. coming from village Vir side and going through village Ambodi.Accused No. 1 was driving the vehicle.Rahul Borkar (PW 23) had seen all the accused on 4/2/2001 at about 7.30 p.m. going on the M-80 of accused No. 1 while the witness was sitting at the katta near Yeshwantrao temple along with his friends.Accused No. 1 was driving the vehicle and they proceeded towards Saswad.Chandrakant Yadav (PW 21) had served tea to all the accused in the tea stall run by his maternal uncle Shri Tanaji Nivrutti Kamthe at Saswad at about 7.45 p.m. on 4/2/2001;(f) At 8 p.m. on 4/2/2001 Ruta had received a telephone call from a person called Jagtap informing her that Rishikesh was with him and he would return in the morning of the next day.Dr. Mainkar returned from Pune at about 10 p.m. on 4/2/2001 and was informed by Ruta that Rishikesh had not returned from the Computer class;(g) Dr. Mainkar receiving the first telephone call at 8-40 p.m. on 5/2/2001 demanding a ransom of Rs. 5 lakhs to release Rishikesh and on his complaint with the police station in the early hours of 6/2/2001 the Police Inspector directing the telephone tapping of Dr. Mainkar with the help of Asst.Engineer (Telephones);(h) complaint at Exhibit 123 registered and police constables posted at the house of Dr. Mainkar to monitor the telephones;(i) on 6/2/2001 second telephone call at 6.45 p.m. received by Dr. Mainkar from a person called Salimbhai asking whether the amount was kept ready and threatening not to report to the police;(j) on 7/2/2001 two telephone calls received by Dr. Mainkar, the first call at 7.15 a.m. and the second call at 7 p.m. On 8/2/2001 Dr. Mainkar received in all five telephone calls starting from 12.30 noon and the last call was at 5 p.m. from the same Salimbhai.All the calls were monitored and after the last call the accused No. 1 was taken in custody, with Jotiba Ingawale (PW 40) alerting the police after the accused No. 1 had made the telephone call at 4 p.m.(k) seizure of clothes of the accused and recovery of bicycle (article 28) in the night of 8/2/2001;(l) recovery of Herculus bicycle used by Rishikesh to go to Aptech computer class, in the midnight on 8/2/2001 from a well.(m) recovery of the dead body of Rishikesh on 9/2/2001 between 8 to 9 a.m. with one clutch wire seen around the neck of the deceased.Photographs taken by camera as well as video shooting also done;The accused No. 1, though a college student, had a two wheeler with him all the time and this vehicle certainly added to his identity in the college, at Saswad, with the shopkeepers and the telephone booths etc. and around the village life.The missing of a famous doctor's son had swept the surrounding areas of Saswad town and for four days it remained a mystery.The accused No. 1 was taken in custody and the victim's dead body was recovered at his instance and from his agricultural land on 9/2/2001 at about a.m. in the presence of a large number of people who had assembled at the spot as is clear from the photographs duly proved.The accused was in veil when the body was recovered at his instance.His arrest and recovery of the dead body were shocking news which perhaps hit the headlines in the local press.Dr. Eknath Dhondiba Male (PW 35), who was In-charge Medical Superintendent of the Rural Hospital at Saswad had performed autopsy on the dead body of Rishikesh on 9th February 2001 between 11-30 to 12-30 noon and was assisted by Dr. P.S.Khandkar and Dr. B.N.Turoriker, both Medical Officers attached to the said hospital.The post mortem was carried out in the agricultural land from where the body was exhumed near village Ambodi after it was identified by the complainant Dr. Mainkar (PW-38).width due to ligature around the neck which was black in colour, grooved and completely surrounding the neck in horizontal manner.(b) On skin dissection echymosis was present below the ligature mark in the subcutaneous tissues which were black in colour(c) fracture of hyoid bone.All these injuries were noted to be ante mortem.On internal examination no injuries were present on head and skull.Brain was found putrefied and the process of liquification had begun in the brain.Right and left lungs were both found in the process of putrefaction and liquification had started.Heart was found empty.The stomach was found empty and both the intestines were filled with gases and appeared bloated.As per the doctors' opinion the cause of death was "asphyxia due to strangulation".The P.M. notes recorded at Exhibit were confirmed by the witness who also confirmed that no poison was detected in the viscera as per the report received from the Chemical Analyser and, therefore, he confirmed his earlier opinion that the death of Rishikesh was caused by strangulation.The witness stated that he had performed about 100 P.M. examinations and stated that the death of Rishikesh might have occurred more than two days and before seven days of the PM examination and he further deposed that no opinion regarding the exact time of death could be given.In the cross-examination of this witness on behalf of the accused, his testimony in the examination-in-chief remained in tact.In his cross-examination he denied the suggestion that the deceased being the son of Dr. Mainkar, he had expressed wrong opinion as to the probable time of death of the deceased.As per the depositions of Dr. Mainkar (PW 38) 4th February 2001 was a Sunday and when he left for Pune between 4-30 to 5 p.m. on that day Rishikesh was at home.The deceased had left for the computer class on his Hercules bicycle at 6 p.m. and did not return till 10 p.m. when Dr. Mainkar and his wife had returned home from Pune, his daughter-Ruta who was at home informed him that around 8 p.m. one boy by name Jagtap had informed her on telephone that Rishikesh was with him and would return on the next day.Dr. Mainkar and his daughter-Ruta saw the dead body of Rishikesh on 9th February 2001 at about 9-30 a.m. in the agricultural land of accused No. 1. .As per him Rishikesh was in the evening batch between 7 p.m. to 8-30 p.m. and the students were allowed to use the internet facility on Sundays between 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. He stated before the trial Court that on 4-2-2001 Rishikesh had met him at 6 p.m. in the Institute and it was a Sunday.Rishikesh had made enquiry with him about one Rohit Jagtap and he had informed the deceased that no one by this name had come to meet him.Thereafter Rishikesh left the Institute and immediately one boy came to the Institute enquiring about Rishikesh and he was told that Rishikesh had already left.This boy who had come to enquire about Rishikesh and met PW 26-Atul Chavan was none other than Dattatraya Tupe (PW 25).While in the witness box Dattatraya Tupe stated that on 4/2/2001 he met accused No. 1 while returning from the ST stand at Saswad on a bicycle.Accused No. 1 had called him and asked for a cup of tea from him.He was told by the teacher that Rishikesh had just left and, therefore, when he returned to the accused No. 1 he saw a boy standing near him and told the accused No. 1 that Rishikesh was not in the institute.The accused No. 1 told him that the boy standing with him was Rishikesh who was wearing a T-shirt of chocolate yellowish colour with verticle strips and a full pant.Thereafter accused Dnyaneshwar and Rishikesh went towards Saswad on a two wheeler of Dnyaneshwar (M-80 with Registration No. MH-12/AK 1980).In his cross-examination he stated that he disclosed the said information to the police for the first time on 13/2/2001 when his statement was recorded and he was with accused Dnyaneshwar and Rishikesh for about five minutes on 4/2/2001 after he returned from Aptech institute.His statement was also recorded before the Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The evidence of these two witnesses shows that at about 6 p.m. Rishikesh visited the Aptech institute, enquired from his teacher PW 26 whether a boy called Rohit Jagtap had come for him and he left the institute immediately thereafter.He was seen with accused Dnyaneshwar for about five minutes by PW 25 and thereafter both of them left on the vehicle of accused No. 1 towards Saswad.PW 22-Vimal Borkar, a resident of Ambodi and an agriculturist by occupation stated before the trial Court that she knew both the accused and that accused No. 1 had a two wheeler (M-80).They were going by Waghapur-Saswad road towards Saswad.Rahul Borkar (PW 23), a resident of Ambodi and a student at the relevant time, stated before the Court that all the three accused were the residents of his village and accused No. 1 owned a two wheeler (M-80) with its Registration No. MH-12 / AK-1980 of red colour.On Sunday, 4th February 2001 it was about 7-30 p.m. when he and his friends were gossiping at the katta near Yeshwantrao temple when he saw all the three accused on the two wheeler of accused No. 1 and the accused No. 1 was driving the same.They were proceeding to Saswad.Chandrakant Yadav (PW 21) was working in a tea stall of his maternal uncle Shri Tanaji Nivrutti Kamthe.He knew accused No. 1 who was the resident of village Ambodi.On 4/2/2001 around 7.45 p.m. the accused No. 1 visited his hotel along with two other persons who were of his age and had come on his vehicle.He had ordered tea for all the three and the witness served him tea.When the witness returned the remaining amount, the accused No. 1 asked him to keep the balance so as to be adjusted in the next visit.Thereafter they had left on their M-80 and at that time accused No. 1 Dnyaneshwar had a blue coloured bag in his hand.This chain of events from 6 p.m. to 7.45 p.m. on 4/2/2001 goes to show that the deceased was seen in the company of the accused around 6.30 p.m. by PW 25 and all the three accused were seen returning at about 7 p.m. by PW 22-Vimal Borkar coming from Waghapur-Saswad road and proceeding towards Saswad.Village Waghapur is beyond village Ambodi and if one starts from Waghapur, he goes to Ambodi and then goes to Saswad.They were also seen by PW 23-Rahul Borkar at about 7-30 p.m. and had tea in the hotel where Chandrakant Yadav-PW 21 was working at about 7-45 p.m. The evidence of PW 1-Dr.The memorandum panchanama at Exhibit 30 regarding the recovery of the cycle has been duly proved by this witness and from the memorandum panchanama (Exhibit 29) it is seen that the said cycle was lifted from Aptech computer institute on 4/2/2001 and was thrown in the said well by the accused.The cycle belonged to the deceased and it was identified as Article No. 28 before the Court by the complainant-PW 38 as well as Dr. Wagholikar (PW 1).The conclusions of the trial Court that Rishikesh was picked up from Aptech computer institute by the accused No. 1, he was taken by the accused No. 1 on his M-80 vehicle straight to the agricultural land of accused No. 1, he was done to death, buried in the pit by the accused and the pit of the size of 7 ft. length, 2 and 1/2 ft. width and 4 and 1/2 ft. deep was already kept ready by the accused, thereafter they left the place of incident on M-80, came back to Saswad, had tea and picked up the cycle from Aptech computer institute and dropped it in the well on Pune-Saswad road after 8 p.m. on 4/2/2001 and accused No. 1 made a telephone call to the residence of Dr. Mainkar at about 8-00 p.m. when he informed Ruta that the deceased was with him and would return on the next day morning, are required to be upheld.However, the prosecution did not leave the case there and proceeded further to prove other circumstances viz. recovery of the belongings of Rishikesh, preparation for digging the pit, purchase of salt and metallic wire and the subsequent demands of ransom made by the accused No. 1 over telephone to Dr. Mainkar.On 11/2/2001 the accused No. 1 while in police custody made the disclosure regarding the wrist watch of the deceased and offered to show the same.Accordingly the memorandum was drawn at Exhibit 37 and the accused was taken in a jeep along with panch witness Balasaheb Bhintade (PW 3).The accused took the police party and the witness to his house, went inside the room and took out one wrist watch which was kept on the TV behind the tape recorder.The wrist watch was of Escort make with black dial and black belt.Seizure panchanama at Exhibit 38 was drawn.The accused No. 1 then led the police party for the recovery of M-80 and wallet which was hidden by him.Memorandum was drawn at Exhibit 39 during 2.05 hRs.to 2.20 hRs.The accused led the jeep on Jejuri road and after a distance of about 7 Kms.he stopped the jeep near Khalad village.He got down from the jeep along with the panchas and the police to show his vehicle M-80 kept near the culvert facing towards village Khalad.Then the accused led the jeep towards village Khalad and near the temple of Ekalpur village on Western side, he halted the jeep near the house of Sudhakar Zurange (PW 27).He entered the house from the door having one plank and went to the kitchen.On the Southern corner some photographs of deities were hanging at a distance of about 5 ft. height and he took out one leather wallet from the third photograph.It was a wallet of black colour with brass letters (Article 19).At about 5 p.m. on the same day accused led the police party along with witness PW 3 and Pradip Solanki for the recovery of the chappals removed from the dead body of Rishikesh.Memorandum statement at Exhibit was drawn between 5-10 to 5-25 p.m. He led the police party on Jejuri road and at Wambori road he asked the driver to go on Waghapur Chouphala road.He stopped the jeep at about 1 Km.near one well.The panchas and the accused along with the police party got down from the jeep, the accused peeped in the well and showed the chappal pair which was floating on the water.The recovery of note book (Exhibit 44-A) from the house of accused No. 1 has been proved in the evidence of Jamir Bagwan (PW 4).The note book contained about pages.Hello, kon doctor saheb.Tumcha mulga aamchya tabyat aahe.Jar mulga pahije aasel tar 5 lakh.When the notebook was recovered from the house of the accused No. 1, his mother Malan Borkar was present in the house.Now coming to the preparation for digging the pit and dispose off the dead body the plan of the accused is unfolded initially in the testimony of Shashikant Sadashiv Golande (PW 13).He stated that he was running a grocery shop in the market area of Saswad and in the name and style of "Golande and Sons".The police had visited his shop on 19/2/2001 at about 8 p.m. and enquired about the sale of crystal salt.He had informed the police that on 4/2/2001 one person had come to his shop on M-80 motor cycle and purchased 5 Kgs.of crystal salt for Rs. 15/- and he did not purchase any other articles.The caller did not disclose his name but talked to him in Hindi "Tumhara bachcha hamare pas hai.Internet khel raha hai.When the doctor asked the caller to return his son, the caller asked him to keep ready an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs.When the doctor replied that he had no money, the caller told him that the son would be retained in custody and the caller would telephone him again on the next day morning.When the doctor told him not to take such a long time, the caller asked him to keep the money ready by the next day morning and he would phone the doctor but at the same time advised him not to inform the police about it and if so informed, he would face the consequences saying "Amchyashi gath aahe".The doctor visited the police station at 6 a.m. on 6/2/2001 and recorded the complaint at Exhibit 123 which came to be treated as the FIR.This telephone call has been proved by the evidence of Narayan Sakharam Shinde (PW 12) read with Exhibit 70, the print out.The witness was the owner of Yashadeep hotel near Waghire college bus stop.The call had lasted for 32 seconds.The witness stated while in the witness box that the phone call was made by the college student named Borkar who used to frequently visit the booth and he identified the accused No. 1 before the Court as the same person who had made the call.He also stated that he had informed the police that the caller was between the age group of 21 to 22 years with fair complexion having sharp nose.In the cross-examination he stated that his hotel was located on Pune-Saswad road and on an average about 100 phone calls used to be made in a day from his STD booth.As per him the accused No. 1 was a frequent visitor to the booth and, therefore, he knew him.He used to move about on his M-80 red colour moped.The person making the call went inside the cabin, made the call and thereafter came to the counter, paid the bill and went away.He admitted that his statement was recorded on 19/2/2001 and he did not specifically state that on 5/2/2001 one call was made to Dr. Mainkar.He also stated that TI parade was held on 15/3/2001 in the Tahsil office at Saswad between 2 to 2-30 p.m. He denied the suggestion that prior to the TI parade the police had shown him the photograph of the accused and they had asked him to identify the accused.The witness was emphatic that the accused No. 1 was known to him and, therefore, the TI parade was inconsequential .On 6th February 2001 Dr. Mainkar (PW 38) received another call at about 6-45 p.m. and the caller disclosed his name for the first time as Salimbhai and asked the doctor whether his work was done (hamara kam kiya kya).The doctor told him that the job was done and that he should hand over the telephone to his son.The caller informed him that the son was playing internet and after one hour he would be brought on phone.The caller again told the doctor not to approach the police and assured that he would tell about the place to meet on the next day.The evidence of Dattatraya Manohar Jagtap (PW 18) proved that from his STD booth bearing telephone No. 53071 a call was made to telephone No. 22553 at about 6-26 p.m. by a boy aged between 20 to 21 years with thin built and was wearing a T-shirt of faint yellowish colour with a grey colour pant.He identified the accused No. 1 in the Court during his depositions.He also stated that he was called for TI parade held on 15/3/2001 in the Tahsil office at Saswad and he had identified the accused No. 1, from amongst 6 to 7 persons standing there in one line.He identified the grey colour pant (article No. 10) and yellowish shirt (article No. 3) before the Court as being the same clothes worn by accused No. 1 on 6/2/2001 when he came to the STD booth.He had collected the information of all the in-coming calls made on the telephone of Dr. Mainkar and supplied the same to the Police Sub Inspector of Saswad police station vide letter dated 16th March 2001 (Exh.106) and along with the said letter statement of calls made on the telephone of Dr. Mainkar was supplied.On 7th February 2001 Dr. Mainkar received the first call at 7.15 a.m., the caller disclosed his name as Salimbhai and asked whether his work was done and when the doctor asked him as to why he did not come yesterday, he stated to have gone out.This incoming telephone call has been proved by the evidence of Pandurang Bhosle (PW 33) and Dilip Yeole (PW 17).It is pertinent to note that the accused No. 1 had promised Dr. Mainkar that his man would meet the doctor and collect the ransom on 6/2/2001 and from the evidence of Bapu Bhapkar (PW 30) and Pramod Tekawade (PW 29) it is clear that the accused No. 1 had approached them to look for a man unknown to him so as to collect the ransom and these witnesses, who were his classmaters or collegemates, had expressed their inability to find such a person.On 7/2/2001 also it appear that the accused No. 1 made his efforts to look for a suitable man to go and collect the money from Dr. Mainkar but the accused was unsuccessful in doing so and, therefore, he called the doctor second time on 7/2/2001 at about 7 p.m. from the STD booth No. 6993768 at Hadapsar as has been proved by the testimony of P.I. Kshirsagar (PW 41) read with the testimony of Pandurang Bhosle (PW 33).During the conversation the accused asked the doctor angrily as to why he informed the police about his demand of Rs. 5 lakhs and whether the doctor's telephone was tapped.When he was assured that the doctor did not go out of his house, the accused informed the doctor that his man would meet him on the next day at 12 noon and would disclose his identity as coming from Salimbhai.The accused also informed that about five minutes to this man's visit he would call the doctor again.The accused continued his search for a suitable man on 8/2/2001 but was unsuccessful till 12 noon and, therefore, he telephoned the doctor at about 12.15 hRs.on that day saying that the man would reach at 1 p.m. (Tel. No. 6997364 -STD booth of PW 16).The second call was made between 1.45 p.m. to 2 p.m. and the third call at 3.30 p.m. informing the doctor that man would meet him at 4 p.m. and the accused was contacting from Hadapsar.The accused also informed the doctor that on Pune-Jejuri road after village Belsar there is a small temple of white colour on which slogan "Chalo Nashik" was written and the man would be waiting at that spot where the doctor was told to keep the money bag.The doctor was further told that after depositing the money bag at the spot he should return home and then his son would be released and reach the house in the evening.On the way back the accused No. 1 started making enquiries with two-three rickshaw-wallas about their willingness to drive down to Saswad and a rickshaw was hired.The accused No. 1 told his friends that he wanted to pick up a person from a nearby zopadpatti to work at the sugarcane juice centre.Accused No. 1 went to the zopadpatti and hired one man and handed over Rs. 50/- to him as the day's salary.This man was taken in the rickshaw driven by Ramesh Parte (PW 32) between 11 to 11.30, and hire charges of Rs. 200/- were paid to the rickshaw driver.It was not a pit dug in the normal course of agricultural operations.The pit was 7' in length, 2 1/2' in width and 4 1/2' in depth.However, accused No. 1-Dnyaneshwar Suresh Borkar was found to be guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 and he has been sentenced to death (hanging till death), subject to confirmation under Section 366 of the Code by this Court.Accused No. 1-Dnyaneshwar has also been found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 364 of IPC and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default thereof to suffer RI for six months.Accused No. 2-Amit @ Bapu Nanasaheb Bhandwalkar has been found to be guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and has been sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to suffer RI for six months.During the course of investigations statements of a number of persons were recorded, articles were recovered including the two-wheeler of accused No. 1 and bicycle of Rishikesh. .The charge was framed (Exhibit 5) on 14/12/2001 and the prosecution examined in all 41 witnesses.As per the learned Sessions Judge the prosecution proved its case against the accused persons on the basis of the circumstantial evidence.(n) recovery of wrist watch (article 18) worn by the deceased on 11/2/2001 from the house of accused No. 1, and recovery of wallet of the deceased (article 19) from the house of PW 27-Sudhakar and recovery of M-80 of accused No. 1 from Khalad-Jejuri road;(o) recovery of the chappals (article 20) worn by the deceased from the well on the road from Ambodi to Waghapur chouphala;(p) recovery of Ghamele on 23/2/2001;(q) recovery of tikas on 23/2/2001;(r) accused No. 1 met Sudhakar (PW 27) and had hidden the wallet of the deceased behind a photoframe in his house.PW 29-Pramod was asked to collect money from Dr. Mainkar on 6/2/2001 but he declined to search for a suitable man to collect the ransom from Dr. Mainkar; and(s) on 7/2/2001 the accused No. 1 sold his gold chain and fetched an amount of Rs. 520/- which amount he required to hire a person to collect the ransom amount from Dr. Mainkar.(t) On 8/2/2001, the accused No. 1 hired a person from Hadapsar and brought him to Saswad at about 4.30 p.m. under guise to work in the sugarcane juice shop and when he was told to go and pick up the bag, he had refused.In addition the prosecution case is based on extra judicial confession made by accused No. 1 to Pramod Tekawade (PW 29), extra judicial confession made by accused No. 2 to Gokul Khomane (PW 28) and the one made by accused No. 3 to Rahul Borkar (PW 23).The printed paper book in Confirmation Case No. 1 of 2005 suffers from serious printing mistakes.For example on Issue No. 7 framed in para 4 of the impugned judgment, the printed paper book records the findings in the affirmative whereas in the original judgment the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge on the said issue are in the negative and that is also clear in the operative part of the order of conviction and sentence.Wherever there was doubt or difficulty in appreciating the oral depositions appearing in the printed paper book, we have referred to the original Marathi depositions of the concerned witnesses keeping in mind the fact that the oral depositions before the trial Court of the local witnesses are recorded in Marathi and they are simultaneously translated in English by the learned Presiding Officer.In case the oral depositions are in a language other than Marathi, the learned Presiding Officer translates the same in Marathi and this recording of oral depositions simultaneously in Marathi and English is followed by almost all the Sessions Courts in the State.We also have the advantage of Shri Vijay Savant, the learned Special Prosecutor before us who also acted in the same capacity before the trial Court.Saswad is a town located on the Pune-Jejuri Road with a population of about 25 to 30 thousand at the relevant time and is about 40 Kms.The accused are the residents of village Ambodi which is at a distance of about 2 1/2 to 3 Kms.from Saswad (on the North Eastern side) and it is not uncommon that the residents of Ambodi walk down to Saswad for work or for other purposes like education, visit to doctor, marketing and going to ST stand etc. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were the students of Waghire college at Saswad which is located on the Pune-Saswad road and the ST bus stand is at a short distance from the said college towards Pune side.Aptech computer class was located opposite the ST stand at the relevant time and within the municipal limits.5A. The learned Counsel for the accused No. 1 submitted that the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Addl.The complainant (PW 38) being a well known doctor at Saswad, the investigation machinery was under tremendous pressure and innocent college and school boys were roped into as the accused.The recovery of the dead body of the victim and his belongings were sought to be proved by the witnesses who were either doctors or traders and it was unbelievable that these traders or telephone booth owners could identify accused No. 1 after a gap of few years before the trial Court.No wonder then, that the men and women from Ambodi and Saswad recalled their memories of seeing all the accused together a few days before either on the M-80 vehicle, the telephone booths, grocery shops or tea stalls etc. In the restaurant he was a frequent visitor and the young tea server knew him but it is possible that he was also one of those stunned by the news of the arrest of accused No. 1 and the recovery of the victim's dead body at his instance.Obviously this tea server recalled the visit of accused No. 1 along with other accused on 4/2/2001 at about 7.45 p.m. and more so when he was paid extra money and asked to retain it for the next day.Though the accused were taken in veil for the TI parade on 15/3/2001, the report of the TI parade is not very significant for proving the case of the prosecution as most of the concerned witnesses have identified the accused No. 1 or accused No. 2 before the trial Court.We have, therefore, to consider the prosecution case and the challenge to it on the backdrop of these circumstances and the human behaviour of ordinary men and women.As per the medical officer, the dead body was of a male aged about 13 years and around the neck the rounds of metal wire encircling the neck completely with a twisting knot tied anteriorly were noticed.Signs of decomposition as noted below were present on the dead body while the skin had turned blackish green on decomposition:(a) presence of bullae, especially on upper limbs and lower limbs filled mainly with gas with red coloured fluid oozing through it.(c) Face had a bloated appearance, eyes were closed and process of putrefaction had started in the skin.(d) Mouth was partially open through which upper four incisors could be seen which were completely overlapping the lower teeth.Fluid was oozing from the left ear.The external injuries noticed were:(a) Presence of contused abrasion of 1 cm.Police had recorded her statement on 24/2/2001 and before the said disclosure to the police she had also informed about the incident to some other people including Smt.She admitted that there were no street lights near her house and accused No. 1 was her distant relation but the relationship was not cordial at the relevant time.She denied the suggestion that she was deposing against the accused No. 1 as she was not having cordial relationship with his family.In his cross-examination he admitted that there used to be many customers around 7-45 p.m. in his hotel and, therefore, he was required to concentrate on his shop.He also knew that he was a resident of Ambodi and he could remember about the visit of accused to his stall on 4/2/2001 more particularly because of the incident of over payment.However, the witness has identified the same accused in the Court.On some pages the following words were scribbled and it was proved to be the handwriting of accused No. 1 by the evidence of handwriting expert F.I.Shaikh:He identified accused No. 1 as the person who had come on the M-80 motor cycle and purchased 5 Kgs.He had also identified the accused No. 1 in the TI parade in the Tahsil office at Saswad on 15/3/2001 from amongst seven persons by pointing him in a row.Then we go to the testimony of Dilip Katkar (PW 20) who has a grocery shop at Saswad.He stated before the trial Court that on 2/2/2001 one boy aged about 18 years visited his shop around 4-30 p.m. and purchased 5 Kgs.of ground salt.He remembered the incident because in normal course nobody purchased such big quantity of salt and the purchaser gave him one Rs. 100/- note and Rs. 85/- were returned to him.The purchaser was given 5 packets of 1 Kg.each and he had come on M-80 red coloured moped.The witness identified accused No. 1 before the Court by pointing out as the person who purchased the salt on 2/2/2001 at about 12-30 p.m. This testimony could not be disturbed in any manner in the cross-examination.He also admitted that he was not called upon to identify the accused in the TI parade by the police.The testimony of PW-13 and PW-20 has also been further supported by the panch witness Shri Maruti Pingle (PW 8).In the cross-examination he admitted that the arrest of accused No. 1 came to his knowledge from the newspapers and he did not go to the police station on his own till his statement was recorded by the police.He also admitted that Dr. Mainkar was a well known medical practitioner in Saswad area and many people visited him for medical treatment from his village.He denied the suggestion that on account of the pressure from Dr. Mainkar he was making false statements before the trial Court.In the evidence of Shri Balu Jagtap (PW 9), the recovery of spade (Article 21) from the building named "Vishnu Chaya 1969" has been proved.This is the house of Nilesh Borkar - the juvenile accused.We then come to the events after Rishikesh was done to death on 4/2/2001 and more particularly the demand of ransom made by accused No. 1 on telephone with Dr. Mainkar (PW 38).However, the mission failed and the accused No. 1 called Dr. Mainkar between 4.30 to 5.00 p.m. for the fourth time and informed him that the man would not come to receive the money.This telephone call is proved by Kaluram (PW 19) and Sudhakar (PW 27).All these telephone calls have been proved by the prosecution not only through the testimony of the I.O. and the BSNL Engineer but also from the testimony of the respective booth owners i.e. Asha Gandhi (PW 16), Walmik Jadhav (PW 15), Kaluram Zurange (PW 19) and Sudhakar Zurange (PW 27).His last call to the doctor at about 4.30 to 5 p.m. proved to be the last straw on his search for a suitable man to collect the money.That call proved to be disastrous for the accused and after that he came to be arrested within an hour or so.But on 8/2/2001 the accused No. 1 moved from Saswad to Hadapsar in search of a suitable man and he used his friends' company who were calling upon another friend admitted in the hospital at Pune.Bapu Bhapkar (PW 30) and Vijay Kamthe (PW 31) were the classmates of the accused No. 1 and on 8th February 2001 they met him at Waghire college at about 9 a.m. and proceeded towards Hadapsar to meet a common friend Rajesh who was hospitalised.The hired person after reaching Saswad refused to do the work which was told by the accused No. 1 i.e. to go and collect the bag from the designated place.The testimony of these four witnesses clearly proved that the accused No. 1 had hired a person from Hadapsar on 8/2/2001 under the pretext of assigning him work at the sugarcane juice centre but after reaching Saswad in a rickshaw driven by PW 32 the accused told the hired man to go and collect a bag / suitcase from the designated place near the temple and he refused to do so.The accused No. 1 was angry and, therefore, the hired man was sent back, by snatching Rs. 50/- from his pocket and paid to him earlier at Hadapsar.The evidence of Bapu Bhapkar (PW 30) also went to show that accused No. 1 had sold his gold chain on 7/2/2001 at about 12 noon near the bus stand at Saswad.They went to the goldsmith i.e. Rajendra jewellers and the jeweller's son was the classmate of the accused as well as the witness.On reaching the said shop accused No. 1 disclosed to him that he had already gone there and the shop owner had refused to buy the piece of gold chain.Therefore, the accused No. 1 asked the witness to go to the shop alone and get the gold chain sold.Accordingly Bapu Bhapkar went to the shop, contacted the son of Rajendra Jewellers who was his classmate and on weighing the gold chain he informed its value at Rs. 510/-.Bapu collected the gold chain and returned to accused Dnyaneshwar and told him that he would get only Rs. 510/- from its sale.Accused No. 1 agreed for the said money and, therefore, he came back to the shop, handed over the gold chain to his classmate i.e. the son of Rajendra Jewellers and got Rs. 520/- from him.The entire amount was handed to accused No. 1 who was waiting on his M-80 vehicle and the accused No. 1 dropped him at the ST bus stand.This evidence shows that the accused No. 1 was running short of money and was preparing to hire a person who would collect the cash bag to be deposited by Dr. Mainkar.The telephone conversation or the demands made by the accused No. 1 and as stated by Dr. Mainkar while in the witness box could not be in any way shaken in his short cross-examination.It is also reflected from the evidence of the Police Inspector (PW 41) that as and when Dr. Mainkar received these calls from 6/2/2001 onwards the calls were being monitored on a parallel line by the two police constables deputed at the residence of Dr. Mainkar and these constables were also hearing the conversation and passing on the information to the P.I. simultaneously.On 11th February 2001 while he was working at the construction site of Jagtap Indulkar at Trishul Society in Saswad accused-Amit went to him at about 10 a.m. and looking at him this witness asked the accused "Bapu tu lai sukla aahe" (Bapu you have gone very thin).Thereupon the accused disclosed to the witness that he and Nilesh Borkar had dug a pit at chavra, thereafter accused-Dnyaneshwar had brought Rishikesh there on his vehicle, accused No. 1 with the help of wire suffocated Rishikesh by pressing his neck with his hand and killed him.After Rishikesh was killed, he himself, accused Dnyaneshwar and Nilesh Borkar buried Rishikesh in the pit.He also disclosed that he had come to know about the arrest of accused No. 1 on the same day he was arrested in connection with the murder of Rishikesh.On a specific question in his cross-examination he disclosed that the incident of Amit meeting him on 11/2/2001 and disclosing about the murder of Rishikesh was disclosed by him to the parents (of the accused) as well as his (witness') family membeRs.He denied that he was deposing at the instance of Dr. Mainkar or the police.He further admitted in the cross-examination that he did not disclose his relationship with the accused-Amit while his statement was recorded by the police.This so called improvement has no bearing in doubting the testimony of this witness because in the examination-in-chief itself he reiterated that Amit was his cousin brother from the maternal side.It is a fact that though the accused No. 1 was taken in custody on 8/2/2001, the accused No. 2 was not arrested on 11/2/2001 and the workplace of the witness on that day was just in front of the college where the accused No. 2 was a student.It has come on record that the college classes used to start at about 8.30 a.m. and, therefore, it was natural that around 10 a.m. the accused No. 2 saw his cousin in front of the college building on the construction site and was in his company.The next witness on extra judicial confession is Rahul Borkar (PW 23), a resident of Ambodi village.He stated before the trial Court that within two to four days of his seeing the accused at about 7.30 p.m. on 4/2/2001 on the motorbike of accused No. 1, he had read in the newspaper that accused No. 1 was arrested in connection with the case of ransom.He had seen Nilesh Borkar sitting at the square of village Ambodi and he made enquiry from him as to whether he had gone to village Vir (this is the village where the land of the accused No. 1 is located and wherefrom the dead body of Rishikesh was recovered).Nilesh had answered him in the affirmative and, therefore, he asked him as to why he had gone there.On this question Nilesh disclosed to him that accused No. 1 Dnyaneshwar had taken him to dig a pit.In the cross-examination he admitted that he did not make enquiry from Nilesh as to why the pit was dug.He also admitted that it was a common practice in the village to help each other to dig a pit in the field.He admitted that his statement was recorded by the police on 24/2/2001 for the first time and that there are about 80 to 100 houses in the village.The police had gone to his house to record his statement only once though they might have visited the village 7-8 times.He himself did not approach the police to disclose the incident and he also did not disclose about it to any of his family membeRs.He also stated that he had no strained relations with accused Dnyaneshwar who was a distant relation.The trial Court has rightly accepted these extra judicial confessions as reliable and free from the ambit of Section 24 of the Evidence Act. In the depositions of Pramod Tekawade (PW 29) the confessions of accused No. 1 had clearly come out and to the effect that three days back he had murdered one boy with the help of clutch wire and that he had destroyed all the evidence but the accused No. 1 did not disclose the identity of the victim but stated that he was a rich man's son and he was creating obstacles in his business.In his cross-examination he stated about the disclosures made by accused No. 1 were not told to his family members and the disclosure was made by accused No. 1 near Odha (rivulet).He also admitted that though the disclosure made was a crime he did not go to the police to disclose the same to them.We do not agree with the these submissions and as noted earlier the evidence on extra judicial confessions is reliable and free from any influence.The defence failed to bring on record that Gokul Khomane (PW 28) or Pramod Tekawade (PW 29) were on inimical terms with accused No. 2 or any of the accused.This was the evidence free from inducement or threat by the police or by anyone else.These witnesses had no score to settle against either of the accused.Their knowing Dr. Mainkar or the incidence of disappearance of his son which had become a talk of the town and people had taken out a big procession has no bearing on the veracity of their evidence regarding extrajudicial confessions as stated while in the witness box and which remained unchallenged in the cross-examination.The prosecution thus proved the culpability of accused No. 2 in sharing common intentions with accused No. 1 in causing the murder of Rishikesh.The prosecution also proved the involvement of accused No. 2 in digging the pit along with the other accused and also burying the dead body of Rishikesh.None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution could be labled as got-up witnesses or the witnesses who had cooked up stories for showing sympathy for Dr. Mainkar.The defence failed to bring on record any major contradictions in the statements made before the trial Court while in the witness box as compared to the statements recorded by the police or the learned Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The evidence of these witnesses was uninfluenced, unbiased, natural, doubtless and, therefore, reliable.The trial Court was right in relying upon the evidence of all these witnesses and thus the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubts that the accused No. 2 was guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, an offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 of IPC, as he shared common intentions with the accused No. 1 in the murder of Rishikesh.However, this statement of accused No. 2 being inculpatory, cannot be accepted as evidence so as to hold the culpability of accused No. 2 and the juvenile accused along with accused No. 1 to kill Rishikesh by throttling his neck.In the charge framed at Exhibit 5, none of the accused were charged of an offence punishable under Section 364 of IPC, though the accused were charged of an offence punishable under Section 364A of IPC simplicitor or Section 364A read with Section 34 of IPC.The trial Court rightly held that such charge was not proved against any of the accused as there was no evidence of kidnapping for ransom in the instant case.In fact in this case it was a murder for ransom and not a murder preceded by the demand of ransom, an offence unknown to the Indian Penal Code.On the basis of the evidence of PW-25 and PW-26 read with the evidence of PW-38 the trial Court has held that Rishikesh was abducted/kidnapped from Aptech Computer Institute on 4/2/2001 at about 6 p.m. by accused No. 1 and thereafter he was murdered by the said accused and, therefore, he has been rightly convicted for an offence punishable under Section 364 of IPC, though a charge for the same was not framed.The accused No. 2 has filed Criminal Application No. 4389 of 2005 in his Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 2005 and prayed for quashing and setting aside the order of conviction and sentence and to forward the applicant to the Board which shall pass orders against him in accordance with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000").In fact from the record it is clear that such an application at Exhibit 35 was taken out by the accused before the trial Court contending that on the day he was arrested, he was less than 18 years of age and, therefore, a juvenile within the meaning of Section 2(k) and that his trial was required to be separated.This application moved on 23/1/2003 came to be rejected on the same day.Thus the accused was less than 18 years of age on the date of the incident as well as on the date of his arrest in case the certificate was duly proved.Even at the time of committal proceedings such a plea was not raised and the accused remained silent though represented through an Advocate.Again after the committal order was passed and the accused was identified he did not take a plea that he was a juvenile.If the applicant's date of birth is accepted as 6/7/1983, it is clear that on 4/2/2001 as well as 1/4/2001 he was less than 18 years of age and thus a juvenile under the 2000 Act and entitled for the benefits of the said amended Act. However, the trial Court did not call upon the parties to lead evidence in support of the date of birth so that there was an opportunity for both the parties to place such evidence in support of their respective contentions.In the case of Vishnu alias Undrya v. State of Maharashtra a similar issue i.e. determination of the age of a prosecutrix had fallen for consideration.The school leaving certificate was discarded and the date of birth of the prosecutrix was held to be 29/11/1964 on the basis of the evidence of Pandurang (PW 1), the father and Vimal (PW 13), the mother of the prosecutrix.The said evidence was also corroborated by the testimony of Dr. Shashikant Avasare and, therefore, the prosecutrix (PW 4-Pushpa) was held to be born on 29/11/1964 based on the oral depositions of these three witnesses as well as the birth registers maintained by two different hospitals.The photo copies of the school leaving certificates submitted by the applicant as well as the copies of the birth registers submitted by the prosecution cannot be accepted as evidence unless the parties have an opportunity to lead evidence and prove the date of birth.This can be more appropriately and efficaciously done by the trial Court.We do not agree with the submissions made by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that the issue of date of birth is foreclosed and that the accused was not born on 6/7/1983 or he failed to prove that he was born on that date.This is an issue which will have to be decided on adducing documentary as well as oral evidence before the trial Court.The certificate issued is of a private school and original or photostat copy cannot be accepted as reliable evidence unless the parties are allowed to lead evidence before the Court and the prosecution is given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of the defence and also to bring on record evidence to the contra.Though by an interlocutory order passed in this Criminal Application the Police Officer was called upon to do the same, there are no findings which could be relied upon and we have no alternative but to direct the trial Court to provide an opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence regarding the date of birth of the accused No. 2 and record its finding on the same issue within a specific period.(b) He did not have any crime record nor was he a hardened criminal.(c) He was a student studying in a college without any history of any misdemeanour noted in the college or in the village of his residence (Ambodi).(d) He has a widowed mother and is the eldest child.(e) The accused comes from a farmer's family though his mother seems to be employed and he was not known to be anti social or displayed any tendencies earlier indicating his criminal mind.(d) The victim was murdered in a brutal and dastardly manner.He was enticed or misled and taken away by the accused No. 1 on his vehicle to his agricultural land and was killed and buried on 4/2/2001 between 6.30 to 7 p.m. and all this was done to demand ransom from the victim's father who was a well known doctor at Saswad.(e) After killing Rishikesh the accused No. 1 made a false telephone call to the victim's sister and gave his false identity i.e. he gave his name as Jagtap and informed that Rishikesh was with him and would return on the next day morning.The accused No. 1 even did not disclose his correct identity to the victim.It appears that he disclosed his name to the victim as Rohit Jagtap.(f) When the accused No. 1 confessed of causing murder of a young boy to Pramod (PW 29), the accused No. 1 did not disclose the identity of the victim and gave misleading statements regarding the circumstances in which the victim was killed.(g) The accused No. 1 had in fact rehearsed the words to be used for the demand of ransom while talking to the victim's father, and this is clear from Exh.44-A (note-book) and the handwriting therein was proved by evidence of Shri Jamir Bagwan (PW 4) read with evidence of Firoj Shaikh (PW 36).(h) Even after killing Rishikesh, the accused No. 1 started making telephone calls from 5th February 2001 onwards demanding ransom and every time he made Dr. Mainkar (PW 38) to believe that Rishikesh was alive.The telephones he used for making ransom calls were located at different places and all these acts of the accused went to show that he is more than a hardened criminal, though he did not have any criminal record earlier.Even after brutally murdering Rishikesh, the accused No. 1 was not shaken in any way when the continued his demand for ransom from 5/2/2001 to 8/2/2001 on telephone and every time he went on misleading Dr. Mainkar as well as the investigating machinery.(i) The accused abducted / kidnapped the victim and murdered him, buried his body for collecting ransom from Dr. Mainkar, an offence which did not fall within the ambit of Section 364A of IPC or any other provisions of IPC.The IPC knows the instances of kidnapping for ransom and if ransom is denied perhaps the victim is murdered.But in the instant case the victim was first murdered with a determination to collect ransom from his parents, a unique case in that regard.The accused No. 1 hired a labourer under the pretext that he was required to work at the sugarcane juice centre but in fact he was sought to be hired to go and collect the money bag that was to be deposited by Dr. Mainkar and when he refused to do so the accused No. 1 snatched the amount of Rs. 50/- given earlier by way of labour charges.The learned Addl.Sessions Judge had sufficient opportunity to observe the behaviour of the accused No. 1 during the trial of the case and he noted that the conduct of the accused No. 1 through out the trial spoke for his criminal tendencies.On assessing the entire evidence in the instant case we are more than satisfied that the chain of crimes proved by the prosecution and the manner in which the accused No. 1 planned and executed them would render the sentence of imprisonment for life inadequate.We are also satisfied that the accused No. 1 would continue to pose serious threats to the society if the order of death penalty is not confirmed and his unshaken behaviour right from the planning stage till he was taken in police custody or during the trial does not make us believe that he has the tendencies for reformation.This is, therefore, the rarest of rare case where the comparative assessment of mitigating and aggravating circumstances leaves us with no alternative but to confirm the death sentence and no other penalty would meet the ends of justice to the society at large.In the premises, we allow the confirmation application and confirm the order of death sentence awarded to accused No. 1 -Dnyaneshwar Suresh Borkar for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge against the accused No. 1 for the offences punishable under Section 364 of IPC and Section 201 read with Section 34 of IPC.Thus the order of sentence passed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge is hereby confirmed in toto against accused No. 1 and consequently Appeal No. 618 of 2005 filed by him is hereby dismissed. .So far as accused No. 2-Amit @ Babu Nanasaheb Bhandwalkar is concerned, while confirming the order of conviction against him under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 201 read with Section 34 of IPC in Sessions Case No. 236 of 2001, Criminal Application No. 4389 of 2005 is hereby partly allowed and the trial Court is directed to record its findings on the date of birth of the said accused after allowing the parties to adduce evidence.The parties shall appear before the learned Addl.Sessions Judge at Pune on 16/5/2006 and the findings on the said issue shall be recorded as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of eight weeks from that date and forward the same to this Court.Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 2005 will be listed before us for further orders, immediately on receipt of the findings recorded by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge regarding the age of accused No. 2-Amit @ Bapu Nanasaheb Bhandwalkar.The R. & P. only to the extent of the application at Exhibit 35 filed in Sessions Case No. 236 of 2001 and Criminal Application No. 4389 of 2005 before this Court be forwarded to the learned Addl.Sessions Judge at Pune forthwith.Mr. Mohite, the learned Counsel appearing for accused No. 1 submitted an oral application for stay to the order passed against accused No. 1 for a period of eight weeks, on account of the ensuing summer vacation for the Supreme Court.We allow the said application under Section 415(3) of Cr.P.C. and stay the order against accused No. 1 for a period of eight weeks.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
79,698,597 |
In the above said case, the petitioners herein, are all cited as witnesses and therefore, only for the purpose of recording the statements from the petitioners, the second respondent Police herein invited them to the Police Station.http://www.judis.nic.in 2/4 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9836 of 20204.In this regard, this Court is of the opinion that though the petitioners are the witnesses to the alleged occurrence, it is the duty of the second respondent to issue summons to the petitioners by following the Code of Criminal Procedure and direct them to appear before him by mentioning the date, time and place.Without issuing summons to the petitioners, harassing them under the guise of enquiry, is improper.18.09.2020 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No tsg Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.http://www.judis.nic.in 3/4 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9836 of 2020 R.PONGIAPPAN.O.P.(MD)No.9836 of 2020 18.09.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 4/4This criminal original petition has been filed seeking a direction to direct the respondents 2 and 3 not to harass the petitioners and their family members under the guise of enquiry.2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondents.Therefore, the second respondent is directed to send summons to the petitioners by mentioning the date, time and place and made investigation.5.With the above observations and directions, the Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of.1.The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District.2.The Inspector of Police, Kadayalmoodu Police Station (Arumanai Circle), Kanyakumari District.3.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kadayalmoodu Police Station, Kanyakumari District.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
79,699,677 |
The present petitions under Article 226/227 and Crl.M.C. of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., respectively, have been filed by the petitioners, namely, Mr. J.P. Nayak, Mr. Venkataramanan, Mr. V.K. Magapu, Mr. M.V. Kotwal, Mr. R.N. Mukhija, Mr. K.V. Rangaswami and Mr. A.M. Naik in W.P.(CRL) 71/2016; Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd., Sushil Ansal, Mr. Pranav Ansal, Mr. Anil Kumar, Dr. Lalit Bhasin, Mr. Rahul Chandrakanta Kirloskar, Mr. P.R. Khanna, Mr. Ramesh Chander Vaish, Mr. Dharmendra Nath Davar, Mr. O.P. Mehra, Anand Rathi Financial Services Ltd., Mr. Anand Rathi, Mr. Amit Rathi, Mr. Pradeep Gupta, Mr. Rahul Porwal in CRL.M.C. 5350/2014; L&T Infastructure Finance Company Limited through their authorized W.P.(CRL) 71/11 & 72/11, Crl.It is alleged that the respondent no.2 had a company by the name of Kamdhenu Agro Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "KALP") and the land in question was W.P.(CRL) 71/11 & 72/11, Crl.M.C. 5350/14 Page 3 of 9 transferred to KALP to make KALP a 100% subsidiary of Ansal Seagull SEZ Developers Ltd., something which was done and pursuant thereto the name of KALP was changed twice and is now known as Ansal Seagull SEZ Developers Ltd. It is further alleged that APIL coaxed/duped respondent no.2 into entering into an Assistance Agreement dated 09.10.2007 with L&T Infrastructure Finance Company Limited for grant of assistance amount to the tune of Rs. 50 Crores for SEZ land with an intention to grab the land.It is further alleged that after the loan was granted, a sum of 26,05,00,000/- was withdrawn from the account of Ansal Seagull SEZ Developers Ltd. by APIL, representing to the respondent no.2 that the said money shall be returned shortly or paid to L&T Infrastructure.It is further alleged that the APIL showed a confirmation by L&T Infrastructure Finance Company Ltd. having received 26,05,00,000/- which later on came to the knowledge of respondent no.2 that the same was a forged document.W.P.(CRL) 71/11 & 72/11, Crl.M.C. 5350/14 Page 3 of 9M.C. 5350/14 Page 2 of 9 signatory Virender Pankaj, Mr. Y.M. Deosthalee, Non-Executive Director and Mr. Mohanjit Singh in W.P.for quashing of FIR No.511/2010 dated 31.12.2010, under Sections 409/420/465/468/471/120-B/34 IPC registered at Police Station K.W. Camp/Model Town.W.P.(CRL) 71/11 & 72/11, Crl.M.C. 5350/14 Page 2 of 9During the course of hearing of the above named petitions, the parties arrived at a settlement and have now prayed for the FIR in question to be quashed on the basis of such settlement.2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that the respondent no. 2 present in the Court has been identified to be the complainant/first informant in the FIR in question by his counsel.The factual matrix of the present case is that it is alleged in the complaint that M/s Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "APIL") was being run by accused no.2 to 11 as shown in the complaint and accused no.2 and 3 approached Respondent no.2/complainant with a proposal for development of a on the land in SEZ (approx.200 acres) near Sonepat, Murthal, Haryana owned by respondent no.2 together with one Sanjay Sawhney.It is alleged that respondent no.2 agreed to the proposal and a joint venture private limited company was incorporated by the name Ansal Seagull SEZ Developers Ltd. with respondent no.2 having 50% equity share holding in the same.It is alleged that the complainant contributed his land and APIL was supposed to develop the land.W.P.(CRL) 71/11 & 72/11, Crl.M.C. 5350/14 Page 8 of 9In the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of statement made by the respondent no. 2, the FIR in question warrants to be put to an end and proceedings emanating thereupon need to be quashed.Accordingly, these petitions are allowed and FIR No.511/2010 dated 31.12.2010, under Sections 409/420/465/468/471/120-B/34 IPC registered at Police Station K.W. Camp/Model Town and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed against the petitioners.These petitions are accordingly disposed of.
|
['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
797,019 |
JUDGMENT R. Bhattacharya, J.The present revisional application has been filed by the Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal on behalf of the State against the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Coochbehar on 18-2-1977 granting bail to the accused-opposite parties, Mansur Ali and Bajra Mia who were awaiting trial before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Coochbehar under Sections 366 and 376 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. along with another accused Nurul Mia.The accused-opposite parties along with one Nurul Mia were committed to the Court of Session for trial by the committing Magistrate under Sections 341, 448 and 376 of the I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge transferred the case for trial to the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge.Against that order, the present revisional application has been filed.Two contentions have been urged from the side of the petitioner-State by Mr. S. S. Roy, the learned Advocate.It has been first contended that the Assistant Sessions Judge to whom the case was transferred for trial being a Court of Session, the learned Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order refusing bail.Regarding the merits as to the granting of bail, we find that the learned Sessions Judge has considered the facts and circumstances of this case.Monoj Kumar Mukherjee, J.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
79,705,467 |
Shri R.S. Patel, learned counsel for the applicants.Smt. Shobhna Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the non- applicant/State.Heard arguments.Perused case diary and material on record.This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with Crime No.118/2015 registered at Police Station Khakhnar, district Burhanpur against them and co- accused, namely, Gopinath and Mathura Prasad for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 307, 506 and 34of the IPC.Prosecution allegations are that informant Kavita got married to co- accused Mathura Prasad.Co-accused Gopinath is her Jeth and the applicants are her Jethanies.On 06.03.2015, in her matrimonial house the applicants abused her badly and thereafter the applicants and co- accused set her on fire with intent to murder her.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been in custody since 22.06.2015 and the charge-sheet had been filed.It is also submitted by him that they are house wives and this is the first offence ever registered against them.It is also submitted by him that on the following day of the alleged incident the dying declaration of the prosecutrix was recorded by the Executive Magistrate-cum- Nayab Tehsildar in the course of her treatment.In her dying declaration she has stated that on the night of 06.03.2015 at aboutshe was sleeping and beside her bed an earthen lamp was burning.The lamp had fallen incidentally and she got burn injuries.At the time of incident her husband was not present and upon her screams her Jeth and Jethanies, who are the accused of the case, put- off the fire and they took her to hospital for treatment.Thereafter, she had gone to her parental house wherefrom on 07.05.2015 she made a written complaint to Police Station Dharni, district Amravati (Maharashtra), which forwarded the complaint to Police Station Khaknar.Thereupon, on 07.05.2015 the case is registered against the applicants and the co-accused persons.It is also submitted by him that the informant has lodged a false complaint against them at the behest of her parents and relatives.(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN)
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
79,707,746 |
CRL.A. Nos.577, 589 & 601 of 2000 Page 2 of 8During the course of hearing, Mr.N.Hariharan, learned Senior Advocate for appellants Rajiv Sapra and Naresh Bhardwaj, Mr.Jayant K.Sud, learned Senior Advocate for appellant Satpal Sethi and Mr.R.M.Tufail, learned counsel for the appellant Amrish Bhatnagar, on instructions, submit that all the four appellants are not challenging their conviction for committing the offence punishable under Section 304(II)/308/120-B IPC and would like to confine their submissions on the quantum of sentence only.On behalf of appellants, it is submitted that this is the infamous SURA case wherein on the eve of Diwali i.e. on 5th Novermber, 1991, many persons who consumed 'KARPOOR ASHAV' had either lost CRL.A. Nos.577, 589 & 601 of 2000 Page 3 of 8 their vision or died for which in all 254 FIRs were registered and equal number of chargesheets were filed.A Commission headed by Justice Jagdish Chandra was constituted and the appellants continued appearing before the Commission.The report was submitted by the Commission after about eight months.Thereafter a Special Court was created to try these cases and FIR No.394/1991, PS Ashok Vihar was ordered to be treated as the main case.The trial before the Special Court continued on day to day basis for about seven years.Thousands of witnesses were examined and throughout till the judgment was pronounced on 5th August, 2000, all the appellants had been regularly appearing before the learned Trial Court.All the appellants had remained in custody for a period ranging from three years to four years.This case had ruined all the appellants not only on social front but also economically and they had not been able to even take care of their respective families because of their long incarceration and regular appearance before the Court specially constituted to try this case where trial has been conducted on day to day basis.These three appeals have been preferred by the appellants namely Rajiv Sapra, Satpal Sethi, Naresh Bhardwaj and Amrish Bhatnagar assailing the judgment dated 5th August, 2000 and order on sentence dated 9th August, 2000 whereby they have been convicted for committing the offence punishable under Sections 304(II)/308/120-B IPC and sentenced as under:-Appellants Satpal Sethi, Naresh Bhardwaj & Amrish Bhatnagar (1) U/S 120-B IPC : to undergo RI for six months.CRL.A. Nos.577, 589 & 601 of 2000 Page 3 of 8Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that in all 44 accused persons were sent to face trial.Out of 44 accused persons, 39 accused persons, who were the shopkeepers and sold the SURA to the victims, were charged for committing the offence punishable under Section 61(1)(14) of Punjab Excise Act. Out of the 39 accused persons (shopkeepers), 38 accused persons pleaded guilty at the initial stage of trial and were dealt with leniently.One shopkeeper i.e. accused Ajay Gupta was convicted under Section 61(1)(14) of Punjab Excise Act CRL.A. Nos.577, 589 & 601 of 2000 Page 4 of 8 and sentenced to undergo RI for four months and to pay a fine of 1000/-.CRL.A. Nos.577, 589 & 601 of 2000 Page 4 of 8Out of the remaining five accused persons, accused Ajay Kumar Sharma, who was alleged to be Manager of M/s Karnal Pharmacy was acquitted by the learned Trial Court.The appeal bearing Crl.Now these appeals pertain to the four appellants herein, who are stated to be partners of M/s.Karnal Pharmacy and have been convicted and sentenced as stated above.It has also been submitted that although three appellants namely Naresh Bhardwaj, Rajiv Sapra and Satpal Sethi ceased to be partners of the firm w.e.f. January, 1990 and at the time of this tragedy only one partner namely Amrish Bhatnagar was the sole proprietor but since there is no dissolution deed of the partnership concern, all the four appellants have preferred not to challenge their conviction but to pray for a lenient view on the quantum of sentence for the following reasons:-(i) They faced agony of trial for nine years and also remained in custody for a long time ranging from 3 years to 4 years without calculating remission.(ii) These appeals are also pending since 2000 and throughout this period of about 17 years or prior thereto, they have never been involved in any other case.In addition to above submissions, the appellants have filed their written submissions highlighting their peculiar circumstances under CRL.A. Nos.577, 589 & 601 of 2000 Page 5 of 8 which they have prayed that they may not be sent to jail to undergo the unexpired portion of sentence.CRL.A. Nos.577, 589 & 601 of 2000 Page 5 of 8Taking into consideration that the incident took place on 5th /6th November, 1991 and thereafter they have not only remained in incarceration for a period ranging from three years to four years but even the appeals are pending since 2000, in view of the facts and circumstances explained by the appellants, it would serve the ends of justice if the substantive sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them in this case.In view of the peculiar circumstances, as narrated by the appellants in their separate submissions, sending them to Jail at this age and juncture would have the effect of subjecting them to unending misery.While upholding the conviction of the appellants under Sections 304(II)/308/120-B IPC, the substantive sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them in this case.However, in addition to the fine imposed on the appellants by the learned Trial Court, which they have already paid, all the four appellants are further directed to deposit a fine of Rs.7 lacs each (total 28 lacs) with the Registrar General of this Court.In default of payment of fine, the appellants shall undergo SI for two years.Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that currently the financial condition of all the four convicts is in bad shape and some time may be given to them to arrange for the fine amount.It has also been submitted that they have never abused their liberty and had been appearing on each and every date of hearing before this Court.N.Hariharan, Senior Advocate and Mr.R.M.Tufail, Advocate have CRL.A. Nos.577, 589 & 601 of 2000 Page 6 of 8 submitted they had been associated with this case since inception i.e. during trial as well as during hearing of these appeals and that today the appellants can deposit only part of the fine amount i.e 1 lac each and for the remaining fine amount of 6 lacs each (total 24 lacs), two months time may be given.CRL.A. Nos.577, 589 & 601 of 2000 Page 6 of 8In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, the appellants are directed to deposit the fine amount of 1 lac each (total 4 lacs) today with the Registrar General of this Court.All the four appeals are allowed only to the extent of modification of order on sentence to the above extent.A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for information.CRL.A. Nos.577, 589 & 601 of 2000 Page 7 of 8Registry is directed to send back the LCR alongwith copy of this order after the above order is complied with by the appellants.As prayed, copy of the order be given dasti to the parties under the signature of Court Master.PRATIBHA RANI (JUDGE) AUGUST 22, 2017 'st' CRL.A. Nos.577, 589 & 601 of 2000 Page 8 of 8CRL.A. Nos.577, 589 & 601 of 2000 Page 8 of 8
|
['Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
79,711,145 |
This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.As per prosecution, it is alleged against this applicant that he committed rape on the prosecutrix.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case.It is further submitted that the prosecutrix has delivered a child, therefore, she was a consenting party to the intercourse.The applicant married the prosecutrix.It is further submitted that if the applicant remained in jail for long time, his career will be effected.The applicant is in jail and the trial would take considerable time to conclude and, therefore, it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail.Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application.On due consideration of the contention made by the learned counsel for the parties and over all facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case to release the applicant on bail, therefore, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, the application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 30,000/- (Rs. Thirty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for securing his presence before the said Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial.Certified copy as per rules.(G.S. SOLANKI)
|
['Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
79,714,256 |
Heard on I.A. No.9355/2018, which is repeat application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.The appellant is not having any criminal antecedents.Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim and Others vs State of Bihar and another ((2009) 8 SCC 751) to demonstrate as to what constitutes "fraud".Appeal No.2595/2018 (Satish Jain Vs.State of M.P.) final hearing of this appeal, the custodial sentences deserve to be suspended.The prayer has been opposed by learned counsel for the respondent.Further, the appellant has not been able to show that the sale consideration was paid to Rajkumar or even to Lakhan, but the same has been shown to have been paid to one broker.Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, no case for suspension of sentence is made out at this stage.The I.A., accordingly, stands dismissed.(S.A.Dharmadhikari) JUDGE (and) ANAND SHRIVASTAVA 2019.01.04 15:07:51 +05'30'
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
79,717,061 |
Dr. Murari Mohan MukherjeeThe State of West Bengal & Ors.Mr. Asish Sanyal Mr. Sudip Banerjee.....For the Petitioner.Mr. Suman Sengupta .....For the State.Mr. Avijit Chatterjee Mr. Victor Dutta.On the complaint of the petitioner Budge Budge Police Station Case no. 105/13 dated 27th March, 2013 under Sections 347/367/120B/34, Indian Penal Code was registered.The petitioner is aggrieved because there has been no proper investigation of the said case and accordingly has, by presenting this writ petition, approached the Court for direction on the official respondents to conduct meaningful investigation.Mr. Sengupta, learned advocate representing the official respondents submits that for want of adequate evidence, police report under section 173(2), Code of Criminal Procedure vide F.R.M.F. No.38/14 dated 31st January, 2014 has been submitted before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore.Replying to a query of the Court Mr. Sengupta has conceded that the petitioner has not been informed that the case was registered on the basis of mistake of fact.The Officer-in-Charge, Budge Budge Police Station is directed to immediately furnish copy of the police report under Section 173(2) of the Code to the petitioner.If the petitioner has reason to feel aggrieved by such report, he shall be at liberty to file a narazi petition seeking further investigation before the learned Magistrate.If such an application is filed, the same shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law.The writ petition stands disposed of.There shall be no order as to costs.Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished expeditiously.(Dipankar Datta,J.)
|
['Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
28,735,911 |
Basu, Ms. Anubrata Dutta ...for the Petitioners.Mr. N. P. Agarwal, Ms. Subhasree Patel ...for the State.Liberty to correct the cause title of the petition.It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that there is delay in lodging the first information report and they have been falsely implicated in the instant case.Learned lawyer appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.Having considered the materials on record and keeping in mind the nature of allegations in the light of the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the petitioners and as the injuries appearing from the medical papers do not appear to be grievous, we are of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not be necessary and they may be granted 2 anticipatory bail.Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest the petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) each 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 they shall appear before the court below and pray for regular bail within a fortnight from date and shall meet the Investigating Officer 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 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
28,737,312 |
The name of the applicant has figured up at the later stage of the incident.There is no proper test identification parade so as to identified the assailant.The victim in her statement under Section 164 C.P.C. has not attributed any specific role to the applicant.He lastly submitted that the applicant is in jail since 26.03.2019 is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial.Per contra learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail but they could not dispute the aforementioned facts.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.In view of the above, let the applicant- Aaftab Ahmad be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in ccase crime no. 43 of 2019, under Sections 376D, 504, 506, 120B IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, P.S. Bilariyaganj, District Azamgarh with the following conditions:-(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
28,741,872 |
CRL.A.665/2009 Page 1 of 21The prosecution case is that on 30.12.2005, at around 10 a.m., the appellant, his step daughter- the deceased and Rubina Praveen (PW1), were present in his residence.Nasim Fatima (PW10), the mother of the deceased was at her shop, right outside their home.They rushed to the room and saw the appellant with a knife in his hand, smeared in blood.The deceased was lying on the floor with injuries on her neck and face and blood oozing profusely.PW10 tried to apprehend the appellant but he overpowered her, threw the knife and ran away.They raised alarm and Shehzad Ahmed (PW2), husband of PW1, came there.They took the deceased to Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital in a TSR where she was declared to have been brought dead.INCRIMINATING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT STAND ESTABLISHED AGAINST THE APPELLANT Homicidal Death and Medical TestimonyDr. Arvind Kumar (PW19), who conducted the post mortem, has opined the cause of death to be hemorrhagic shock due to ante mortem injuries to neck and facial vessels caused by a sharp edged weapon.CRL.A.665/2009 Page 2 of 21CRL.A.665/2009 Page 2 of 21Incise wound of size 4.5cm X 0.3cm X bone deep with making cut marks on the underlying bone placed vertically present over the left temporal region 3 cm above and posterior to the upper lobe of left ear.Superficial incise wound of size 5cm X 0.2cm X 0.2 cm making a flap of skin placed vertically in front of right ear.Incise wound of size 3.5cm X 0.5cm X 0.5cm present right side of cheek bone placed obliquely starting 4cm medial to injury No.3 and extending upto right ala of nose.The wound is 2.4 cm below the lower border of right year and 7cm above the calvical bone and 3cm right to the midline.Incise wound of size 4cm X 0.2cm X 0.5cm placed horizontally just below the chin.x. Superficial incise wound of size 7cm X 0.2cm X 0.2cm present in front of neck below the thyroid cartilage.The upper wound is 0.8cm below and lateral to right nipple.The margin of all the wound is abraded.CRL.A.665/2009 Page 5 of 21 xvii.Oval shape stab wound 0.8cm X 0.3cm present right side of abdomen, 4cm right and lower to the umbilicus.Oval shape stab wound, three in number, 0.7 cm X 0.8cm in length, 0.3cm in width, 1cm to 1.5cm deep present lateral aspect of left forearm, 2cm below the lateral epicondyle of elbow join, margin are abraded.CRL.A.665/2009 Page 5 of 21Oval shape stab wound, four in number, 0.8cm to 1cm long, 0.4cm broad, 1cm to 1.9cm deep placed in a line obliquely, the maximum distance between two is 14cm, the lower one is 17cm above the knee and upper most one is 27cm above the knee.B.S.Khushwah (PW17), the IO in this case, has deposed that on 30.12.2005 at around 10:45am, information was received vide DD No. 6- A that a girl had been stabbed.He rushed to the hospital, collected her MLC and prepared rukka vide endorsement Ex.PW 5/A. The FIR was registered at about 1:30 p.m. Thus we do not perceive that the registration of the FIR is belated or delayed.The crime team and photographer were summoned at the spot.The crime team inspected the spot and took photographs.Vide memo Ex.CRL.A.665/2009 Page 12 of 21CRL.A.665/2009 Page 12 of 21The body of the deceased was identified by Suhail Adnan (PW3), husband of the deceased and Modh Khalid (PW4), brother of the deceased vide Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW4/A respectively.Disclosure and RecoveryI had seen this dagger in the hands of accused, when I entered the inner room of my house, as detailed above.At the time of incident, accused was wearing kurta and pyjama.I can identify the same, if shown to me.Another parcel duly sealed with court seal is opened and kurta-pyjamaare taken out.Kurta Ex.P5 and Pyjama Ex.P6 are the same, which the accused was wearing at that time.CRL.A.665/2009 Page 16 of 21PW1 has deposed that the deceased had confided in her regarding the same.PW1 has further stated that the appellant had tried to sexually exploit her as well about which she had informed her husband and on his advice she had stopped visiting the room of the appellant thereafter.It is also established that the appellant was absconding from his house after the incident till he was arrested on 31.12.2005 at 8:45p.m.PW20 has deposed that the appellant was brought to GTB Hospital on 31.12.2005 for medical examination and the following injuries were noted on his person:i) Old multiple superficial cut incised marks present at anterior aspect of neck just at the level of thyroid cartridge.Injuries were about 24 hours old.CRL.A.665/2009 Page 19 of 21SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.By the impugned judgment, dated 18.05.2009, the appellant Mehboob Ahmed has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short), for the murder of Rumana Praveen on 30.12.2005 in their residence, at H.No.F-277 Gali No.14 Khajuri Khas, Delhi.The appellant has been sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in a default of which, he is to undergo simple imprisonment, for six months.CRL.A.665/2009 Page 1 of 21The Post Mortem Report (Ex.PW19/A), conducted by Dr. Arvind Kumar, Senior Demonstrator, GTB Hospital, Shahdara, Delhi has recorded 19 injuries of which Injuries 'vi' to 'ix' were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.The injuries are as below:-i. Incise wound of size 4cm X 0.3cm X bone deep placed horizontally present over the right side of forehead on the hair line.v. Incise wound of size 2cm X 3cm full thickness present over right ala of nose.CRL.A.665/2009 Page 3 of 21 vi.Incise wound of size 28cm X 0.9cm X 0.2cm starting from right angle of mandible going obliquely upward involving both the angle of mouth and left ear upper lobe cutting the vessel and muscle of the face of left side.CRL.A.665/2009 Page 3 of 21Incise wound of size 6cm X 0.2cm X bone deep placed obliquely over the right mandible.Three incise wounds merging into each other making one wound of size 105cm X 1cm present right side of the neck, cutting the underlying neck muscles, right carotid vessels and trachea.CRL.A.665/2009 Page 4 of 21 xii.Incise wound of size 7cm X 0.2cm X 0.8cm present over the palmer aspect of finger involving all the fingers except the thumb placed obliquely.CRL.A.665/2009 Page 4 of 21Incise wound of size 1cm X 0.3cm X 0.8cm deep and 2cm width present over the palmer aspect of thump, middle finger and ring finger of right hand.Superficial incise would of size 13cm X 0.3cm X 0.1cm present over lateral aspect of left leg starting 4cm above the left heel going upward, obliquely up to the lower 1.3 of the shin.Two superficial incise wound '7'shaped present on the lateral aspet of middle of left thigh.The horizontal arma is 9cm X 0.1cm X 0.1cm and other arm is 14cm X 0.1cm X 0.1cm.The pointed end is 23cm below the itiac crest, 17cm above the left knee.Over shape stab wound 0.7cm to 0.9cm in length and 0.4cm X 0.5cm in breadth, 1cm to 1.5cm in depth present over the lower aspect of right chest and lateral aspect of right chest.Four in number, present in an area of 11cm X 9cm.Witnesses to the incidentThe next question and issue is whether the appellant is responsible and had caused the said injuries.The prosecution in this regard relies upon statements of PW1 Rubina Praveen and PW10 Nasim Fatima.They claim that they were eye witnesses to the incident.They have both affirmed that they saw the appellant with a knife (murder weapon), smeared in blood, standing next to the deceased and on the arrival of PW1 and PW10 in the room of the incident, he dropped the knife and ran away.Their testimony remains unshaken through the test of cross examination and is affirmed in all its material aspects.It was submitted out through the statement of PW10 that there exist certain contradictions in her statement so as to establish her actual presence at the spot.Perusal of the rukka (Ex.PW10/A) read with the testimony of the witness shows that she states in the rukka that she was at her shop at the time when she heard cries coming from her house whereas in her testimony she has deposed that she was offering prayers.She could CRL.A.665/2009 Page 7 of 21 be offering prayers in her shop.Either way her presence does not become doubtful due to this minute variance in her testimony.CRL.A.665/2009 Page 7 of 21It should also be pointed out that PW10 was cross examined on 28.08.2006, nearly 8 months after the incident.The courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy belongs.The appellant was arrested on 31.12.2005 vide arrest memo Ex PW- 14/B by Insp.B.S. Khushwah, PW17, in front of Raja Dhaba, Loni.His personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW14/C and disclosure statement Ex.PW14/D was recorded wherein he disclosed that he could get recovered the blood stained kurta pajama and kababseak behind a toilet on platform No.2 of Shahdara Railway Station.It strongly emerges from the evidence on record that there are two weapons of offence.Both PW1 and PW10 have deposed that they saw the appellant in the room, holding a knife in his hand and on seeing them enter the room, he dropped the knife and ran away.It is highly unnatural that the appellant would take one weapon of offence i.e. the iron rod (seak) with him in the process of fleeing the crime scene and at the same time drop the other weapon.Another material irregularity in this regard is the testimony of PW10 who has deposed the following in her cross examination:"At this state, a parcel duly sealed with Court seal is opened and a plastic jar is taken out.It is containing dari piece and bedsheet piece.Those pieces are Ex.P2/1 to 2 and Ex.P3 which are the same, which were cut and seized by the police from my house.Another parcel duly sealed with court seal is opened and a plastic jar containing a dagger is taken out.Dagger Ex.P1 is the same, which was seized by the police from my house.Arun Sharma, Advocate for the accused.I cannot say whether my supplementary statements were recorded by the police or not.I had put my thumb impressions over all my statements.(At this juncture, defence counsel wants copies of those supplementary statements and Ld.Prosecutor replied that only one statement of the witness bears her thumb impression).I had not stated before the police in my statement CRL.A.665/2009 Page 14 of 21 anything about seizure of kurta-pyjama.Kurta Ex.P5 and pyjama Ex.P6 were seized by the police from our house.It is correct that clothes of the accused were kept on pegs in the house.I am not aware whether police had recorded the factum of seizure of kurta-pyjama in my statement or not.Kurta Ex.P5 and pyjama Ex.P6 were lying in the room where blood was lying.Police reached our house 9.30-10 a.m."CRL.A.665/2009 Page 14 of 21(Emphasis supplied)The witness correctly identifies the clothes of the appellant worn at the time of the incident.These same clothes i.e. blood stained kurta and pajama were gotten recovered by the appellant through his disclosure statement.The fact that the witness states that the same kurta pajama Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 was lying in the room where the blood was lying makes the recovery notably doubtful and gives reason to believe that they may have been planted.We ignore the disclosure and consequent alleged recovery.CRL.A.665/2009 Page 15 of 21The testimony of PW10 discloses that the kurta pyjama was seized by the police from her house itself.The statement of PW10 shows that she is truthful and did not merely go by the police version and was not tutored.Also, close scrutiny of the evidence on record makes the possibility of the appellant running away with the iron rod (seak), at a time when he is seen dropping the knife, very doubtful.PW10 has stated that such information was communicated to her by the deceased on a previous occasion after which she confronted the appellant.However, the appellant threatened to divorce her and therefore out of fear for herself and disgrace to CRL.A.665/2009 Page 16 of 21 family name she did not disclose this fact to anyone.as per his arrest memo Ex.PW14/B.Examination of the appellantThe appellant has denied all allegations against him and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case.He also alleges that PW9 was having intimate relations with his wife and therefore has deposed against him.Aziz Ahmed DW1 has deposed that the appellant left his house at 7am on the date of incident.The defence witness has only stated about the CRL.A.665/2009 Page 17 of 21 appellant's presence at the spot till about 7/7:15a.m.The incident occurred somewhere between 9:30 - 10a.m. No other person has been examined to establish the plea of alibi.It is noteworthy to mention that on a suggestion put to PW10 that the appellant left his home at 8am, the same has been denied.A suggestion was also put to PW10 that the appellant offered tea to a certain Hazi Shamsuddin at around 8a.m. and then left for work.Further, the appellant has not examined any Hazi Shamsuddin to prove the same.CRL.A.665/2009 Page 17 of 21Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act casts the burden to prove a fact especially within the knowledge of any person upon such person.Thus, in view of the evidence put forth, the appellant has not been able to establish his plea of alibi to the satisfaction of this Court.It is also to be seen that the explanation of false implication is extremely vague and unconvincing.The appellant claims that his wife was pressurizing him to transfer his property in her name.Hence, this allegation has gone unsubstantiated.CRL.A.665/2009 Page 18 of 21CRL.A.665/2009 Page 18 of 21The appellant has explained another reason for PW10 to falsely implicate him.He alleges that PW10 used to criminally intimidate him and pressurized him to forcibly occupy the room that was the property of his brother.She also used to fight with the appellant to transfer the said room in her name and since he did not accede to the same, she has falsely implicated him in this case.This explanation is quite absurd.Firstly, if PW10 wanted the property as desperately as the appellant claims, it would make more sense for her to threaten the appellant's brother and falsely implicate him.Secondly, and more importantly it is quite farfetched that she would let off the real culprit behind her daughter's murder in order to falsely implicate the appellant, who is none other than her own husband.There is therefore, no evidence to suggest the possibility of the same and to believe this to be the reason for falsely implicating the appellant.Injuries on appellantSince the appellant was arrested the very next and day and taken for medical examination, the doctor's opinion about the injuries on his neck and the time when they were sustained assume importance as a further incriminating circumstance against the appellant and he has not been able to explain the same.The said injuries may have been sustained by the appellant in the course of struggle between the appellant and the deceased at the time of the incident.However, the doctor who had examined these injuries has not opined on the cause of such injuries and at the same time the appellant has not been able to prove his explanation to the same.Further, motive for the murder proved by the combined testimony of PW1, PW10 and PW3 is highly incriminating evidence established against the appellant.The appellant has neither been able to prove his plea of alibi nor sufficiently explained the injuries sustained by him soon after the incident of murder.CRL.A.665/2009 Page 20 of 21The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
|
['Section 302 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.