id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
28,744,419 |
Heard learned Advocate Mr. S.S. Jadhav for the applicant andlearned APP Mr. B.V. Virdhe for respondent-State.Present applicant has been convicted in Special Case No.6 of2017 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur Dist.Ahmednagaron 11-10-2019 for the offence punishable under Section 8 read withSection 7 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012(hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO Act') thereby sentenced to sufferrigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, indefault rigorous imprisonment for three months and also under Section 323- 1 -::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2020 23:22:31 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2020 23:22:31 :::901-appln-3679-19.odtof Indian Penal Code, thereby sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonmentfor six months.It has been submitted on behalf of the applicant that the F.I.R.is belated.There was medical problem for the victim in respect of herpsychological responses.It was stated that she was found on the railwaytrack in naked condition.It is also the prosecution story that two personswere there and they had seen the victim, but those two persons have notbeen examined.The medical evidence is against the prosecution.Theapplicant was on bail through out the trial and he has deposited the fineamount.He has not misused the liberty and therefore, it is necessary tosuspend the sentence and grant him bail.Per contra, learned APP submitted that though the applicanthas been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 376, 504 and506 of Indian Penal Code and Section of 3 read with Section 4 of POCSOAct, yet, after a thorough scrutiny of the evidence, especially the medicalevidence, which suggests that the possibility of the sexual assault cannot beruled out and even touching the victim would amount to sexuallyassaulting her.When the prosecution has proved that she was found in- 2 -::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2020 23:22:31 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2020 23:22:31 :::901-appln-3679-19.odtnaked condition, the victim was 14 years of age at that time and therefore,there was evidence against the present applicant.At the outset, it is to be noted that the applicant was on bailand he has not misused his liberty as no such contention has been raised onbehalf of the State.The pointsraised, especially that the important witnesses have not been examined andthe delay required to be considered.Another fact that is required to beconsidered is that when the accused has been acquitted from the offencespunishable under Section 3 read with Section 4 of POCSO Act and underSections 376, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, the same set of factswhether conviction under Section 8 read with Section 7 of POCSO Act cansustain.The contents of paragraph No.26 of the impugned judgment bythe learned trial Court gives an impression that the concerned Court heldthat the prosecution established that the accused slapped the victim and ithas been considered that he used his physical force to overcome her andthereby caused voluntary hurt to her.Whether then the element to commitany sexual act can be inferred from this fact is a question and therefore, the- 3 -::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2020 23:22:31 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2020 23:22:31 :::901-appln-3679-19.odtsentence needs to be suspended.Hence, the following order :-i) The application stands allowed.ii) The substantive sentence of conviction dated 11-10-2019 passed against the applicant by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur, Dist.Amhednagar in Special Case No.6 of 2017 is hereby suspended.iii) The applicant be released on P.R. and S.B. of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only).Bail before trial Court.iv) During pendency of criminal Appeal No.1100 of 2019 and its conclusion, the applicant shall not commit any offence.[SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.]SCM- 4 -::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2020 23:22:31 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2020 23:22:31 :::
|
['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
28,746 |
The appellant in Criminal Appeal No.630 of 2005 is A-2 and the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.80 of 2006 is A-1 in S.C.No.246 of 2004 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri.The deceased had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,500/- from A-1 by name Thikkuvayan @ Gopi.Just one week prior to the date of occurrence i.e., on 22.2.2004, A-1 beat the deceased-Palani for non-payment of the said amount to him.As the amount was not repaid by the deceased, A-1, with an intention to kill the deceased, committed the murder.Thereafter, the menial of P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer informed him on 1.3.2004 at 8.30 a.m., that a body was found in the gunnysack tied with a synthetic wire near the Thevar lakebund.P.W.1 went to the spot and found the body of the deceased as identified by P.W.2, the younger brother of the deceased.Immediately he went to Hosur Town Police Station and lodged the complaint, Ex.P-1 before P.W.16, the Sub Inspector of Police at 10.00 a.m., on 1.3.2004, which was registered in Cr.No.139 of 2004 for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.The First Information Report is Ex.He forwarded the express reports to the Court as well as to the higher police officials.P.W.17, the Inspector of Police took up investigation in the case and proceeded to the scene of occurrence at 11.00 a.m., and prepared an Observation Mahazar, Ex.P-2 and also drew a rough sketch, Ex.P-19 in the presence of P.W.5 and another witness.He also caused photographs of the scene place.Thereafter, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased between 12.00 noon and 3.00 p.m., in the presence of panchayatdars and witnesses and prepared the inquest report, Ex.He sent the body through the Head Constable, P.W.15 to the Hosur Government Hospital along with a requisition, Ex.P-13 to the doctor for conducting post-mortem.All external injuries are horizontal in nature.6. 3cm x 2cm x 10cm stab wound over the same site 1cm below right side the 5th injury.7. 3cm x 3cm contusion left lower back."He issued the post-mortem certificate, Ex.P-14 with his opinion that the deceased died of hypovolumic shock, seven head injuries, neurological shock 12 to 16 hours prior to post-mortem.P.W.17, continuing with his investigation, examined the other witnesses and recorded their statements.He seized the bloodstained gunnysack, M.O.1, bloodstained blanket, M.O.2, bedsheet, M.O.3, one metre bloodstained synthetic wire, M.O.4, bloodstained earth, M.O.5 and sample earth, M.O.6 under the mahazar, Ex.P-3 in the presence of P.W.5 and another witness.He also seized the bloodstained full slack shirt, M.O.14, bloodstained pant, M.O.15 and the bloodstained waist cord, M.O.16 worn by the deceased under the mahazar, Ex.Both the appellants were put on trial for the offence under Sections 364, 302 and 302 read with 201 IPC.However, the appellants were acquitted of the offence under Section 364 IPC, but were convicted for the offence under Sections 302 and 302 read with 201 IPC and each was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 read with 201 IPC and the sentences are to run concurrently.Hence these appeals.The prosecution put both the appellants-accused on trial on the following facts:-5. P.W.9, Assistant Surgeon attached to the said hospital, commenced post-mortem at 4.30 p.m., on 1.3.2004 on the body of the deceased and he noted the following external injuries:-"1. 7cm x 1 cm x 1.5cm laceration over the upper occipital area.2. 8cm x 1cm x 1.5cm lacerated 1cm below the 1st injury.3. 10cm x 1cm x 1.5cm laceration 2cm below the 2nd injury.4. 12cm x 1.5cm x 1.5cm laceration over the same size 2cm below the 3rd injury.5. 15cm x 2cm x bone expose brain matter.Expose injury 1cm below the 4th injury.He searched for the accused.On 6.3.2004 at 6.00 a.m., he arrested A-1 near Hosur Royakottai Road Temple and in pursuance of the admissible portion of the confessional statement of A-1 under Ex.P-11, he recovered the bloodstained pant, M.O.8, bloodstained full slack shirt, M.O.9, bloodstained billhook, M.O.10, cricket stump, M.O.11, bloodstained plaster, M.O.12 and sample plaster, M.O.13 under the mahazar, Ex.P-10 in the presence of P.W.8, the Village Administrative Officer and another witness.He also arrested A-2 and recorded his confessional statement under Ex.He prepared an Observation Mahazar, Ex.P-9 and also drew a rough sketch, Ex.P-21 of the place of occurrence as identified by A-2 in the presence of the said witnesses.He brought the accused to the police station and remanded them to judicial custody.He sent the seized material objects for chemical examination through the Court.He examined the other witnesses and recorded their statements.After completing investigation on 26.3.2004 and after getting legal opinion, he laid the final report against the accused for the offence under Sections 364, 302 and 201 IPC before the Court.In order to bring home the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses, marked 21 exhibits and produced 16 material objects.When the accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code as to the incriminating materials appearing against them, they denied them as false.No witness was examined and no document was marked on the side of the defence.However, the learned trial Judge found the accused guilty, convicted and sentenced them for the offence as stated earlier.Hence the present appeals.He would submit that the first circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is the money transaction between A-1 and the deceased.The said fact is spoken to by P.W.3, the wife of the deceased.Though P.W.2 has also spoken about the same, it is only a hearsay evidence.Though P.Ws.2,3 and 4 have spoken about the circumstances and were aware of the murder of the deceased even on the morning of 1.3.2004, no one has chosen to lodge a complaint implicating the accused, as Ex.P-1 does not refer to the name of the accused.Secondly, P.W.3 has spoken about the last seen theory i.e., on the evening of 29.2.2004 the deceased had gone along with A-1 and thereafter the deceased was found dead.But P.W.11, examined to prove the last seen theory, had turned hostile.Hence their evidence is highly doubtful and unsafe.That apart, their statements reached the Court only on 6.4.2004 i.e., after one month of the occurrence, throwing a serious doubt about their evidence.V.Rajamohan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (A-2) in Criminal Appeal No.630 of 2005 has submitted that there is no incriminating material produced by the prosecution to prove the guilt of A-2 except the last seen theory.The learned counsel also submitted that there is no motive attributed on the part of A-2 and no recovery has also been effected from him.Hence the learned counsel submitted that A-2 is entitled for an acquittal, as the prosecution has failed to prove its case against him.Per contra, Mr.V.R.Balasubramanian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the case of the prosecution must be traced and considered from the stage of recovery.P.W.8 is a mahazar witness for the recovery and there is no reason to discard his evidence.He would also submit that the bloodstained earth and the material objects, M.Os.8 to 13 were recovered from the house of A-1 in pursuance of the admissible portion of his confession and all the above material objects contained human bloodgroup 'A', which tallied with the bloodgroup of the deceased.Hence the recovery has been established.He would further submit that as the Village Administrative Officer, P.W.1 had given the complaint, there was no occasion for P.W.2 to specifically name the accused.In fact, during inquest, P.Ws.2,3 & 4 have stated about the enmity between the deceased and the accused regarding the money transaction and the inquest report reached the Court on 2.3.2004 itself.In the light of the strong evidence of recovery, the mere delay of one day would not vitiate the prosecution case and for that reason, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and 10 cannot be discarded in toto even though they have not spoken about the last seen theory to the investigating officer at the earliest point of time.Hence the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused.We have considered the rival contentions carefully.All the material objects recovered from the house of A-1 contained human blood of 'A' group.In the wake of the recovery of even the bloodstained earth from the house of A-1, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the involvement of A-1 in the occurrence to be the first circumstance.She had also spoken about the last seen theory as to the deceased accompanying A-1 on 29.2.2004 and he was found dead on the next day morning.That apart, P.Ws.2,3 & 4 have been examined during inquest on the same day between 12.00 noon and 3.00 p.m., and they have specifically referred to the said fact in the inquest report.It is not a general rule that in all cases where there was a delay the case of the prosecution must be doubted.The body of the deceased was found at 8.30 a.m., on 1.3.2004 and the complaint, Ex.P-1 was given by P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer at 10.00 a.m., on the same day which was registered under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.The inquest was conducted immediately between 12.00 noon and 3.00 p.m., and the witnesses namely, P.Ws.2 to 4 were also examined.During inquest, they have specifically referred to the last seen theory of having seen the deceased in the company of A-1 and we have no hesitation to accept the case of the prosecution as to the last seen theory.The inquest report was sent to the Court and it reached the Court on the next day itself.So far as the motive is concerned, it is spoken to by P.W.3 to the effect that one week prior to the date of occurrence, A-1 met the deceased for non payment of the sum of Rs.1,500/-.Of course, P.W.2 was also examined to prove the above, but the statement of P.W.2 was only hearsay.On 29.2.2004, the date of occurrence, A-1 came to the house of the deceased and demanded the payment of the said amount.This is spoken to by P.W.3, the wife of the deceased, as well.The dispute is only for non payment of the sum of Rs.1,500/- by the deceased to A-1 and for the said reason only, A-1 had committed the offence of murder.So far as A-2 is concerned, except the last seen theory, there is no evidence on record either as to the motive or as to the recovery made from him.In these circumstances, it would be highly unsafe to hold that A-2 is also guilty solely on the basis of the last seen theory without there being any other incriminating material put against him.For the aforesaid reasons, A-2 is acquitted of the charges and the Criminal Appeal No.630 of 2005 is allowed.Bail bonds executed by A-2 shall stand terminated and the fine amount, if any, paid by him is ordered to be refunded.As the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against A-1, Criminal Appeal No.80 of 2006 is dismissed confirming the judgment of the learned trial Judge.It is seen from the records that the appellant (A-1) in Criminal Appeal No.80 of 2006 is on bail.The learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri is directed to take steps to secure the presence of A-1 and commit him to prison to undergo the sentence imposed.
|
['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.
|
28,748,483 |
Heard learned counsel for the parties finally.The respondents no.2 to 5-complainants lodged an FIR at Police Station Pohari, District Shivpuri under Crime No.219/2007, for the offence punishable under Section 324, 323, 326, 504 and 34 of IPC stating that the applicants assaulted the respondent no.2- Parwati, respondent no.3-Chandan, respondent no.4 Kallu and respondent no.5 Kharagjeet by means of Axe and Lathi.The applicant and the respondents no.2 to 5 have filed an application for compromise under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. The learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri partly allowed the application and found that the offence under Section 326, 326/34, IPC is not compoundable as it is a warrant trial.Heard on I.A.No.2324/2015, which is an application for compromise and IA No.2327/2015 which is an application for grant of leave to compound the offence filed by the applicants and complainants.One unfortunate incident relating on account of some grappling by applicants to the complainants have dragged the parties to one court to another and finally to this Court.This incident took ugly turn which resulted in lodging of the F.I.R. Now, the parties have settled all their disputes and want to compromise the matter.
|
['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
184,236,703 |
(a) Avinash Raut (PW3) is complainant and son of deceased Kalavati.Avinash was residing at village Ladki, Tahsil-Ralegaon, District- Yavatmal with his parents, wife and two children.He was working at Dhaba of Bhalchandra Raut.His brother was residing separately with his wife.(b) Incident occurred on 21.12.2011 at 9.30 a.m. Kalavati had been to answer nature's call.Accused went there and assaulted Kalavati with an axe.He delivered multiple blows on ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/02/2017 00:29:19 ::: CRI.A. 303.15.odt 3 various parts of her body.Avinash was at Dhaba that time.His cousin Balabhau Deorao Raut informed him on phone that accused committed murder of his mother and asked him to come immediately.Avinash rushed to the spot and saw his mother lying on the ground with several injuries on her body.He went to Wadki Police Station and lodged a report.Crime No.68/2011 came to be registered.API Madansingh Rajput (PW7) took over investigation.He visited the spot and drew spot panchanama.A pair of chappal, a plastic box, a pink towel having blood stains, simple earth and earth mixed with blood were seized from the spot.Inquest panchanama was recorded.Then dead body was sent for postmortem to Rural Hospital, Ralegaon.Dr. Atul Meshram (PW9) was Medical Officer on duty.He performed postmortem and opined cause of death due to injuries to brain.::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/02/2017 00:29:19 :::CRI.A. 303.15.odt 3(c) Investigating officer recorded statements of several witnesses.Viscera preserved by Medical Officer at the time of performing postmortem was handed over to Police Head Constable Datta Rathod, who in turn, produced the same before Investigating Officer and it was seized in presence of panch witnesses.The clothes of deceased ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/02/2017 00:29:19 ::: CRI.A. 303.15.odt 4 were also produced at the same time and seizure panchanama of clothes was accordingly drawn.Seized muddemal was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory.::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/02/2017 00:29:19 :::CRI.A. 303.15.odt 4(d) Accused was absconding.PSI Chandurkar (PW8) sent the accused for medical examination.The blood sample of accused was collected.The same was forwarded to Chemical Analyser.Circle Officer was requested to draw map of the spot.She was studying in 3 rd Standard.That time she stated her age as 11 years.Means at the time of incident in 2011 she was around 7 years of age.It can be seen from her evidence that in the morning at about 9-9.15 am, Deorao Parchake was going with the cattle.ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : KUM.By the said judgment and order, accused is convicted of the offence punishable under sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in-default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.500/- in-default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC.::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/02/2017 00:29:19 :::CRI.A. 303.15.odt 22] For the sake of convenience, we shall refer the appellant in his original status as accused as he was referred before the trial court.After completing investigation, charge sheet was submitted before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ralegaon, who in turn, committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions.He pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.The defence of accused was of total denial and false implication.In his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. accused raised specific defence that Sanjiv Mandavkar, Sarpanch of the village was not in good terms with him and at the instance of Sarpanch, witnesses deposed against him and involved him in a false case.::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/02/2017 00:29:19 :::CRI.A. 303.15.odt 55] Prosecution examined in all nine witnesses to substantiate the guilt of accused.Accused did not examine himself or any other witness in support of his defence.On going through the evidence adduced by the prosecution, learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated in paragraph 1 above.Being aggrieved thereof, accused has preferred this appeal.6] We have heard the learned counsel for appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made on behalf of parties, reasonings recorded by the trial court and evidence on record for the below mentioned reasons, we are of the opinion that appellant is responsible for committing murder of Kalavati and he caused evidence of offence to disappear with intention to screen himself from legal punishment.7] Conviction of accused is mainly based on ocular evidence of two child witnesses i.e. PW5 Mayuri Vijayrao Raut and PW6 Mahesh Rangraoji Parchake.In this regard, learned counsel for appellant submitted that evidence of child witnesses should be accepted with great care and ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/02/2017 00:29:19 ::: CRI.A. 303.15.odt 6 caution and general principle is that testimony of such a witness is to be corroborated by independent witness.::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/02/2017 00:29:19 :::CRI.A. 303.15.odt 6According to learned counsel, both the witnesses Mayuri and Mahesh are not coming with true facts, as their evidence would reveal that their school was in the morning at 10.00 am.He submits that their school was located away from the place of incident and, therefore, presence of both the witnesses at the relevant time itself appears to be doubtful.It is submitted that no independent witness has been examined and in the absence of independent corroboration, it was not proper for the trial court to rely upon the evidence of child witnesses.8] Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor states that there is no inherent defect in the evidence of both the child witnesses.Nothing could be brought on record to indicate any possibility of child witnesses being tutored.He strongly supports the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial court and urged to dismiss the appeal.9] So far as law on appreciation of evidence of child witness is concerned, it is an established principle that child ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/02/2017 00:29:19 ::: CRI.A. 303.15.odt 7 witnesses are risky as they are liable to be influenced easily, shaped and moulded, but it is also an accepted norm that if after careful scrutiny of evidence of child witness the Court comes to a conclusion that it is truthful and believable, totally free from tutoring then there is no obstacle in anyway not to rely upon the evidence of child witness.::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/02/2017 00:29:19 :::CRI.A. 303.15.odt 7PW5 Mayuri and PW6 Mahesh, learned Additional Sessions that witnesses understand the significance of oath and thereupon administered oath to each of them.It appears from the evidence of Mayuri that she was knowing the accused.She stated that accused is father of Vishal Keram.She and Mahesh followed him.Deorao drove the cattle beyond bank of Nala and she and Mahesh were returning home.She states that at that time she saw accused assaulting Kalavati with an axe in "Bayanchi Godri" (women's easing place).::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/02/2017 00:29:19 :::CRI.A. 303.15.odt 8After seeing her and Mahesh, accused fled away towards the field with an axe.She and Mahesh came home.She narrated the incident to her mother and told her not to go to Godri as father of Vishal was assaulting Kalavati in Godri.She states that Kalavati died on the spot as accused assaulted her with an axe.11] The evidence of PW6 Mahesh is on the same line.He was studying in 4th Standard.He stated his age before the court as 12 years.He states that his grandfather Deorao was taking cattle beyond nala.He and Mayuri were walking behind.While Mahesh and Mayuri were returning home, they saw accused assaulting Kalavati with an axe in womens' easing place "Godri".He states that after seeing them, accused proceeded towards the field with an axe.They came home.He informed about the incident to his mother.He and Mayuri also narrated the incident to police.12] On meticulous scrutiny of evidence of PW5 Mayuri and PW6 Mahesh, we find no material improvements, contradictions or omissions.On manner of incident, ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/02/2017 00:29:19 ::: CRI.A. 303.15.odt 9 evidence of both the child witnesses is throughout consistent.Nothing substantial could be elicited in their cross-examination to disbelieve their testimonies.They have no reason to grind an axe against the accused.In these circumstances, we are of the view that conviction of the accused on the evidence of child witnesses is sustainable.::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/02/2017 00:29:19 :::CRI.A. 303.15.odt 913] Insofar as factum of homicidal death is concerned, prosecution examined PW9 Dr. Atul Meshram.At the time of postmortem examination, five chop wounds and fracture of skull underneath injuries to parietal region were noticed by him.Multiple injuries were found to brain and other parts of the body.Doctor opined cause of death as injury to brain.Postmortem report (Exh.66) is not seriously assailed by the defence.Considering the evidence of Medical Officer, postmortem report (Exh.66) and the evidence of child witnesses PW5 Mayuri and PW6 Mahesh, conclusion is inevitable that the death of Kalavati in question was homicidal death and accused is responsible for causing her death.::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/02/2017 00:29:19 :::CRI.A. 303.15.odt 1014] In the above premise and on going through the record, we hold that there is sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that appellant eliminated life of an innocent lady and he has been rightly convicted and sentenced by the trial court.We find no merit in the appeal.No costs.Fees of the learned counsel appointed on behalf of appellant are quantified at Rs.5,000/-.(Kum.Indira Jain, J.) (B.R. Gavai, J.) .........Gulande, PA ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/02/2017 00:29:19 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/02/2017 00:29:19 :::
|
['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.
|
184,243,323 |
Accused No.2 is editor.The prayer in this petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) is for quashing of Complaint Case No. 527/1/2004 titled "Kalpana Shree Agarwal v. Dr. Anil Bansal & Others" under Section 500/384/120B/34 IPC, pending in the court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM), New Delhi, and all proceedings consequent thereto insofar as it concerns the petitioner Dr. Anil Bansal.The complaint stated that complainant had been married to accused No.4 Dr. Deepak Agarwal on 22nd May, 1997 and a male child was Crl.M.C. 1248/2006 Page 1 of 7 born to the couple.Unfortunately, the relationship between the husband and wife broke down and there was a litigation under Section 406/498A IPC instituted by the complainant against accused No.4 in FIR No. 50/2004 registered at Police Station Paschim Vihar.It is further alleged that accused No.4 and his elder brother Rajeev Agarwal committed an offence under Section 341 IPC for which FIR No. 497/1995 was registered at Police Station Paschim Vihar.It is alleged that accused No.2 S. Charanjit Singh, Editor of Rustam-E- Hind (weekly), in connivance with accused No.1 (petitioner herein) who is described in the complaint as the Ex-President of the Delhi Medical Association, connived with the remaining accused, i.e. A.S. Ahluwalia, Deepak Agarwal and Mrs. Kanta Aggarwal (Mother-in- law of the complainant) and had published an article in Hindi weekly newspaper Rustam-E-Hind , Year-8, Edition No.14 on page 5 under the title "Asamaji Charitraheen Nalki Doctron Savdhan - Anil Bansal" carrying a photograph of the complainant and making false, misleading and defamatory statements therein against the complainant.M.C. 1248/2006 Page 1 of 7Four witnesses, including the complainant and her mother, were examined at the pre-summoning stage.On 16.5.2005, the learned MM passed the following order:"Arguments heard.It has been deposited by CW3 and CW4 who are the mother of the complainant and complainant respectively that accused no. 4 & 5 have given the published articles in the court in the present of general public and thereby the complainant has been defamed.CW5 have stated that he is President of Delhi Medical Association and have sought the reply on the complaint of the complainant against Dr. Anil Bansal Ex. CW 1/A regarding the published matter and he had sought the comments from Dr. Anil Bansal and the same was not received by them.M.C. 1248/2006 Page 2 of 7I have perused the file.There is nothing against accused No.3 at this stage showing his involvement.It is presumed at this stage that he has got the matter published Crl.M.C. 1248/2006 Page 3 of 7 without going through the veracity of the same.Undoubtedly, the matter is published one and the newspaper contains defamatory allegations against complainant and accused no.4 & 5 have defamed the complainant by further circulating the same.
|
['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
184,243,354 |
TN 76 1302 and found one unit of river sand illegal transported.The accused did not produce any valid documents for the transit of minerals and therefore, PW.1 seized the vehicle and also registered the case in Crime No.182 of 2010 as against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 4 and 21 of MMDR Act and Section 379 of IPC.The Inspector of Police [P.W.6], on receipt of the intimation went to the place of occurrence on 20.12.2010 at 12 noon and prepared the observation mahazar [ExP.3] and rough sketch [ExP.4] in the presence of Village Administrative Officer [PW.http://www.judis.nic.in 5/15 Crl.R.C(MD)Nos.583 and 676 of 2013 4] and Village Assistant [PW.5].Accordingly, in this case the vehicle along with sand has been produced by the Sub Inspector of Police to the Inspector of Police and the Inspector of Police has seized the vehicle along with sand under Ex.P.1 Athakshi.Insofar as A2 is concerned there is no recovery from him.But, he was also arrested as he was available in the vehicle at the time of occurrence.He has also projected as that of cleaner of the vehicle.Common Prayer: Criminal Revision Cases have been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records relating to the judgment dated 07.06.2013 made in Crl.A.No.11 of 2013 on the file of the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, confirming the judgment dated 12.02.2013 made in CC.No.41 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Ambasamudram and set aside the same.For Petitioner : Mr.T.Antony Arul Raj For Respondent : Ms.S.Bharathi, Government Advocate (Crl Side) in both caseshttp://www.judis.nic.in 1/15 Crl.R.C(MD)Nos.583 and 676 of 2013 COMMON ORDER These Criminal Revision Cases in Crl.R.C(MD)Nos.583 and 676 of 2013 have been filed by A1 and A2 in CC No.41 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram, respectively, wherein the respondent Police has filed a final report as against these accused for the offence under Sections 379 of the Indian Penal Code [IPC] and 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation), Act, 1957 [MMDR Act].2.Since both these Revision Cases arise out of the same case, they are taken up together for hearing and disposed of by way of this common order.3.These revision petitioners / accused were tried for the offences cited supra, before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Ambasamudram in CC No.41 of 2011 and the learned Magistrate by order dated 12.02.2013, acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 21 of MMDR Act, but convicted them under Section 379 IPC and imposed a sentence of six months rigourous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to pay the fine amount, one month rigorous imprisonment was also ordered.http://www.judis.nic.in 2/15 Crl.R.C(MD)Nos.583 and 676 of 20134.As against the order of conviction, the petitioners /accused have preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court, Tirunelveli in C.A.No.11 of 2013 and the same was disposed by order dated 07.06.2013 by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, confirming the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram.As against the order of conviction imposed by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court, these revision petitions have been filed on the following grounds:(ii) Though the powers have been conferred to the Inspector of Police to exercise powers under Section 21 (4) of MMDR Act, vide G.O.Ms.No.114 Industries (MMC.I) Department, dated 08.09.2006 and such powers can be exercised only by way of a private complaint and the final report filed by the Inspector of Police is bad in law.http://www.judis.nic.in 3/15 Crl.R.C(MD)Nos.583 and 676 of 2013(iii) Though the alleged place of occurrence is crowded one, the prosecution has not established the same through any independent witnesses.(iv) Moreover, there is a contradiction between the evidence of PW.1 and PW.6 with regard to the place of occurrence.According to PW.1, the occurrence was taken place on the Ambai – Tenkasi Road, Keezhambur, opposite to Post Office, whereas, the Inspect of Police / the Investigating Officer [PW.6], has denied the same.(v) The material object namely sand has not been produced before the Court.The contradiction referred to with regard to the place of occurrence is not proper.It is the case of the prosecution that the occurrence took place on Ambai - Tenkasi Road, Keezhabur in front of the Posthttp://www.judis.nic.in 4/15 Crl.R.C(MD)Nos.583 and 676 of 2013 Office and it has also been elicited from the observation mahazar [ExP.3] and rough sketch [ExP.4].It is pertinent to note that the observation mahazar and rough sketch have been prepared by the Investigating Officer [PW.6].6.Heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl side) appearing for the State and also perused the materials placed on record.7.A perusal of the records reveals that on 20.12.2010 at 9.00 am, the Sub Inspector of Police, Alwarkuruchi Police Station, was on vehicle check and at that time she intercepted a TATA Turbo 407 vehicle bearing Registration No.He also seized the vehicle and forwarded the same under Form 91 to the concerned Judicial Magistrate Court.9.During the trial on the side of the prosecution, six witnesses were examined and four documents were marked.17.Sections 102 and 123 of CrPC authorises the Police Officer to seize certain properties.Any Police officer may seize any property, which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen or which may have been found under circumstances, which create suspicion commission of offence.18.As per the powers conferred under Section 102 of CrPC, the Sub Inspector of Police is entitled to seize the vehicle.It is to be noted the seizure of the vehicle has also been reported to the concerned Inspector of Police immediately and on receipt of the intimation, the Inspector of Police has also proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared observation mahazar and rough sketch.19.Though the Inspector of Police has denied with regard to the availability of the post office and residence near the place of occurrence, the observation mahazar and rough sketch prepared by the Inspector of Police [PW.6] would disclose that the occurrencehttp://www.judis.nic.in 11/15 Crl.R.C(MD)Nos.583 and 676 of 2013 took place on Ambai – Tenkasi road as stated by PW.1 and therefore, the statement of PW.6 during the cross examination denying with regard to the place of occurrence cannot be taken as a ground for disbelieving the case of the prosecution.Moreover, in this case, it is the Sub Inspector of Police, who seized the vehicle from the place of occurrence and the Inspector of Police has conducted the investigation based on the report of the Sub Inspector of Police and he has also recorded the presence of Post Office and the residence near the place of occurrence in the observation mahazar and rough sketch ExP.3 and ExP.4 respectively and without verifying the same, in a negligent manner, he has deposed before the Court and it cannot be taken as advantage in favour of the accused.20.Insofar as the petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.(MD)No 583 of 2013 is concerned, he is the owner and driver of the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 76 1302 and was caught red-handed at the time of occurrence along with minerals.Whereas the revision petitioner in Crl.22.As per the definition under Section 378 IPC, whoever intends to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that persons consent, moves that property in order to such taking is said to commit theft.23.In this case, there is no evidence available to show that A2 has also actively participated in the theft of sand along with A1 or he was aware that the sand transported is without any valid licence.In the absence of any such material, it is not safe to convict A2, for the offence under Section 379 IPC.24.In the result,(i) Crl.R.C.No.(MD)No.676 of 2013 is allowed and the order dated 12.02.2013 passed in CC.No.41 of 2011 by the learnedhttp://www.judis.nic.in 13/15 Crl.R.C(MD)Nos.583 and 676 of 2013 Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram and the judgment dated 07.06.2013 passed in C.A.No.11 of 2013 by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli in respect of A2, namely, Murugan are set aside and the bail bonds executed by him shall stand terminated and the fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded to him.(ii) Crl.R.C.No.(MD)No.583 of 2013 is dismissed and the order dated 12.02.2013 passed in CC.No.41 of 2011 by the Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram and the judgment dated 07.06.2013 passed in C.A.No.11 of 2013 by the IV Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli, in respect of A1, namely, Gangatharan are confirmed.06.09.2019 dsk Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes /No1.IV Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli.2.The Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram.3.The Record Keeper (2copies) Criminal Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 14/15 Crl.R.C(MD)Nos.583 and 676 of 2013 B.PUGALENDHI.J., dsk Crl.R.C(MD)Nos.583 and 676 of 2013 06.09.2019http://www.judis.nic.in 15/15
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,842,450 |
JUDGMENT Bilal Nazki, J.Special Case No. 1 of 2000 was tried by the Sessions Judge, Pune, who was also a Special Judge for the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crimes Act. Seven accused persons faced trial for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 324 read with Sections 149 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.They also faced trial for the offences punishable under Section 4 of the Arms Act and Sections 3(1) (i), 3(5) and 3(2) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act. By his judgment and order dated 30th April, 2002 of the learned Sessions Judge, all of them were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- each.The facts relating to this case, on the basis of which the prosecution filed the charge sheet, can be summarised thus:That the accused persons were real brothers.They lived in a locality known as Shikalkari Vasti in Ramtekdi area at Hadapsar, Pune.Deceased Dashrath was the maternal uncle of P.W.2 Yogesh Pillaye.Yogesh Pillaye also resided in the same locality.According to the complainant, being P.W.2, the complaint was filed with the Wanawadi Police Station.The deceased Dashrath was staying at Ghorpadigaon.He was visiting Ramtekdi of and on as his sisters were living in Ramtekdi area.Father of P.W.2 had died early when P.W.2 and his brothers were minors at that time, so their maternal uncle Dashrath used to look after them and, therefore, he was off and on visiting them at their house at Ramtekdi.In the year 1993 the accused Diddisingh and his brothers had assaulted deceased Dashrath and the matter had been reported to the police and Diddisingh and his brothers were arrested.They were prosecuted and the case was pending against them before the J.M.F.C., Cantonment Court at Pune.In the morning of that day the accused Diddisingh, Chandsingh and Jalindersingh approached Dashrath at the house of his sister Anjali and asked Dashrath to withdraw the case and threatened them that in case he failed to withdraw the case, they would kill him.The incident was reported by Dashrath to Wanawadi Police.As a result Chandsingh was arrested and was prosecuted.Because of this accused Nos. 1 to 7 got irritated and they started quarreling with Dashrath, his sister and nephews.The prosecution case was that generally the behaviour of these Page 1599 seven brothers in the area was reprehensible and they had created an image of terror so that no one dare to lodge complaint against them.On 19th July, 1999 in the morning at 11.00 a.m. Dashrath had been to the house of Yogesh along with Sairam.Yogesh asked his uncle Dashrath to accompany him to Pune as he had to go to obtain passport and visa.Dashrath agreed and they made certain arrangement, by which Dashrath and Sairam left the house of Yogesh and went to Pune town.Yogesh left his house and came to Ramtekdi Bus Stop and was waiting for his uncle who had gone to Pune town.At about 12.45 p.m. Dashrath and Sairam returned back on their Kinetic Honda motor cycle.They turned their motor cycle towards Ramtekdi because they had not seen Yogesh waiting for them at bus stand.Yogesh saw them so he called his uncle.Accused Nos. 1 to 7 had swords in their hands.In this incident accused Diddisingh and Takkusingh also gave blows of swords to Sairam on his head.Then Sairam just started running but he could not run.He was unable to run as he had sustained injuries and he fell down at some distance from Dashrath.When this assault was going on, P.W.2 Yogesh rushed towards the spot and requested the accused persons not to kill his uncle.When Yogesh made an attempt to rush towards his uncle, accused Diddisingh gave blow of sword to Yogesh which blow hit his palm and Yogesh also sustained injuries.Diddisingh asked Yogesh to run away otherwise he would also be killed.Because of this threat, Yogesh ran away and stood at some distance.After some time, accused conversed with each other and said that Dashrath was dead and thereafter all of them left the spot and ran away with the weapons which they had.After they left the spot, Yogesh rushed towards the spot where his uncle was lying.When he reached there, his maternal aunt P.W.4 Anjali also arrived.Both the Dashrath and Sairam were unconscious.Vinesh, the brother of Yogesh also came to the spot.Vinesh, Yogesh and Anjali called two auto rickshaws and both the injured Dashrath and Sairam were carried to Sassoon Hospital.On reaching Hospital, the Medical Officer declared Dashrath dead.The relatives of Sairam shifted him to Budhrani Hospital and he was admitted there.He was treated there by a doctor.Throughout Sairam remained unconscious.He was kept in I.C.U. The doctors had noticed fracture of right parietal bone, subdural haematoma in temporal parietal area.The doctor ruled out surgery and eventually Sairam also died next morning at 5.15 a.m. at the Bhudhrani Hospital.On the basis of this prosecution story the accused persons were prosecuted.Charges were framed as mentioned above.6. P.W.1 is the panch witness, who stated that on 19th July, 1999 in the evening at about 5.30 p.m. he was leading towards his house from Hadapsar by Solapur Highway.After he crossed Ramtekdi bridge, he noticed crowd and also the police party.Then the police called him and inquired whether he could offer his assistance to them.He agreed to act as a panch witness.The police took him near Pappu Garage, where one red colour cap was lying near one electric poll.One black colour Kinetic vehicle was lying on S.R.P.Road at a distance of 5 ft. from the garage.He saw the condition of the vehicle.The vehicle was in a damaged condition and the pieces of broken glass of vehicle were lying on the ground.The blood stains were also found on the ground.The blood was found mixed with the mud.One tooth was also found in the blood mixed earth on the spot.7. P.W.2, Yogesh Shalvaraj Pillaye, is a main prosecution witness, who is an eye witness.He stated that he, his mother, his sister, his brother and maternal aunt reside together at Ramtekdi.Anjali is his maternal aunt and she resided in the house which is situated in front of his house.His father died when he was a minor.Deceased Dashrath was his maternal uncle, who used to look after them after the death of his father.He knew all the accused from his childhood.They were residents of Sikalkar Vasti at Ramtekdi.In 1993, the accused Diddisingh and his brothers had assaulted his maternal uncle Dashrath.Dashrath was admitted in the hospital because of the injuries sustained by him.Criminal case relating to that incident was pending in a Cantonment Court.In the said case the accused were arrested and were subsequently released on bail.On 18th June, 1999, Dashrath had been to his house.At that time the accused also came to his house and asked Dashrath to withdraw the case.Because of arrest of Chandsingh, accused were annoyed and always visiting their locality and uttering abuses and giving threats to them.But the witness stated that they neglected their threats and did not lodge any other report.The accused were creating terror in the locality.On 19th July, 1999, his maternal uncle Dashrath came to his house at about 11.00 a.m. Along with his friend Sairam on Kinetic Honda.He asked his uncle whether he would accompany him to Fatima Nagar to assist him in getting visa.His uncle told him that he should wait at Ramtekdi Bus Stop as he had some work of his friend and after finishing that he would meet the witness at Ramtekdi Bus Stand.Then he left his house and went to Page 1601 Ramtekdi Bus Stop.He reached there at 11.30 a.m. Dashrath had already gone with his friend to do some work of his friend.Because of rain he waited under a shed of a shop behind Ramtekdi stop.At 12.15 noon, his uncle Dashrath along with his friend came there and he saw them.He gave call from the shed where he was standing.Dashrath came there on his Kinetic Honda with his friend from Pune side.Though he gave call, Dashrath turned his Kinetic Honda by S.R.P. Road as he must not have heard his call.He followed his maternal uncle towards S.R.P. Road from Ramtekdi.He noted that his uncle Dashrath, who was on Kinetic Honda, was being restrained near Pappu Garage by accused Nos. 1 to 7 who were having swords in their hands.Witness saw the occurrence from the distance of 20 ft.He saw the accused Chandsingh gave blow of sword on the head of his uncle Dashrath, who was still sitting on his kinetic Honda.His uncle Dashrath and his friend Sairam both fell down from kinetic Honda.After Dashrath fell down, accused Diddisingh hit sword on his face.Accused Takkusingh hit sword on the neck of Dashrath.Accused Jalindersingh and accused Khannasingh gave blows by swords to Dashrath on his chest and stomach.Accused Pillisingh and Lakhansingh gave blows of sword on the legs of Dashrath.The witness also saw the accused Diddisingh and Takkusingh hit swords on the head of Sairam.That time he rushed towards his uncle to save them.That time he was saying the accused not to hit his uncle and was shouting not to beat his uncle.Because of the assault Sairam also fell down at some distance from his uncle.That time Dashrath was lying on Kaccha road in a pool of blood.Accused Diddisingh told him to go away and also threatened that he would also be killed.That time Diddisingh gave blow on his head but to save he raised his hand and the sword hit on his left hand finger.He turned towards Ramtekdi bus stop to run away.While running he turned towards backside to see whether the accused were following him.The accused were not found following him but he saw them running away towards a lane from Toddy shop having swords in their hands.That time he also saw his maternal aunt Anjali coming towards Dashrath from other side.He rushed towards Dashrath.That time his brother Vinesh also came to the spot from southern side on S. R. P. Road.Anjali put her saree on the face of Dashrath and covered his face.Dashrath was alive by then.Vinesh and his aunt Anjali took Dashrath to the hospital by one rickshaw.He called another rickshaw and reached Sairam to Sassoon Hospital.At that time Sairam was unconscious.Injured Sairam was admitted in Ward No. 9 of Sassoon Hospital.There, he came to know that Dashrath was declared dead by the doctor.8. P.W.2 saw the dead body of Dashrath in the mortuary of the hospital.One lady police officer was present there.At the time of inquest panchanama, he gave identification of dead body of Dashrath.In the hospital itself, they informed the police that they wanted to lodge complaint about the incident, but he was told that he should go to Wanawadi Police Station.Then at about 3.30 to 4.00 p.m. His complaint was recorded in Wanawadi Police Station.He narrated incident in detail to the PSI, who recorded the complaint.The complaint read over to him was the same and it bore his signature.This Page 1602 F.I.R. was marked as Exh.80, though an objection was taken by the defence to mark the same as exhibit that it should not be treated as F.I.R. since the investigation was already started.Thereafter, along with the police he went to the place of incident.He had shown the place of offence to the police.The police then recorded panchanama of scene of offence.They then returned back to Wanawadi Police Station.In the police station he produced his blood stained shirt and banian before the police.They were seized by the police and the panchanama was also prepared.He was also referred to the hospital for medical examination as there was injury on his hand.He was examined in the Sassoon Hospital by the doctor.He was given treatment and sutured the wound on his finger.Articles 6 and 7, the shirt and banian, were identified by him as his own clothes worn by him at the time of incident.These articles were stained with blood of Sairam when he had lifted him and took him into the rickshaw to carry him to the hospital.His house was at a distance of about half kms.from Pune Solapur Road towards southern side.S.R.P. Road leads towards south from Solapur Road.P.W.2 was her sister's son.She is the sister of Dashrath.Dashrath used to visit her and her sister's place to look after their family.She was working as Sweeper in Preeti Nursing Home.The house of Chandsingh was in front of her house.The other accused also resided in the same area so all the accused are known to her.She knew all of them.On 18th June, 1999 some quarrel took place between the accused and Dashrath.On 19th July, 1999 she had left her house at 10.30 a.m. and had gone to Preeti Hospital to attend her duty.At about 12.15 noon, she came out of the hospital and was returning back to her house.When she reached S.R.P. Road, there was complete silence on the road.She looked towards Pappu Garage.She noted black kinetic vehicle of his brother was lying and assault was going on on her brother Dashrath.All the seven accused were beating her brother Dashrath.While running she shouted and requested the accused not to beat her brother.She noticed Sairam lying on the road at a distance of about 7 to 8 feet away from Dashrath.She reached near Sairam, he told her that the said accused had assaulted Dashrath and save him.Then she went towards Dashrath.That time all accused started running away by lane from Tody shop.All the accused were having swords in their hands.In her presence, accused Pillisingh gave blow by sword to Dashrath and ran away.There were injuries on all over the body of Dashrath.His face was found completely disfigured, and brain matter had come out from the head.Since she could not see his condition, she covered his face by her saree.That time Vinesh arrived at the spot while running from his house.After Vinesh, Yogesh also arrived.On the spot.Then she and Vinesh lifted Dashrath and carried him to Sassoon Hospital by one rickshaw and Yogesh carried Sairam to the hospital by another rickshaw.In the hospital, doctor examined Dashrath and declared him dead.At about 7.00 to 7.30 p.m. she visited Wanawadi police station and produced her petticoat and saree which were stained with the blood and brain material and police seized the same.Articles 8 and 9 shown to her were the articles which she had given to the police.In her cross-examination, she stated that when police seized her clothes, they also made inquiry about the incident and recorded her statement.She stated that she, Yogesh and Vinesh lifted Dashrath from the spot and took him in the rickshaw.She also stated that the clothes of Vinesh and Yogesh were not stained with blood of Dashrath while lifting him.Both the rickshaws reached Sassoon Hospital one after another.They reached hospital after about 1.00 p.m. In the Sassoon Hospital she, Vinesh and staff of hospital took Dashrath out of the rickshaw and put him on the stretcher.At that time he was alive.They took him to doctor, who on examination declared him dead.She did not know whether Sairam was examined by the same doctor who examined Dashrath.Yogesh accompanied Sairam to Ward No. 9 and she and Vinesh were near the dead body of Dashrath.She and Vinesh were in the hospital up to 2.00 to 2.30 p.m. Thereafter, she left the hospital and went to Ghorpadi to give message of the incident to her mother.Thereafter, she never visited Sassoon Hospital.Till she left the hospital, no police officer had visited Sassoon Hospital.Up to 2.30 p.m. She was along with the dead body of her brother.At about 1.30 p.m. The dead body of her brother Dashrath was removed to mortuary.She denied that Sairam was son of her maternal uncle.Sairam was staying at Ghorpadi.She also denied that her brother Dashrath and Sairam were dealing in illicit liquor and because of that business they had many enemies.12. P.W.5, Surayya Ramzan Shaikh, was projected by the prosecution as eye witness as he was a hawker and happened to be there at the time of occurrence.In the examination he was declared as hostile.Even in his examination in chief, he had stated that he had seen a crowd assembled at the place of occurrence, but he said that he thought corporation people had come to remove the encroachment and therefore he took his cart away and left for his house.He in his cross-examination stated that he had made a statement before the police.In that Chowk, Pillisingh got down from the jeep and thereafter they also got down.Pillisingh started walking towards Santosh General Stores and they all followed him.Pillisingh turned by one small lane from that general stores and stopped near one Bhangar shop and told them that the house to the side of that Bhangar shop was belonging to him.In the front portion, in the house, was a shed of tin sheets.There were pigs in that shed.Pillisingh and they all entered that shed.P.W.7, Rafiq Abdul Sattar, is a witness to the disclosure statement made by another accused Khannasingh.This accused made a statement and then took them to a room in the Ramtekdi area, claiming to be his house.Where they found one big tin pot kept on the heap of wooden strips, from where he took out one sword.He also took out one plastic bag from that place.In the plastic bag there were clothes.The accused Takkusingh made disclosure statement in the police station in the presence of the witness.They all accompanied the accused Takkusingh to the place of recovery.It was a house claimed to be belonging to the said accused.Opening into the abdominal cavity.14) Two stab wounds on left side of anterior abdominal wall in left hypochondria region each measuring 5 x 2 cms.opening into the abdominal cavity.All stats wound have one clean cut edge and one blunt abraded end.15) Lacerated wound over left leg in middle 1/3 4 x 2 cms.16) Lacerated wound over right leg in middle 1/3 5 x 4 cms.All these injuries were anti-mortem.On internal examination:Haematoma was present all over the scalp.P.W. 14, Dr. Ashok Bhalchandra Bhange, is Neurosurgeon, and was working in Inlacs and Budhrani Hospital, Korgaon Park, Pune.On 19th July, 1999, Sairam Pillay was admitted in the hospital.The doctor has brought along with him the record pertaining to Sairam maintained by the hospital.On 19th July, 1999 at 5.30 p.m., Sairam was admitted in the Page 1609 hospital by Dr. Ritesh Kataria.At 5.40 p.m., the witness examined the patient.The patient, at that time, was unconscious.The patient had been referred to his hospital by Sassoon Hospital.From the case papers, the witness said that even at the time of admission, the patient was unconscious.After admission, the patient was kept in I.C.U. and the investigations were conducted, and X-ray of skull and C.T. Scan were done.He had recorded his findings on examination of the patient and also the X-ray.Considering the condition of the patient, he ruled out surgery and continued medical treatment.Page 1610 He also stated that blood was preserved for grouping.In his opinion, the cause of death was head injury.He had produced post mortem notes.The notes shown to him in the Court were the same.The injuries noticed were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.According to him, injuries No. 1, 3 and 4 were possible by any sharp-edged weapon like sword.Injuries No. 3, 4 and 5 were possible by weapon by forceful blows.Injuries No. 3 and 4 would be caused by heavy and sharpedged weapons.P.W. 16, Gajju Singh Natthu Singh Bhada, is witness produced for proving alleged extra-judicial confession.He deals in business of copper coating.He knew all the accused persons.He said that on 20th July, 1999, there was a news item in the local newspaper that in Ramtekadi area, Didi Singh and others had murdered some persons from Mehtar Community.On 23rd July, 1999, on telephone, Lakhan Singh had a talk with the witness and confessed that they had committed offence of murder and they had apprehension that police would kill them.Therefore, the witness, being a leader of their community, should produce three of them before the police.The witness then made inquiries from Lakhan Singh as to which of three persons wanted to surrender before the police.Lakhan Singh told him that he himself, Chand Singh and Pilli Singh were ready to surrender before the police.He also informed him that they would like to surrender at 10 a.m. next day.Thereafter, this witness contacted Pathan, Police Officer from Wanowarie Police Station, and informed him that he was going to produce three boys before him on the next day at 10 a.m. Then Lakhan Singh, again, telephoned on 24th August, 1999, and asked him why he informed the police immediately.Lakhan Singh also alleged that the witness and the police had made a plan to kill him.After three days, the mother of Lakhan Singh, along with other female members of the family, their father and children, all came to his house.They pleaded apology for the threats given to him by Lakhan Singh, and they also told him that it was difficult for them to stay in Ramtekdi area because Mehetar Community persons were in search of them.They also requested to provide him one room as shelter for their residence.The parents of the accused also gave assurance that as and when the accused came back, they would be produced before the police through him.On the same day, he provided a room for the residence of the parents of the accused and female members of the family.Since then, they used to stay in that room.After 15 days, that house was raided by the Crime Branch Police on one night at about 3 a.m. All the family members found in the room were taken in police custody for the purpose of interrogation.On the next day at 3 p.m., accused Jalinder Singh contacted him on telephone and made inquiry about the incident that had happened on the previous night.The witness told him that all the family members of the accused were in police custody, and they were harassed, so that the Page 1611 accused should surrender.He asked them to accompany him to the police station to register their names who were going to stay in his house and disclose the period of their stay; but these persons refused and a quarrel ensued between the parents of the accused and the witness.Then, he asked them to vacate the house and they vacated the house.P.W. 17, Dr. Shal George Kakkattil, was a doctor in Sassoon Hospital.On 19th July, 1999, Sairam was admitted to hospital.The witness had brought the original case papers of Sairam to the Court.As per entries in the case papers, the patient was brought to CMO's chamber at 1.25 p.m. The entry in the case papers shows that the patient was brought to the hospital by relatives.The witness had examined the patient at 1.30 p.m. in CMO's room.Police Constable Sherekar gave alleged history of assault with sword at 1 p.m. near Ghorpadigaon.The patient left Sassoon Hospital on the very day at 4.30 p.m. After his admission, treatment was provided to him in Sassoon Hospital.P.W. 18, Mahesh Vitthal Salunkhe, is another eye witness.He stated that he was staying in Ghorpadigaon along with his parents and family members.His father owned a tempo and occasionally, he also used to drive it.His main business was selling vegetables.On 19th July, 1999, he left his house at about 10 to 10.30 a.m. and came to Kala Shankar Nagar by his tempo in search of customers.One Shekhar engaged his tempo for carrying turner job from Kala Shankar Nagar to Sasane Nagar.He fixed the charges at Rs. 60/-.Along with the said Shekhar, he went to the workshop of Girish to load the goods in his tempo.At 10.30 a.m., he left the workshop and started towards Sasane Nagar.After crossing Kalubai Mandir, he came up to Ramtekdi Bus Stop.Shekhar asked him to stop the tempo for two minutes.Page 1612 He took the tempo to the side of the road and stopped it.Then Shekhar told him that his friend Yogesh was waiting at the bus stop and Shekhar wanted to have a talk with him.Shekhar started towards Ramtekdi Bus Stop to meet Yogesh and the witness followed him.Shekhar had a talk with Yogesh for about 5 minutes.At that time he was standing at some distance from them.All of a sudden, Yogesh started running from the bus stop, giving call to his maternal uncle.At that time, two persons sitting on Kinetic Honda came there and in spite of call from Yogesh, went away towards the southern side.Yogesh also started running following that Kinetic Honda.He and Shekhar stood at the junction of Solapur Road and S.R.P. Road near a tea stall.Six to seven persons of Sikalkari Community, all of a sudden, came on S.R.P. Road from the lane to the side of Pappu Garage and restrained the persons on Kinetic Honda.Said persons started giving blows by sword to two persons who were on the Kinetic Honda.Both of them fell down on the ground from their Kinetic Honda.At that time, the surrounding shop owners closed the shutters of their shops.The pillion rider, who fell down, stood up and started running, though he was in an injured condition.When he started running, the assailants again gave blows by sword to him and those men fell down.When Yogesh tried to intervene in the assault requesting the assailants not to assault his maternal uncle, at that time, one assailant gave a blow by sword to Yogesh, but Yogesh raised his hand and the sword hit on the palm.Then Yogesh turned back and started running towards Ramwadi Bus Stop.Then, the witness and Shekhar got frightened and started towards the tempo.At that time, they noticed one lady coming from the southern side and she was requesting the assailants not to assault her brothers.Then, he and Shekhar in the tempo went towards Sasane Nagar.At Sasane Nagar, they unloaded the goods.While coming back, they noticed a crowd and the police at the place of the incident, but the injured were not there.They returned to their house.This witness was put to a long cross-examination, but nothing worthwhile to help the defence could be elicited from him.Discussing his cross-examination would not be necessary, in view of the fact that the trial Court has not believed him for two reasons: (1) that Shekhar, who was accompanying him and who had booked his tempo, was not examined either in the Court or by the Police; and Shekhar was kept back, therefore, this witness's presence at the place of occurrence becomes doubtful.(2) That the trial Court also found that even in the complaint lodged by the complainant, there was no mention about this witness along with Shekhar, though Yogesh, as a matter of fact, in his cross-examination, had stated that Shekhar and Mahesh were not known to him.P.W. 19, Aslam Ahmad Shaikh, is a property dealer, who stated that he had sold one flat to Jalinder Singh, for which advance had been paid, but final sale-deed had not been made, as the balance was not paid and Flat No. 6, of B Type, was yet not sold, since it had been kept for Jalinder Singh.P.W. 20, Hemlata Sukhdeorao Sherekar, was in-charge of Bhairoba Nala Police Chowky under the jurisdiction of Wanowarie Police Station.At 9.30 a.m. on 19th July, 1999, she had gone to Wanowarie Police Station, as D.C.P. was to visit the police station.Shri Jagannath also came to the Page 1613 police station.At 12.30 noon, P.S.O. received message on telephone from the Control Room that maramari was going on in Ramtekdi area, and, therefore, the staff should be sent to Ramtekdi.PSO gave information of that message to PI Irani.When this message was received by Irani, all police officers were together with DCP Jagannath.Immediately, PI Irani, she, PSIs Takawale and Pathan and other staff, by police van, proceeded to Ramtekdi.While they were proceeding towards Ramtekdi by SRP Road, they noticed one scooter lying in front of Pappu Garage.They stopped the van near the spot.They came out of the van and visited the spot and noticed blood spread on Kachha road.Scooter was also found lying there.One red colour cap was also found lying on the spot.At that time, no one was present at the spot.After their arrival on the spot, the crowd assembled there.PI Irani told her that injured Dashrath and Sairam had been shifted to Sassoon Hospital by their relatives.Therefore, she should visit Sassoon Hospital and should make arrangements of medical aid to them.On the said directions, she and P.C. Dhumal left the spot and went to Wanowarie Police Station.Then on her motor cycle, she and Dhumal went to Sassoon Hospital.She directly went to CMO's Office.Then, she, along with constable Dhumal, visited Ward No. 9 where Sairam was admitted.Dr. Shal disclosed to her that Sairam was admitted in same ward and treatment was going on.However, he asked her to issue a yadi for treatment to Sairam.In Ward No. 9, she prepared two yadies or letters of request addressed to the doctor for giving treatment, which were handed over to Dr. Shal.Exhibit 127 was the yadi issued by her for treatment to Sairam.In her presence, the doctor recorded history of assault as 'assault by swords at 1 p.m. near Gharpadigaon'.She did not give such a history before Dr. Shal.She also informed Dr. Shal that the patient was not brought by her nor she gave history of assault then how he had recorded such a history in the case papers.The doctor told her that by such entries there would be no problem.The doctor has issued certificate that Sairam was unconscious.On telephone, PI Irani ordered her to prepare inquest report of the dead body of Dashrath.She also informed him that a mob of about 50 relatives of Dashrath had assembled in the hospital and there is also a problem of law and order and Irani ordered her to prepare inquest and also look after the law and order problem.He also ordered her that if some one was present in the hospital and claimed to be eye witness, therefore, he should be sent to police station.After that, she went to the mortuary in Sassoon Hospital.She saw the dead body of Dashrath.Yogesh Pillai identified the dead body of Dashrath.At that time, Yogesh Pillay told her that Dashrath was assaulted by Didisingh Kalyani and his brother and in that incident Yogesh also sustained injury and he told her that he wanted to lodge the complaint of that incident.She advised him that he should first take treatment about Page 1614 the injury on his head and then he should go to Wanowarie Police Station and lodge information with PI Irani because she was busy in preparing the inquest and to maintain law and order.Then she prepared the inquest panchanama in between 2.15 and 3.15 p.m. Exhibit 82 shown to her is the inquest prepared by her and it bore her signature.Yogesh Pillai was with her up to 3.45 p.m. but she could not say when he went to the police station to lodge the complaint.Then she made a letter of request to the Dean, Sassoon Hospital, Pune, for collection of blood sample of Dashrath for the purpose of blood grouping.Then she gave dead body of Dashrath in the custody of P.C. Kulkarni.The body was sent for post mortem along with a form with a request to perform post mortem.Exhibit 45 was the relevant form.After post mortem, the doctor issued advance certificate about the cause of death of Dashrath.P.W. 21, Laxman S/o.Shankar Dhumal, was attached to Wanowarie Police station at the relevant time when P.I. Irani was the in-charge of the police station.This witness was a Writer Constable, and as such, it was his duty to do the work directed by the Police Inspector.On 19th July, 1999, the D.C.P. of the zone had visited the police station; and all officers in the police station attended the meeting.This meeting was held in the chamber of the Police Inspector.When the meeting was on, P.I. Irani came out of the chamber and asked me and P.S.I. Sherekar to sit in the van, as he wanted to go immediately to Ramtekdi, as maramari was going on in that area.Then, he, PSIs Pathan, Kulthe, Takawale and Sherekar sat in the government jeep along with Irani.By Solapur Highway, they came to Ramtekdi Bus Stop.The witness was asked to accompany PSI Sherekar.She told him that first they should go to the police station, and from there, they would proceed to the hospital by her vehicle.Then, he and the PSI went by rickshaw to Wanowarie Police Station.Then he and Sherekar, on her motor cycle, went to Sassoon Hospital.This witness then gave the details which had already been given by other witnesses, who were associated with the investigation.This witness was also put to a long cross-examination.P.W.22, Fakkadrao S/o.Vitthalrao Shinde, was also attached to the police station as an Assistant Writer Constable.He was absent on the day of occurrence, but he was called to the police station, and he accompanied Irani to Ramtekdi area.They were also convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and fine of Rs. 200/- each.They were also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 4 read with Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act Page 1598 and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- each.Accused No. 1 was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R. I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 200/-.Accused Nos. 2 to 7 were acquitted of the offence under Sections 324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.The substantive sentence were to run concurrently.The accused persons have filed the appeal being Appeal No. 655 of 2002 against conviction and sentence.Both the appeals are from the same judgment and order.Therefore, both the appeals are heard together and they are being disposed of together.As such, both the appeals, in so far as appellant Nos. 1 and 5 are concerned, stand abated.They restrained the motor cycle of Dashrath and accused asked themselves to start attack and kill them.Chandsingh hit a sword on the head of Dashrath.Because of the first blow, the Dashrath who was on the motor cycle of Sairam fell down Sairam also fell down.All the accused then started giving blows of swords on Dashrath.At the time of this attack, they were saying that they should not leave them alive but should kill them.They inflicted injuries by swords to Dashrath on head, face, neck and legs.The accused pleaded Page 1600 not guilty and claimed to be tried.The prosecution examined 24 witnesses.Out of these witnesses, P.W.2, 4, 5 and 18 were the main eye witnesses.The prosecution also tried to prove recovery at the disclosure of the accused persons but recovery was disbelieved by the Sessions Judge.There were blood stains on the vehicle.At the time of recording panchanama, it was raining.Cap was lying on the ground and was stained with blood.The police collected blood mixed with earth in one packet.The tooth found on the spot was seized.The cap as well as Kinetic vehicle were also seized by the police.They also gave threat to kill his uncle if he did not withdraw the case.On the same day, his uncle filed a complaint in Bhairoba Nala Police Chowky and on that complaint Chandsingh was arrested.Police recorded inquest panchanama.From S. R. P. Road one road, Andh Shala Road, was parallel to Solapur Road.His house was adjacent to one another road which starts from Andh Shala Road and runs towards right side.He stated that to the left of Andh Shala Road there was a locality known as Sikalkar Vasti where accused resided.All Sikalkaris follow Sikh religion and they grow their hair, beard but do not always carry sword with them.Bhangar shop of Satish Londhe was at the corner of Andh Shala and the road which leads towards his house.Satish Londhe was a Corporator of Pune corporation from that ward.Wanawadi Police Station was at a distance of about 1 and half kms.from Pappu Garage.The bus stop where the inhabitants were getting down from the bus was to the north of Solapur Road and the bus stop where he was waiting that day was opposite to the said bus stop.At Ramtekdi bus stop there was shed where he was waiting that day.There was one Saibaba Temple at the junction of S.R.P. Road and Andh Shala Road.There was rickshaw stand in front of Saibaba Temple on Andh Shala Road.Pappu Garage was not visible to a person standing from the rickshaw stand near Saibaba Temple.About 1 to 1 and 1/2 hour was spent for recording his complaint.P.I. Irani got recorded his complaint.When the recording of inquest panchanama was going on in Sassoon Hospital, he left the hospital and went to Wanawadi Police Station to report the matter to the police.He is Hindu by religion.On the next day of the incident at about 11.00 a.m. He took dead body of his maternal uncle after post mortem from police constable on passing receipt for it.That day he reached Sassoon Hospital carrying injured Sairam from the spot at about 1.00 p.m. When he approached the medical officer having requisition issued by police, the doctor made inquiry with him about the cause of injury.It did not happen that he disclosed to the doctor that he sustained injury at 2.30 p.m. by iron sheet.Then he was put a question whether the doctor Page 1603 had recorded the history as narrated by him and he stated that he had explained the cause of injury on his hand to the doctor who had examined him and he disclosed to the doctor that he sustained injury by a sword.He died that he had said to the doctor that he sustained injury on his hand by iron sheet at 2.30 p.m. In the year 1999, he had plan to go to abroad but not to a particular place.On the day of incident he was to meet an agent at Fatima Nagar in connection with visa.The agent was also acquainted to deceased Sairam.That day's visit was the first visit to the agent in connection with his visa.That day he had no talk with Dashrath or Sairam about the work for which they had gone to Pune City.He had talked with his uncle in the morning at his house on the day of occurrence.When they made plan to meet at Ramtekdi bus stop, there was nobody except he, Dashrath and Sairam.He was waiting for his uncle at the bus stop from 11.30 to 12.00 noon.Sairam had no blood relation with Dashrath but they were friend.He did not know Shekhar.He also did not know Mahesh Salunkhe.He denied that Pappu Garage or the site in front of it was not visible from Ramtekdi bus stop.He had stated at the time of recording his complaint that after Dashrath started by S.R.P. Road he followed him and witnessed the incident from a distance of 20 ft.He could not assign any reason why said fact was not recorded in his complaint, Exh.80, though he had said so to the police.Then there are some other omissions pointed out, like, that he was waiting under a shed because of rain which was not found in police statement.There were about 10 persons at the bus stop at the time of occurrence.He denied the suggestions that there was no plan for him to meet the deceased person at Ramtekdi Bus Stop.He denied that deceased was dealing in illicit liquor.He did not know that any case was pending against Dashrath.He also denied that Dashrath was a history sheeter.He denied that both the deceased persons were dealing with illicit liquor and were supplying illicit liquor in the area.He also denied that because of illicit liquor business of his uncle, he had occasionally quarrel with the Corporator Satish Londhe.Then he was cross-examined by different advocates appearing for different accused.But almost all the questions were repeated.11. P.W.3, Denis Deva Sabastin, was a panch witness to the seizure of banian and shirt given by P.W.2 Yogesh to the Police.P.W.4, Anjali Mical Sabastin, is another important witness.She resided at Ramtekdi.She has two sons Vishal and Ajay, who were both working in a factory known as Dina Filter Company.Her daughter Baneshri was staying at the house.From 1.30 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. she was sitting in front of the mortuary.Till then no police officer had come there for inquiry.A question was put to her whether she knew PSI Sherekar, to which she did not reply.Page 1605 She stated that she was at Ghorpadi for about 1 and 1/2 hour at the house of her sister and thereafter returned back to her own house.Vinesh did not accompany her to Ghorpad but he remained in Sassoon Hospital.On that day after 2.30 p.m. she did not meet Yogesh.At 7.00 p.m. on her own accord, she decided to produce blood stained clothes in the police station and therefore she left the house and went to the police station as it could be the significant evidence.The Pappu Garage is on the way to Wanawadi Police Station.She went to police station by auto rickshaw.Yogesh was not present in the police station when she visited to produce her clothes.She was in the Wanawadi Police Station from 7.30 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. In her further cross-examination, P.W.4, stated that Preeti Rojes is a lady Medical Officer in Charge of Preeti Nursing Home.Residence of the doctor was adjacent to the hospital.Doctor used to come to the hospital at about 10.00 a.m. She was attached to the hospital since 2/3 years.She had no document to show that she worked in Preeti Hospital.She denied that when police recorded her statement on 18th June, 1999 she disclosed that her occupation was household and as such the statement about her job was wrong.She stated that she did not stated any statement that was wrong.She denied that on the day of occurrence she was not working in Preeti Nursing Home.But she was a witness in the case.She knew the bhangar shop of Satish Londhe.She did not know that there was a riot involving 200 to 300 persons near Bhangar shop of Satish Londhe.She denied that at the time of said riot she was at her house.She also denied the suggestion that Sairam while running in injured condition came and fell in front of her house.She also denied that she had not seen the occurrence in which her brother Dashrath and Sairam sustained injuries.Her brother Dashrath was a turner but was not serving anywhere.Dashrath was staying at mother's house at Ghorpadi as well as in her house.He had no fixed routine to visit her house or the area.She denied that Dashrath was having fiat car and Yamaha motor cycle.Later, he denied that he had made any statement before the police.Parts of alleged statement before police were marked, but he denied having made statement to police.He also denied that the accused before the court were known to him.He denied that he had identified the accused before the police.P.W.7, Sagar Gulabsingh Pardeshi, Page 1606 is a witness to the disclosure.In the police station one Pilli Singh was sitting.He was not known to him before the incident and he told him that he had kept the weapon of assault, sword and the clothes in his house and he would produce them.Then they went in a police jeep along with the police persons and others to Ramtekdi bus stop.The accused Pillisingh asked to be taken to the left side.The jeep was taken on S.R.P. Road, then towards the left side from rickshaw stand and Pillisingh asked to stop vehicle in Chand Tara Chowk.To the rear side of that shed there was another shed of tin sheets.It was a room which was found latched.Pillisingh opened the door and then they all entered that room.There was one cot.The clothes were shirt and pants stained with blood.P.W.8, Anil Baburao Londhe, is again a witness to the disclosure statement made by another accused Jalindersingh.They accompanied the accused Jalindersingh to the place stated by him and one sword was recovered at his disclosure.P.W.9, Shankar Sheni Paul, is also a witness to the disclosure statement made by accused Takkusingh.The accused opened the shutters and they all entered the said house.There was one showcase from which accused took out a sword and also took out clothes from the lower side compartment.The clothes were blood stained.P.W.10, Khandu Hanumant Peth, was a witness to disclosure having been made by the accused Lakhansingh that he had kept sword and clothes in his house.They then accompanied with the said accused and police party and recovered the same.P.W.11, Vijay Zumbar More, was a witness to the disclosure having been made by the accused Jarlal Singh alias Chandsingh that he would produce weapon of assault and blood stained clothes which he had kept in the house of his distant brother-in-law.Then the witness accompanied him along with the police party and there one sword and clothes were taken out by the accused which were wrapped in separate paper wrapper.P.W.12, Shrikant Balasaheb Pawar, is also another witness to the disclosure statement made by Didisingh, who made a disclosure that Page 1607 he had kept the weapon of assault and clothes at the house of his son-in-law and he would produce the same.Then they accompanied him and sword and clothes were recovered.P.W.13, Dr. Prashant Narayan Patil, is a doctor, who was working as lecturer in Forensic Department of B. J. Medical College, Pune.He conducted post-mortem of the dead body of Dashrath, which was forwarded to him on 19th July, 1999, between 7.00 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. The injuries noticed by him are as under:1) Injury over face extending from medical end of left eye right eye completely destroying it, over an area of 12 x 6 x 7 cms.With crush effect but clean cut margin underlying bones (facial) fracture with clean cut margins.2) Two incised wounds margin with injury No. 1, first extending from right fragus 5 x 4 x 2 cms.Bone deep with clean cut margins.Second extending from a point 2 cm.Above and medial to right pina 6 x 1 cms.Bone deep.3) Incised wound over right check horizontal extending from point 2.5 cms.Below and anterior to right lobe of ear to right ala of nose 12 x 2 x 2 cms.Bone deep.4) Incised wound 1 cm.Below & parallel to injury No. 3,6 x 2 x 1 cm.5) Incised wound perpendicular to injury nos.3 and 4 extending from right ala of nose to right angle of mandible.6) Two incised wounds over chin & low lip, parallel and 1 cm.Apart 5 x 2 x 1 cms.And 4 x 2 x 1 cms.Bone deep with fracture of underlying bones with clean cut margins.7) Incise wound over left check, extending from a point 2 cm.Below and lateral to left eye to left angle of mandible 12 x 2 x 2 cms.8) Lacerated wound over left from parietal region 3 cm.above left eyebrow 6 x 5 x 2 cms.with com united fracture of underlying skull bones and laceration of brain.9) Lacerated wound lateral to left eye 4 x 3 x 1 cms.10) Lacerated wound over right front parietal region 4 x 3 x 05 cm.11) Two incised wounds over anterior aspect of neck parallel to each other, 8 x 4 x 1 cm.And 7 x 3 x 1 cm.12) Three stab wounds around right nipple over an area of 10 x 10 cms.Each measuring 5 x 2 cm.All opening into the chest cavity.13) Three stab wounds on right side of mid line of anterior abdominal wall one above the other each measuring 4.5 x 2 cms.On examination on the scull, scull bones walt and facial found fractured clean cut margin corresponding to the over lines incised wound.There was comm united fracture of both partial bones on examination of brain minings and brain were found lacerated and cub acnoid and sub rural haematoma was present.On the examination of thorax 3 stab bones corresponding overlying injuries opening into the chest cavity right 4th, 5th and 6th intercostal spaces were found.50 c.c. of blood was noted in thoracic cavity.Two stab wounds were present, 1 lower lobe of right lung of dimension 2 x 3 cm.To and through and second one over middle lobe of 2 x 1 cm.On examination of abdomen 40 c.c.Of blood was present in abdominal cavity.Stab wound along greater curvature of stomach of size 2 x 1 cm.On examination of liver 3 stab wounds over right lobe of 4 x 2 x 5 cms.3 x 2 x 4 cms.and 3 x 2 x 4 cms.and one towards middle lobe of 2 x 1 x 4 cms.were noticed.On examination of a spleen one stab wound to and through of size 2 x 1 x 3 cms. was noted.Stomach contained 50 c.c.Of yellowish semi digested food.According to the doctor, the cause of death was heamorrahagic shock following multiple incised and stab wounds.According to him the injuries 1 to 11 were the injuries over the face and head.Injury No. 12 was external injury.Injury Nos. 8, 9, 10, 15 and 16 were the lacerated wounds and were possible by the blunt edge of the sword.In this case weapons allegedly used for committing the offence was not shown to him for his opinion.He also stated in his cross examination that it was not correct to suggest that injury No. 1 was a typical lacerated wound.He added that no injury in the present case was a lacerated wound but was appearing like an incised wound.He agreed that injury stab wounds were not possible by lateral strokes of weapon like sword.Injury Nos. 12 to 14 were the stab wounds with one clear cut and one blunt abraded margins and therefore the said injuries were not possible by weapon having both edges sharp.It was not possible to give depth of the stab wounds described at serial No. 12 because it caused internal injury over the lungs which were through and through.Minimum depth of the said injury, considering the damage to the internal organ was 6 to 7 cms.Injury 13 and 14 being on the abdomen, as such it was not possible to give the depth or the penetration of the weapon inside which could have caused these injuries.The wounds had been sutured in Sassoon Hospital itself.However, the dimensions on the surface were confirmed as per the notes in the case papers.He also submitted that the injuries he had recorded on C.T. Scan would themselves be the cause of death of a patient.The nature of the injuries he had recorded was such that these injuries could have been caused by a weapon like sword.P.W. 15, Dr. Rajendra Shivaji Bangal, is, again, doctor.On 20th July, 1999, the dead body of Sairam Pillay was sent to him for post mortem by Wanowarie Police Station.He received it at 11.25 a.m. and conducted the post mortem between 11.45 a.m. and 12.30 p.m. He noticed the following external injuries:A stitched wound over right side of head 13 cm long starting from right front temporal region extending backwards over right temporal occipital region with upward convexity.Stitched wound 6 cm long horizontal over left occipital region.Horizontal superficial incised wound over back of right shoulder 12 cm long.a horizontal superficial incised wound over right stapular region 3 cm long and with lateral tailing of 3 cm.Abrasion 2 x 1 cm over knuckle of left index finger.Abrasion 4 x 3 cm over dorsal of base of left thumb.All injuries were anti-mortem in nature.He noticed the following internal injuries:Below scalp haematoma all over right half of the vault and occipital region.Right remporasic muscle contused.A clean out fracture of right parietal temporal bone of vault of skull 8 cm long placed antiroposterially corresponding to external injury No. 1 cavity deep.Corresponding underlining mininges torn and brain lacerated.Subdoral haematoma all over the right cerebral hemisphere.Contusion of supero lateral aspect of right cerebral hemisphere 6 x 2 cm in size.When the body was referred for post mortem, he received the inquest report.Alleged weapons of assault were never referred to him by the investigating agency for his opinion.External injuries No. 6 and 7 were impossible by sharp-edged weapon.Injury No. 2, by itself, was a simple injury.External appearance of injury No. 1 was like an arch.He recorded the same as disclosed by the police constable.The police constable also gave written requisition for examination and treatment of the patient, and in the said requisition, alleged history of assault was also given.When he examined the patient, he was unconscious.His general condition was poor.The witness examined him and found following injuries:Incised wound 10 cm long over right parietal region with fracture of outer table skull palpable through it.Incised wound 5 cm long over occipital area with fracture of outer table skull, palpable through it.Incised wound 1 cm long over right side of back.Dr. Shal immediately issued a certificate stating that injured Sairam, who was admitted in Ward No. 9, was unconscious.Then she came out of Ward No. 9 and came to CMO's Office.Exhibit 46 was the certificate.They noticed one Kinetic Honda Scooter in front of Pappu Garage on S.R.P. Road.One red colour cap was lying near the scooter.They stopped near the spot and came out of the jeep.They noticed a pool of blood.Many citizens came towards them.Irani made inquiries.Irani told Mrs. Sherekar that two persons have been assaulted by swords and they have been shifted to Sassoon Hospital by relatives and she should proceed to that hospital.P.W. 23, Ankush Deorao Patil, is another Police Constable attached to the police station, who also accompanied the Police Inspector.P.W. 24, Dinkar S/o.Nivrutti Pawar, was the Police Inspector attached to Wanowarie Police Station.When he took up the investigation of the case, he found that charge-sheet had been filed against 6 accused persons and one of the accused by name Jalinder Singh was absconding.The case had been committed to the Sessions Judge and was pending before the Additional Sessions Judge.Subsequently, an application was made on 13th April, 2000 before the Court with a request to grant permission for further investigation.Before this crime, many other cases were found registered against the accused persons.On that basis, he formed an opinion that the said offences had been committed by these accused collectively, and they were the members of an organised syndicate.Against these accused, chapter proceedings were also started.Head Constable Mr. Shinde was deputed to bring the accused from Kalyan under transfer warrant issued by Cantonment Court.The witness admitted the relevant documents.The main contention of the learned senior counsel for the defence is that the Court should not have relied on the testimonies of P.Ws. 2 and 4; and if their testimonies are disbelieved, then, the conviction could not be upheld.The learned senior counsel submits that P.W. 2 is the nephew of deceased Dashrath and P.W. 4 is the sister of deceased Dashrath.The testimony of these witnesses cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that they were related to one of the deceased, particularly when their testimony stood the scrutiny of cross-examination and was corroborated by other evidence.Although the learned senior counsel pointed out certain discrepancies in their evidence and contradictions inter se, but we have found that the discrepancies or contradictions pointed out are natural.The injury suffered by P.W. 2 was, according to him, a result of an injury while he was trying to save one of the deceased, but the learned senior counsel submits that Injury Certificate, Exhibit 41, shows the history given to the doctor, in which it is stated that the injury had been caused by an iron-sheet.On the basis of this discrepancy, we do not think the testimony of P.W. 2, who was the most natural witness, would be disbelieved.It is not sure whether the history given to the doctor was by P.W. 2 or by somebody else, and one can also imagine the state of mind of this witness at that time.He had seen the killings with his own eyes.He had got injury himself, and he might not have been able to make a differentiation between a sword and an iron-sheet at that point of time.It may be pointed out that this Page 1616 witness had stated that he wanted to get a visa.Therefore, he had to meet one of the deceased.He was going to get the visa, but he did not point out as to which country he intended to visit.This hardly can be a reason to disbelieve the testimony of this witness.It is also submitted that P.W. 4 contradicted the testimony of P.W. 2, as she denied that he reached the spot.When she was at the spot, P.W. 2 arrived, and it is submitted that if this witness was believed, then P.W. 2 could not be believed that he was an eye witness to the incident.We have noted down the testimony of P.Ws. 2 and 4 in detail.It appears that P.W. 4 reached the place of occurrence almost immediately when the incident took place and P.W. 2 was already there.Maybe, P.W. 4 saw P.W. 2 after some time, as there was a melee.Another important witness was P.W. 18, but he was disbelieved by the trial Court for reasons which we have mentioned hereinabove.The doctors, who conducted the post mortem, have given the long list of the injuries sustained by the deceased persons.Most of the injuries are incised wounds, and one of the deceased had most of the injuries on his head or neck, which suggest that the only aim and purpose of the accused persons was to commit a murder.Another corroborative piece of evidence was that there was animosity between the accused and the deceased, as a case had been filed by the deceased against the accused, and the accused were pressing him to withdraw it.The other defence, which was sought to be put forth by the learned senior counsel appearing for the accused persons was that there was a riot in the Ramtekdi area, during which, perhaps, the deceased got killed.In this case, he relied on evidence of the Investigating Officer and police officers accompanying him.He also relied on a Station Diary entry and Log Book entry of wireless.This entry shows, "today evening at about 12.20 to 12.30 p.m. I came to know that my brother Dashrath was attacked by means of sword.On learning about it, I immediately went running towards the Tadi Gutta near Ramtekdi bus stop and I found that my brother was lying in a pool of blood opposite Pappu Garage." It is proved that the Investigating Officer and the police constable have stated that there was a meting in the police station when information was received that there was a maramari in Ramtekdi area.So far as the evidence is concerned, it further corroborates the case of the prosecution that there was maramari and 7 people had attacked two people with swords.Therefore, we have no doubt in our mind that an 'unlawful assembly' under the Indian Penal Code had been constituted by the accused persons, and they attacked with several swords the deceased persons, which resulted in their deaths.For the above reasons, we do not find merit in Criminal Appeal No. 655 of 2002 filed by the accused persons, which is accordingly dismissed.We have discussed the evidence of material witnesses in detail, and we do not find that there was any evidence to connect the accused with other offences for which they were charged and for which they were acquitted by the trial Court.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
184,247,481 |
The genesis of the case is Daily Diary (DD) entry No. 30A (mark X) recorded at the Police Station (PS) Shahdara at the behest of Babita, the sister of the prosecutrix L (PW-2) on 21st October 2005 to Crl.A. Nos. 1124 of 2010 & 71 of 2012 Page 2 of 18 the effect that PW-2 had gone missing since 10th October 2005 from her house at Naveen Shahdara, Delhi.The said DD was marked to Sub-Inspector (SI) Dinesh Kumar for investigation.It appears that no FIR was immediately registered.Subsequently, on 29th October 2005, Kaluat Ram (PW-3) the father of PW-2 got a complaint registered and on that basis FIR No. 524 of 2005 was registered.According to Ramesh Kumar (PW-11) on 11th November 2005 he received a telephonic message from PW-2 from Agra stating that she was present there in a critical stage.According to PW-11 he proceeded to Agra in a private vehicle with 8-10 persons of the locality.They searched for PW-2 in Agra throughout the day.PW-11 claimed that PW-2 was found behind Taj Mahal surrounded by 8-10 boys, who on noticing PW-11 and the others, ran away leaving PW-2 behind.They brought back PW-2 to Delhi and took her straightway to PS Shahdara.Crl. A. Nos. 1124 of 2010 & 71 of 2012 Page 2 of 18According to PW- 1, PW-2 had informed her parents that she had been kidnapped by Banti (A-1), Alia, Ajay (A-2), Umar Daraj, Reshma, Salma and Crl.A. Nos. 1124 of 2010 & 71 of 2012 Page 3 of 18 Kayyum.In her statement to the police under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr PC) recorded on 11th November 2005, PW-2 stated that on 7th October 2005 while she was returning home after buying vegetables, she was intercepted by five boys viz., Banti (A-1), Vikas, Ajay (A-2), Umar Daraj and Alia who took her to a godown.They had her confined there.According to PW-2, the godown keeper called the police but no one came for help.Meanwhile, A-1 took her forcibly from there and others also caught hold of her.She was forced to inhale something intoxicating after which she fell unconscious.When she became conscious, PW-2 found herself in Firozabad.She noticed that A-1, A-2 and Vikas had left.Only Umar Daraj and Alia remained there.She alleged that Umar Daraj and Alia subjected to rape her continuously thereafter for several days.On one occasion she was able to call her family and tell them that she was in Agra in dire states.PW-2 was then rescued by them and brought back to Delhi.Crl. A. Nos. 1124 of 2010 & 71 of 2012 Page 3 of 18PW-2 was medically examined in Guru Teg Bahadur (GTB) Hospital.The history Crl.A. Nos. 1124 of 2010 & 71 of 2012 Page 4 of 18 of the case was recorded therein as: "being kidnapped by 5 people on 7th October 2005 at 4.30 pm, from Shahadra near Raju Cinema.H/O rape by 2 people (Ali and Vardraj) daily since then".Her age has been shown as 15 years in the MLC.The MLC was prepared by Dr. Rajni Gill (PW-9).PW-9 confirmed that the hymen was found ruptured and the pregnancy test was found negative.Ultra sound, HIV and VDRL were advised.Her statement (Ex.In the said statement she more or less stuck to the version given by her to the police on 11th November 2005, stating that five boys had forcibly abducted her and taken her to a godown.Even while the godown keeper dialled the police and their arrival was awaited, A-1 Banti forcibly took PW-2 away from there and took her to a place where the Crl. A. Nos. 1124 of 2010 & 71 of 2012 Page 5 of 18 other four boys were present.They all started misbehaving with her.Her face was covered with the cloth with something intoxicating and she became unconscious.PW-2 stated that when she regained consciousness she found that A-1, A-2 and Vikas had already left that place and only Varadaraj and Alia remained.PW-2 reiterated that Alia and Varadaraj then repeatedly subjected to rape her for several days thereafter till she was rescued by her family.Crl. A. Nos. 1124 of 2010 & 71 of 2012 Page 5 of 18Learned APP informs that non-bailable warrants were issued in respect of both the said accused.A-2 obtained anticipatory bail and surrendered to the police.A-1 was arrested at his residence.As regards the remaining persons who were named by PW-2, the police was unable to trace them and they were declared proclaimed offenders (PO).The prosecution examined eleven witnesses.Both the accused denied the evidence in their statements under Section 313 Cr PC and claimed to have been falsely implicated.She stuck to her version under Sections 161 and 164 Cr PC as far as the present Appellants i.e. A-1 and A-2 were concerned.In other words, she stated that A-1 and A-2 were involved upto the stage of abduction and taking her to Firozabad and when she regained consciousness A-1 and A-2 and Vikas had fled the spot.However, she stated that A-1 and A-2 did not commit rape upon her but had sold her to Vardraj and Alia who repeatedly subjected her to rape.The record of the proceedings of that day shows that PW-2 was then discharged.Her jija (brother-in-law), uncle and aunt then took her back from Agra.With the permission of the Court he proceeded to cross-examine her.She now stated that she had Crl.A. Nos. 1124 of 2010 & 71 of 2012 Page 8 of 18 named the two Appellants in her examination-in-chief recorded on 12th March 2010 "on the asking of police as they terrorized me that if I will not make such statement I will be put behind bars".She denied telling the MM that she was making the statement without any fear and pressure and on her own free will.She maintained "It is wrong to suggest that accused persons Ajay and Banti today present in court are involved in the incident of kidnapping".Crl. A. Nos. 1124 of 2010 & 71 of 2012 Page 8 of 18Although Kaluat Ram (PW-3) the father of PW-2 was examined briefly on 12th March 2010, he was unable to be brought before the Court for his further examination-in-chief or cross-examination.The godown keeper Sandeep Khurana (PW-6) also turned hostile.He stated in his examination-in-chief on 12th May 2010 that he noticed 3-4 boys and one girl concealing themselves behind the door of the godown.PW-6 further stated that after the boys ran away and the girl remained there he asked her why she had come here and she informed Crl.A. Nos. 1124 of 2010 & 71 of 2012 Page 9 of 18 PW-6 that those boys were teasing her.After saying that she was residing in the same locality she also left the godown.He resiled from his previous statement to the police.Crl. A. Nos. 1124 of 2010 & 71 of 2012 Page 9 of 18PW-11, the uncle of PW-2 stated that after rescuing PW-2 from Agra they took her to PS Shahdara.Thereafter he along with PW-2 and his maternal aunt and some police officials of PS Shahdara went to Firozabad in a private vehicle.The police raided the premises of the boys involved in the incident but they ran away from the house.He claimed that the mother and sister of one of the boys met them and they took the police party to Sabzi Mandi.The brother-in-law of one of the boys was apprehended there who then took the police team to a hotel.Thereafter one boy Taj was apprehended from Firozabad and brought to Agra.Though the police stated to have recorded the statement of the shop owner, incidentally there is no record of movement of police with PW-11 from Firozabad to Agra to apprehend the accused.The statement of the owner of the STD shop from where PW-2 made the call is not on record.Criminal Appeal (Crl. A.) No. 1124 of 2010 is by Ajay Kumar Crl.A. Nos. 1124 of 2010 & 71 of 2012 Page 1 of 18 (Appellant No.1) (Accused No.2) and Banti (Appellant No.2) (Accused No.1) against the judgment dated 28th July 2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in SC No.139 of 2007 convicting both the Appellants for the offences under Sections 323/341 and 363/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the order on sentence dated 4th August 2010 sentencing them to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment (RI) and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each and in default to undergo three months further RI for the offence under Section 363/34 IPC; to undergo RI for nine months for the offence under Section 323/34 IPC and to undergo one months RI for the offence under Section 341/34 IPC.All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.Crl. A. Nos. 1124 of 2010 & 71 of 2012 Page 1 of 18The State has filed Crl.A. No.71 of 2012 against the same judgment of the trial Court in so far as the two accused have been acquitted of the offences under Sections 366/328/368 IPC.It appears that the bone test of PW-2 was also got conducted by Dr. A. Tandon who issued a report dated 16th November 2005 stating "bone age is above 20 years" as on that date.Crl. A. Nos. 1124 of 2010 & 71 of 2012 Page 4 of 18On 21st November 2005 an application was filed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) for recording of the statement of PW-2 under Section 164 Cr PC.Only A-1 and A-2 were sent up for trial.By order dated 21st August 2007 charges were framed against both the accused under Sections 363/366/34 IPC, 323/341/34 IPC and 328/368/34 IPC.A. Nos. 1124 of 2010 & 71 of 2012 Page 6 of 18Crl. A. Nos. 1124 of 2010 & 71 of 2012 Page 6 of 18The examination-in-chief of her father Kaluat Ram was deferred at the request of learned APP since his statement to the police under Section 161 Cr PC could not be traced.However, on the next date it appears that Kaluat Ram was Crl.A. Nos. 1124 of 2010 & 71 of 2012 Page 7 of 18 not present.For the next few dates the other prosecution witnesses were examined.On 17th May 2010 an application was filed by counsel for the accused under Section 311 Cr PC for recalling both PWs 1 and 2 and the said application was allowed.Crl. A. Nos. 1124 of 2010 & 71 of 2012 Page 7 of 18In her cross-examination on 21st May 2010 PW-2 stated that she left studies about 15 years ago."My marriage took place about 4/5 years ago.I am having two children".She recollected that when she regained consciousness in Firozabad, Uttar Pradesh she found two ladies and four male persons inside the room.She could not name any of them.She stated that she remained confined in the room for 10-12 days.She was then taken to Agra.She was unable to name the police official who terrorized her because he was not wearing any police uniform.She also claimed to having made the statement before the learned MM at the time of recording her statement under Section 164 Cr PC at the behest of the police.Though the police Crl.A. Nos. 1124 of 2010 & 71 of 2012 Page 10 of 18 was stated to have recorded the statement of an employee of the hotel where PW-2 was purportedly raped, that statement is also not on record.According to PW-11, Taj was released by the police at Agra itself.The mother and sister of one of the boys stated to be taken into custody in Firozabad were also released by the police.He stated that the accused present in Court i.e. A-1 and A-2 were not the boys that were apprehended by the police.Crl. A. Nos. 1124 of 2010 & 71 of 2012 Page 10 of 18Although PW-2 did not support the prosecution in her cross- examination the trial Court proceeded to convict the Appellants for the offence under Sections 323/34, 341/34 and 363/34 IPC.The trial Court in its impugned order referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari v. State of M.P., AIR 1991 SC 1853 to hold that since PW-2 has turned hostile after a gap of more than two months after her examination-in-chief, her version in the examination-in-chief could be relied upon to convict the Appellants.It was apparent that PW-2 had been won over by the accused persons whereas her version before the police under Section 161 and before the learned MM under Section 164 Cr PC was consistent.The trial Court also referred to her statement under Section 164 Cr PC to Crl.A. Nos. 1124 of 2010 & 71 of 2012 Page 11 of 18 conclude that she was in fact 15 years of age on the date of incident.When she gave her statement in Court on 12th March 2010, she stated that she was 20 years old, therefore, she was 15 years at the time of the incident.However, the trial Court found that the prosecution had not proved that PW-2 had been made to inhale any intoxicating substance and therefore the offence under Sections 366/328/368/34 IPC was not attracted.The trial Court sentenced the Appellants in the manner indicated hereinabove.Crl. A. Nos. 1124 of 2010 & 71 of 2012 Page 11 of 18This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. Mohammad Faraz and Mr. Rakesh Dudeja, learned counsel for the Appellants and Mr. Rajat Katyal, learned APP for the State.The evidence of PW-2 is relied upon heavily by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the two Appellants before the Court.Her statements before the police and the learned MM have been examined carefully by the Court with the help of learned counsel for the parties.The fact that she turned hostile in her cross-examination makes it all the more necessary for her evidence to be scrutinized carefully to ascertain as to whether she was a truthful and reliable witness.Crl. A. Nos. 1124 of 2010 & 71 of 2012 Page 12 of 18Crl. A. Nos. 1124 of 2010 & 71 of 2012 Page 12 of 18As regards the date of the incident there itself appears to be inconsistency.In her statements to the police under Section 161 Cr PC and before the learned MM under Section 164 Cr PC, PW-2 stated that she had been abducted on 7th October 2005 while she was returning home after buying vegetables.However, the first DD entry recorded by the police at the instance of PW-2's sister Babita was that she went missing on 10th October 2005 at around 4 pm.Even thereafter no steps were taken for eight more days.The FIR registered on the basis of the said complaint again.This anomaly has not been explained by the prosecution.On the aspect of her age the evidence on record does not conclusively prove that PW-2 was 15 years of age at the time of her abduction.In her evidence recorded in the Court and her examination- in-chief on 12th March 2010 she stated that at the time of the incident that occurred five years earlier she was 15 years old.On 21st May Crl. A. Nos. 1124 of 2010 & 71 of 2012 Page 13 of 18 2010 she stated that she had left studies about 15 years ago and her marriage took place about 4-5 years ago and that she had two children.As already noticed, the bone test of PW-2 conducted by doctor A. Tandon (who incidentally was not examined) placed her age as on 16th November 2005 to be 20 years.Crl. A. Nos. 1124 of 2010 & 71 of 2012 Page 13 of 18All the above factors show that there is a considerable doubt whether PW-2 was in fact 15 years on the date of the incident.In order to prove the municipal records Rakesh Saxena (PW-10) record clerk from the office of Sub-Registrar (Birth and Death), MCD was examined.He, however, brought the wrong record relating to birth of a male child.Consequently, the prosecution was unable to conclusively prove that PW-2 was minor on the date of the incident.Nonetheless, the trial Court appears to have gone by the deposition of PW-2 herself in this regard overlooking the bone test conducted by doctor A. Tandon and the other inconsistencies in her own statements which put serious question marks as to whether she was minor on the date of the incident.That the prosecutrix Crl. A. Nos. 1124 of 2010 & 71 of 2012 Page 14 of 18 was minor on the date of the incident has not been conclusively proved by the prosecution and therefore the guilt of the Appellants for the offence under Section 363 IPC cannot be held to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.Crl. A. Nos. 1124 of 2010 & 71 of 2012 Page 14 of 18One more factor which raises doubts about the veracity of the evidence of PW-2 is the application made to the learned MM by the IO for recording the statement of PW-2 under Section 164 Cr PC.It is a one-page hand written application which states that in her statement to the police PW-2 had stated that she had been taken away by one Varadaraj and repeatedly raped by him at several places in Delhi and thereafter at Firozabad.If PW-2 had disclosed the name of all the boys, why this was not mentioned is not clear.In fact the MLC notes that PW-2 named the two boys who raped her.Yet this application only mentions one of those boys, Varadaraj.It may also be observed that the name of Varadaraj itself figured for the first time in the statement of PW-2 under Section 164 Cr PC whereas in her statement to the police under Section 161 Cr PC she gives the names of other accused Umar Daraj.In her cross- examination, as already noticed, she completely resiled from the above position and repeatedly stated that the two Appellants had not been involved in her abduction.If indeed NBWs were issued it is very unlikely that both the Appellants would be arrested more than one month and four months later respectively from the same area where PW-2 lives.Crl. A. Nos. 1124 of 2010 & 71 of 2012 Page 15 of 18He states that they found her with 8-10 boys behind Taj Mahal in Agra and they rescued her and brought her back to Delhi.When they went back again with the police to Firozabad and Agra the police is stated to have recorded the statement of the owner of the shop where the STD facility was available and from where PW- Crl. A. Nos. 1124 of 2010 & 71 of 2012 Page 16 of 18 2 was supposed to have made a call.The said statement is not on record.Towards the end of the impugned judgment, the trial Court directed the DCP to look into the matter and regulate the investigation process to prevent such lapses.Action was also initiated against PW-10 for bringing an irrelevant record to the Court.The trial Court record along with a certified copy of this order be sent to the trial Court forthwith.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
18,425,080 |
(Passed on this 4th day of September, 2019) This petition seeks to invoke the jurisdiction available to this Court under Section 482 of the Crimi- nal Procedure Code, 1973 for quashment of First Infor- mation Report dated 23.08.2014 (Annexure A/1) regis- tered as Crime No.298/2014 at Police Station Rauji Bazar, Indore District Indore (MP) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; and for quash- ment of criminal proceedings arising out of the afore- said FIR.Briefly stated, facts of the case are that peti- tioner No.1 is the son of Chironjilal @ Chhotelal Verma (who died on 15.03.2017) and petitioner No.2 is the wife of petitioner No.1 (Vinod Verma).They left behind them a daughter Ku.Priya @ Nishtha, who was taken in adoption by order dated 03.08.2005 passed in Guardian Case No.53/2005 by the Family Court, Indore.After the death of Jagdish Verma and Unman Verma, their father Chironjilal @ Chhotelal Verma was appointed as the guardian of Ku.Priya @ Nishtha by an order dated 06.11.2009 (Annexure A/2) passed in Guardian Case No.48/2007 by 3 rd Additional Sessions Judge, Indore (MP); the Court also directed that the property devolved upon Ku.Priya @ Nishtha on account of death of her parents (Jagdish Verma s/o Chironjilal @ Chhotelal Verma and Unman Verma w/o Jagdish Verma) will not be alienated in any manner, unless permission is taken from the Court.However, on the strength of forged 'will', the present petitioners and Chironjilal @ Chhotelal Verma tried to get the property of deceased Jagdish Verma and Unman Ver- ma mutated in their names.When the complainant (respondent No.2) came to know about this forged 'will' executed by Jagdish Verma in respect of the prop- erties of her deceased brother, she contacted the 3 present petitioners and his father.They supplied a copy of forged 'will' to the complainant and also threat- ened her.Thereafter, the complainant got the photo- copy of the 'will' verified by Ms. Yogita Singh, a Hand- writing Expert; and it was opined by the Handwriting Expert that the photocopy of the 'will' contained forged signatures of deceased Jagdish Verma.On the basis of the complaint, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore, by exercising powers conferred on him under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, initiated proceedings against the petitioners and other persons; and directed the Station House Officer, Police Station Raoji Bazar, Indore (MP) to register FIR against the present petitioners and other persons.On the basis of order dated 28.07.2014 (Annexure A/4) passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore in Criminal Case No.0/2014 (17547/2015), the Police reg- istered the aforesaid FIR for commission of offence punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the accused per- sons.3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has sub- mitted that it is alleged that deceased Jagdish Verma vide his 'will' dated 09.01.2006 has given away the property in favour of the petitioners.It is further al- leged that on the basis of a forged document, the peti- tioners tried to get their name mutated in the revenue 4 records.The said allegation is made on the basis of re- port of the Handwriting Expert, whereas it is quite clear that the Handwriting Expert had examined only photocopy of the document and no original document has been examined, still the learned Magistrate direct- ed for registration of the FIR against the petitioners and other persons on the basis of the report of Hand- writing Expert, which is not even admissible in evi- dence.It is further submitted that FIR lodged on the basis of complaint of Rama Singh (respondent No.2) is bad in law, as the learned Magistrate has also regis- tered the private complaint filed by Sumit s/o Suresh Mourya and even the private complaint filed by Gaurav s/o Mahesh Kumar Verma has been dismissed by the learned Magistrate.It is also submitted that all these complaints are on identical allegations, further more, Rama Singh (respondent No.2) in Civil Suit of Ku.Nishta filed written statement and the averments made therein clearly go to establish that the FIR has been lodged on false allegations.Hence, the same deserves to be quashed by this Court.Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioners prays for allowing the present petition.Learned counsel for respondent No.2 filed reply to the petition filed by the petitioners under Sec- tion 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and in paragraph No.6 of her reply, she admitted that Chi- ronjilal @ Chhotelal Verma filed an application before the Tehsildar for mutation of the name of Ku.Nishtha daughter of Jagdish Verma in revenue record; and Tehsildar passed order dated 24.09.2016 in Case No.13-B/121/2015-16, directing for mutation of the name of Kumari Nishtha in the revenue record with Chironjilal @ Chhotelal Verma, being her guardian.Then order dated 28.12.2017 was assailed on behalf of Kumari Nishtha before the Additional Commissioner, Indore in Revenue Second Appeal No.496/2017-18, 6 which is allowed by the Additional Commissioner, In- dore and directed to record the name of Kumari Nishtha in revenue record.A civil suit was also filed on behalf of Kumari Nishtha before the 10th Civil Judge, Class-II, Indore in which respondent No.2 / complainant submitted her written statement; and ad- mitted claim of Kumari Nishtha, because name of Ku- mari Nishtha has been recorded in revenue record.It is also submitted that in these changed circumstances, respondent No.2 does not want to proceed further with the FIR bearing Crime No.298/2014 registered at Po- lice Station Raoji Bazar, Indore; and she has compro- mised with the petitioners and filed her affidavit before respondent No.1 - Police Station Raoji Bazar, Indore.It is also submitted that respondent No.2 filed com- plaint with wrong impression and under the influence of Mahesh Verma; and now, respondent No.2 has come to know their intention, that the petitioners are well wishers of Kumari Nishtha and they are doing well in favour of Kumari Nishtha.Therefore, respondent No.2 has no objection in allowing the petition submit- ted by the present petitioners.From perusal of the reply filed on behalf of respondent No.2 Rama Singh, it is clear that both the parties have already settled their dispute and entered into a compromise.The land in question has already been mutated in the name of Kumari Nishtha daughter 7 of Jagdish Verma s/o Late Chironjilal @ Chhotelal Verma and Unman Verma w/o Jagdish Verma.There- fore, complainant / respondent No.2 does not want to prosecute the present petitioners for commission of of- fence punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered as Crime No.298/2014 at Police Station Rauji Bazar, In- dore District Indore (MP).Though offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 are not compoundable in nature, however, in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another reported in 2012 Criminal Law Journal 4934 = (2012) 10 SCC 303 and in the case of Narindra Singh v. State of Punjab & another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the law that even in non-compoundable cases, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the par- ties, FIR and consequential criminal proceedings can be quashed, so that valuable time of the Court can be saved and utilized in other material cases.Consequent upon the aforesaid above stated facts, now respondent No.2 / complainant has no grievance against the present petitioners and she does not want to prosecute the petitioners.Ac- cordingly, FIR dated 23.08.2014 (Annexure A/1) regis- tered against the present petitioners as Crime No.298/2014 at Police Station Rauji Bazar, Indore Dis- trict Indore (MP) for commission of offence punish- able under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the In- dian Penal Code, 1860 as well as the consequential criminal proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR stand quashed.A copy of this order be send to the concerned Court.Consequently, Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.17279/2019 stands disposed of.
|
['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
184,253,150 |
Kishore, Munnalal alias Chhote Munna and Munnalal alias Harsh Kumar alias Bade Munna of the offences punishable under Sections 302 in alternative 302/34 and 201 in alternative 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC').As per the prosecution story, during the period 31/12/01 to 2/1/02, respondents along with other accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, committed the murder of Preetam, and in order to cause disappearance of the corresponding evidence, concealed his dead body in the hills of Karitoran and burned his clothes.To bring home the charges, prosecution examined as many as 21 witnesses.Except Kurra (PW1), not a single witness has narrated any incriminating fact against the respondents.Statement of Kurra, under Section 161 of the Code, was recorded after 20 days of the incident.Janki (PW12) was examined to prove that respondents had confessed before him, but he was also not believed by the trial Court as it was admitted by him that he had not disclosed the same to anyone.Manohar (PW2), another so-called witness of extra-judicial confession, was also disbelieved on the ground that confession as to murder was not reflected from his testimony and he had only deposed that respondent no.1 had told him that he had assaulted one Dheemar.That apart, there is corresponding omission in their respective police statements and their evidence was also found fraught with material contradictions, omissions and exaggerations.
|
['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
184,256,069 |
The remaining offences are bailable.mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:150%"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Bitstream Vera Serif""><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Shri Sujat Ali, Advocate for the objector.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:150%"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Bitstream Vera Serif""><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Heard the learned counsel for the parties.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:150%"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Bitstream Vera Serif""><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.110/2014 registered at Police Station Brujpur District Panna for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 327, 506-B/34 of IPC.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:150%"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Bitstream Vera Serif""><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality, who has no criminal past as such.Actually a quarrel took place after road accident.However to make the grave case some ingredients of Section 327 of IPC were mentioned in the FIR.In the FIR it is alleged that the applicant assaulted the victim by a shoe for 35-40 times but no visible injury was found to the victim by the doctor.Only slight tenderness was found in the portion of his head.Under such circumstances, no offence under Section 327 of IPC is made out against the applicant.At the most offence under Section 323 of IPC may constitute, which is bailable.The police is unnecessarily harassing the applicant.Under these circumstances, he prays for bail of anticipatory nature.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:150%"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Bitstream Vera Serif""><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:150%"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Bitstream Vera Serif""><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Learned counsel for the objector also opposes the application.He submits that the applicant has a criminal past and he assaulted the victim for demand of Rs.5000/- to arrange non-veg party, and therefore he may not be enlarged on bail.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal";mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;mso-style-noshow:yes;mso-style-priority:99;mso-style-qformat:yes;mso-style-parent:"";mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;mso-para-margin:0in;mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-pagination:widow-orphan;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} </style> <![endif]--> <!--<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 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,168,376 |
This is very unfortunate, because we are satisfied that the distance for which the accused chased his brother was only 45 yards.The place of occurrence was 'A' in the sketch Ex. P-17, and the place where Gopal and the accused's wife had been sleeping was 'B'.The distance is mentioned as 45 yards in the observation mahazar Ex. P-7 which is reproduced in the plan Ex. P-17 drawn by the Police.The statement of P.W. 1 to the Police was that when she had been sleeping in the hut with her husband's brother.Gopal (deceased), the accused came; Gopal ran, and the accused chased him with a Kaduval and cut him.P.W. 6, another neighbouring ryot, saw the accused running westwards.He questioned the accused.The accused, however, merely told him that he had beaten his wife.JUDGMENT Venkataraman, J.Govindan has filed this appeal against his conviction of the murder of his brother Gopal.He is alleged to have inflicted injuries on his brother on 23-10-1972 (Monday) about 5 A.M. near a hut in Athipattu village in Jnw-athi hills.The victim succumbed to the injuries on 4-11-1972, at 12-55 P.M.Even the prosecution case is that Gopal, the younger brother, was having sexual intimacy with P.W. 1, the wife of the accused and that it is because the accused discovered them lying together, he inflicted the cuts on Gopal.On these facts themselves, accepting the Drosecution case, Exception 1 to Section 300, I.P.C. should have been applied and the conviction should have been under Section 304, Part I. I.P.C. Somehow, even the learned Public Prosecutor, at the end of the case, seems to have told the learned Sessions Judge (vide para 21 of the lower Court's judgment) that the accused followed Gopal chasing him for a considerable distance and that, therefore, though the provocation was grave, it was not sudden.He wriggled out of the hold of P.W. fi and ran away.P.W. 6 went to the hut and P.W. 1 told him that the accused had inflicted cuts on Gopal.That, again, would only be a prior statement of P.W. 1 and would not be substantive evidence.We are, however, mentioning these facts only to show how the first information report Ex. P-6 came into existence.Vellachi, mother of P.W. 1, sent P.W. 3 to the village headman.P.W. 3 informed P.W. 8 that the accused had delivered cuts on Gopal and ran away.P.W. 8 secured the assistance of his previous matter(?) P.W. 7 and got the re-oort Ex. P-6 drafted.It recites that P.W. 3 told him (P.W. 8) that the accused had cut Gopal.P.W. 8 presented this report at the Police Station to the station-writer P.W. 13 at 9 A.M, (on 23-10-1972).XX XX XX The Sub-Inspector, P.W, 15 on returning to the station, took up the investigation.He arrested the accused on 24-10-1972 at 10 A.M. at the Athipattu iunction road and sent him for remand.He went to the Government Pentland Hospital, Vellore, and examined Gopal and recorded the statement Ex. P-15 from him.(i) P.W. 3 has stated that at dawn on the Monday in question, when he was warming himself in the fire, he heard the cry of P.W. 1 that the accused was running after cutting her brother-in-law.If P.W. 1 had given such evidence, there would have been opportunity for the accused to cross-examine her.XX XX XX
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,168,419 |
On reaching the place of occurrence, S.I. Amar Singh found in the courtyard of the house some kerosene oil lying spread on the floor, some match sticks, one kerosene stove and a plastic bottle lying.On learning that the injured has been removed to Safdarjung hospital, leaving behind constable Dharamjeet, S.I. Amar Singh also went to the burn ward of Safdarjung Hospital and found, injured-Sunil, admitted there.The injured gave the history of the incident by stating that he sustained thermal burn injury; while he was asleep suddenly when he woke up, he found that his body was wet with kerosene oil and he saw his wife light a match stick and burnt him, she was accompanied by her brother.He was married to Manju 12 years back.He stated that on 29.6.2006 he had scolded his wife, as she did not serve him food and for this reason his wife Manju got annoyed and called her brother, Rishi.He further stated that on the previous night his wife did not serve him dinner and so he went to sleep without having taken any food and slept on the bed in the courtyard of his house.Around mid-night he smelt some kerosene oil due to which he got up and saw his wife, Manju pouring kerosene on him and his brother-in-law standing with her and he was having a match box and he threw a lighted match stick on him due to which his body caught fire.On his raising an alarm, son of his neighbour came to his rescue, he put some water in his body and tore away his clothes and then his wife-Manju took him to the hospital.JUDGMENT G.S. Sistani, J.1.'Nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire' a man will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth?.The necessary facts of this case are : that on 30.6.2002 at about 2:25 a.m. information was received in Police Station Hauz Khas that a person had received burn injuries due to stove in house No. 192 near Balmiki Basti, Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi.The information was recorded as DD No. 29A, copy of the same was handed over to S.I Amar Singh, who reached the place of occurrence along with constable Dharamvir.Dr. Sushil Kumar Azad, PW-13, recorded this history on the MLC (Ex.PW-13/1) in his hand.S.I. Amar Singh collected the MLC of Sunil and filed an application for permission to record the statement of the injured.Vide endorsement Ex.PW-15/3 on the application, Sunil was declared fit for making statement by the doctor.S.I. Amar Singh recorded the statement of the injured, Sunil.This statement is Ex.In this statement before S.I. Amar Singh, injured-Sunil stated that he was residing at house (house No. 192 near Balmiki Basti, Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi) of the Arun Kumar, as a tenant; he was doing the job of sweeper in a private hostel and his wife was a domestic servant.He has a son aged 10 years and a daughter aged 3 years.He stated that his wife and his brother- in-law (Rishi) attempted to kill him by putting him in fire.On 20.6.2002 at 2:45 p.m. Sunil succumbed to the burn injury and the duty constable in the hospital informed the Police Station Hauz Khas about the death of the Sunil, which was recorded as DD No. 14A.After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was filed for trial of the accused persons.The appellants have filed the present appeal against the judgment dated 28.8.2006 as well as order of sentence dated 29.8.2006 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, in the case FIR No. 403/2002 Police Station Hauz Khas, whereby the learned Judge has held the appellants guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC read with 34 IPC and both the appellants were sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine RI for 2 months.Prosecution, in support of their case have examined 16 witnesses.PW-1, Arun Kumar and PW-2 were the material witnesses.Both the witness were cross- examined by the learned APP, as they had turned hostile.PW-3 was examined in part and PW-4 was also one of the neighbours, who also turned hostile.PW-5, Ashok Kumar, is the brother of the deceased.Since he was not present at the spot, he was not an eye witness to the incident.PW-5 had deposed that his brother (decease) and his wife were not having cordial relations and were constantly quarreling.Manju had in fact left Sunil a number of times and went to her parent's house.According to this witness, as Rishi (brother-in-law of the deceased) and sister-in-law of the deceased used to reside with Sunil; quarrel used to take place.PW-6, Sushil is another neighbour of the deceased, who was also not present at the time of the occurrence, however, he has identified the body of the deceased.5. PW-8 is Vikas minor son of deceased Sunil.PW-9 is Ct.PW-10 is HC Prakash Chand who proved that on 30.6.02 at 4.55 PM he recorded the FIR of this case on receipt of rukka from SI Amar Singh through Ct. Dharamjeet.He proved the copy of FIR as Ex.PW10/A by producing the original FIR.However, the examination in chief of this witness remained unconcluded.PW-11 is Ct.Dharamjeet who reached the place of occurrence with the IO on 30.6.2006 and took the rukka from the IO for registration of FIR at PS Hauz Khas and then joined investigation with the IO after registration of FIR and witnessed the articles taken into possession by the IO from the spot.PW-12 is Dr. B. Swain, Chief Medical Officer, Safdarjung Hospital who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Sunil and proved the post mortem report as Ex.PW-12/A according to which cause of death was shock resulting from ante-mortem burn injuries.PW-13 is Dr. Sushil Kumar Azad who attended deceased Sunil in Safdarjung Hospital on admission in the burn ward and recorded history of the injuries, given by deceased Sunil, on his MLC prepared by him which he proved as Ex.PW13/A. PW-14 is Dr. Arvind who gave his opinion regarding cause of death of Sunil was shock consequent upon ante-mortem burn injuries to the tune of 70%.PW-15 is SI Amar Singh, IO of the case.PW- 16 is Dr. Surender Kumar Chawla who proved that the death summary of deceased Sunil was prepared by Dr. Ansul and proved the death summary as Ex.-PW16/A.Statement of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Both the appellants denied the case of the prosecution and also stated that the I.O. has fabricated the statement of the deceased, Sunil, by obtaining his thumb impression on a blank paper and also demanded Rs. 20,000/- from them.Since the amount was not paid to the I.O., a false FIR was registered.It is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellants that the appellants have been convicted solely on the basis of two dying declarations of the deceased, which do not inspire confidence, as the two dying declarations are full of contradictions and thus learned Sessions Judge committed a legal error with regard to the admissibility of the dying declarations.Learned Counsel submits that where there are more than one dying declarations, the same must be tested on the basis of consistency and probability and thus in the facts of the present case, they cannot be relied upon as the sole evidence for conviction.It is also contended that in the absence of any Executive Magistrate to record the statement of the deceased, the said dying declarations cannot be relied upon.Learned Counsel for the appellants also contends that the trustworthiness and credibility of dying declarations should have been dealt with care and proper circumspection.While admitting that the dying declaration can form the sole basis of conviction, learned Counsel for the appellants contends that the dying declarations should be free from any kind of doubt and should be recorded in a manner as provided under law.Dying declaration should generally be recorded by an Executive Magistrate with the certificate of the doctor about the mental fitness of the person, intending to make the statement.In order to show that there is material contradiction in the two dying declarations, learned Counsel for the appellants contends that in the statement made before the doctor, the deceased had mentioned that he found his body wet with kerosene oil and saw his wife light a match stick and set him on fire; and she was accompanied by her brother, whereas in the statement made before the sub-Inspector the deceased had mentioned that his wife was pouring kerosene oil on him and his brother-in-law was standing with her and he was having a match box and he threw a lighted match stick on him.Learned Counsel contends that there is material contradiction in the two statements and they should not be relied upon, more particularly when there is no corroborative evidence.In this case to show that the appellants had poured kerosene oil on the deceased and burnt him to death, learned Counsel submits that the prosecution has not been able to prove their case beyond doubt and none of the witnesses have supported their case.Learned Counsel has also contended that the statements of the witnesses, who were cross-examined by the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, cannot be looked into at all, as they were declared to be hostile witnesses.It has also been argued that in fact the deceased was sleeping in the room along with the family and there is wrong declaration by the deceased that he was sleeping in the Varanda.He also submits that there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that after deceased-Sunil was doused in kerosene oil and a match stick was ignited to burn him, he shouted for help at any point of time.Learned Counsel for the appellants also contends that the conduct of the appellants would show that they are the ones who had taken the deceased to the hospital and in case they had attempted to kill him, they would have easily escaped from the place of the crime.Even otherwise the appellants were arrested from the house and did not make any attempt to run away.Learned Counsel for the appellants has drawn the attention of the Court to the evidence of the minor son of the deceased, PW-8 to show that the deceased had given him Rs. 20/- and asked him to bring kerosene oil for Rs. 10/-, milk for Rs. 2/- and bread for Rs. 3/-; and after purchasing the same, he had returned the balance amount to his father.This witness has also stated that his father had sent him to bring liquor and on his refusal to do so, his father went out and returned with liquor and he had also consumed the liquor.PW-8 had also stated in his statement that the deceased had told his wife that since she was not giving him money to purchase liquor, he would die some day.In the light of this statement, learned Counsel for the appellants contends that in fact the deceased had planned to commit suicide and for this purpose he had asked his son to purchase kerosene oil.The husband in fact committed suicide and in view of the strained relations with his wife and her brother, the deceased falsely implicated them.Learned Counsel for the appellants also submits that no thumb impression of the deceased was put on the dying declaration and the I.O. had only put the toe impression on the statement, thus making the dying declaration inadmissible in evidence.She relies upon the evidence of PW-5, the brother of the deceased to show that the husband and wife used to frequently quarrel, she would often leave the house and had often gone to stay with her parents.The bone of contention between the husband and wife was the brother-in-law, appellant No. 1 and sister-in-law, who were residing with the deceased and his wife.Learned Counsel for the State has also relied on the post mortem report to show that the burn injuries were not found on the back or abdomen including buttock nor had patches on the back of chest to show that the appellant at the relevant time must have been lying on his back and therefore, he did not receive burn injuries on his back.Learned Counsel has also relied upon the report of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory where besides other articles a broken match box with unburnt match sticks were also sent for analysis.She submits that the result of the analysis shows that there was no kerosene residue on this match box.According to her in case the deceased had attempted to commit suicide, he would have doused himself with kerosene oil and he would have used the match box and residue of kerosene ought to have come on this match box.To counter the argument of learned Counsel for the appellants with regard to toe impression on the dying declaration, learned APP for the State has relied upon the evidence of PW-8, son of the deceased in the answer to a Court question:Court question: Whether your maternal Uncle also received injuries while he was trying to extinguish the fire with his hands? A. I am not aware.Avitri and some other persons were also trying to extinguish the fire by pouring water.All the fingers and thumb of both hands of my father also got burnt....We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and given our thoughtful consideration to the matter.The extent on which the evidence of a hostile witness is to be relied upon has been a subject matter of a large number of legal pronouncements; merely because the witness has been cross-examined by the prosecution, it cannot be said, as a general rule, that his evidence is to be rejected completely.In Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheb and Ors.The evidence of such witness cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent his version is found found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof.(See Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana ; Rabinder Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa ; Syed Akbar v. State of Karnataka and Khuji @ Surendra Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh ).The High Court took up all the appeals together for hearing.It is more than one year, I Along with my family members was sleeping.On hearing the voice thinking that some thief or decoit had entered in the house, I woke up Along with my family members to check the same.Thereafter, my father took a lathi in his defense.Then Ambulence also came.Sunil was sent in the Ambulence Along with his Mrs. Manju, who is present today in the Court.All the cloths of Sunil which he was wearing were burnt and were stick to his body.My father cut the cloths of Sunil with a scissor and removed the cloths.This witness in his cross-examination had denied that the police had seized the empty bottle of kerosene oil, two match boxes and burnt clothes, however, witness was confronted with his earlier statement Ex.PW-1/A at portion 'A to A', where this had been recorded.It has also been recorded in the statement of PW-2, that when he woke up, Sunil (deceased) was found burning in varanda and he was standing near his cot.It is he who raised the alarm and other neighbours also came thereafter.The first statement of the injured (Sunil-deceased) was recorded by the doctor Sushil Kumar Azad (PW-13).As per the evidence of PW-13, Sunil had arrived at the hospital at 3:00 am.on 30.6.2002; he found Sunil was burnt and well oriented dehydration positive, his pulse rate was 100 per minute and respiratory rate was 22 per month; PW-13 had examined deceased Sunil with history of sustaining thermal burn injuries and he had prepared a detailed MLC Ex.In this MLC he had recorded as under: '...sustain thermal burn injuries, while patient was asleep, suddenly when he woke up he found that his body was wet with kerosene oil and he saw his wife lit a match stick and burnt him.She was accompanied along with her brother....' The second dying declaration was recorded by S.I. Amar Singh (PW-15).He has stated in his evidence that he had collected the MLC of Sunil and thereafter he moved an application for permission to record the statement of the injured to the doctor on duty.The application seeking permission to record the statement has been exhibited as Ex.The doctor on duty declared the injured fit for making statement and his endorsement is exhibited as Ex.It is he, who recorded the statement of Sunil, Ex.On the contrary, the shortness of the statement itself guarantees truth.Alleged history of sustaning thermal burn injuries while he was asleep, suddenly when he woke up he found that his body was wet with kerosene oil and he saw his wife lighting match stick and she burnt him and she was accompanied with her brother.He also deposed that the patient was brought by wife Manju.PW-13 deposed that on general examination, he found that patient was well oriented, chest examination was found to be clear, central nerves system and cardio vascular system was examined and nothing abnormal was detected.In cross PW-13 deposed that the patient was conscious.Although he was cross-examined, the witness withstood in the cross- examination by the defense and he could not be shaken.Based on his evidence, we find that the deceased at the time of admission at the hospital was fully conscious and in a fit state of mind.We also find that the statement was made on his own and on free will and there was no effort from anyone to prompt him and it is only later on that the injured succumbed to his injuries.The defense has not been able to establish that PW-13 Dr.Sushil Kumar Azad was either an interested witness or had any reason to implicate the appellants in a false case.In response to the Court question, the son of the deceased PW-8 had categorically mentioned that all the fingers and thump of both the hands of his father had got burnt.In such a situation, we find it proper for S.I. Amar Singh to have obtained the left toe impression of the deceased on his statement.No doubt ordinarily thumb impression of the hand should have been taken, but when it was not possible to take the thumb impression, no fault can be found for taking the toe impression on the dying declaration.We also find that it has not been disputed that the left toe mark on Ex.PW-15/3A is that of the deceased.However, what was stated by learned defense counsel was that the impression was taken on a blank paper.We find that S.I. Amar Singh had moved an application Ex.Pw-15/2 to record the statement of the injured Sunil and the doctor in the burn ward gave the certificate on the application itself that the injured was fit for making statement.We also find nothing on record to show that S.I. Amar Singh had demanded Rs. 20,000/- from the appellants and on their refusal to pay falsely implicated them.The second dying declaration was recorded by S.I. Amar Singh and Amar Singh did obtain the endorsement of the doctor with regard to the fitness of the injured to make a statement.As noticed earlier Dr.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
116,850,574 |
None for the complainant.Per contra, the counsel for the respondent/State opposed the appeal.Certified copy as per rules.
|
['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
116,852,049 |
The trial judge found that there was no evidence to put Susheel Kr.PW-1/A) of Rukmani Devi (PW-1).As per the version, forming part of the FIR which was supported by statements, inter alia, of her husband Ram Avtar (PW-2), two of her sons namely Rajesh (PW-4) and Mukesh (PW-6), as indeed of her neighbour Radhey Shyam (PW-3), the incident took place on 27.01.1995 sometime around 8.30 a.m. The first informant (PW-1) and her husband (PW-2) were at home, the latter upstairs, reading newspaper.It was her version that while she was cleaning the house and had re-entered through the main door after putting the garbage outside in the street, she was followed (into the house) by three young persons each of whom had muffled their faces with shawls.She stated that one of the said persons had put a pistol at her neck and asked her not to raise alarm and snatched her gold chain.She also alleged that when she raised alarm, it drew attention of her husband who came on the scene, at which stage he was also threatened at the point of fire arm (pistol), Crl.Appeal No.409/2000 Page 3 of 7 this role being attributed to the appellant by name, PW-2 being threatened with death.He along with four others were sent up for trial on conclusion of investigation into the said case, the others being Rajesh @ Raja, Susheel Kr.Tyagi, Krishan Kumar and Anjesh Jain @ Ravinder Jain.The case eventually came up before the court of sessions (sessions case no. 102/1997) where the question of charge was considered.Charge, however, was found made out against the Crl.Appeal No.409/2000 Page 1 of 7 appellant for offences under Sections 393/34 read with Section 398 IPC and under Section 27 of Arms Act. The prosecution failed to bring home its case against Rajesh @ Raja who consequently stood acquitted.Appeal No.409/2000 Page 1 of 7The trial court, however, found that the charge of offence under Section 393 read with Section 398 IPC had been brought home against the appellant herein, holding him guilty and convicting him, he at the same time being acquitted of the charge under Section 27 of Arms Act. By subsequent order dated 06.06.2000, the trial court awarded rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs. 20,000/- against the appellant for offence under Section 393 read with Section 398 IPC and directed that, in case of default, he would undergo further simple imprisonment for two years.At the same time, benefit of set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) was extended to the appellant.Feeling aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment, and the order on sentence, the present appeal was filed.At the hearing, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions of the appellant who is present in the court, that the evidence led by the prosecution primarily through the mouthpiece of Rukmani Devi (PW-1), Ram Avtar (PW-2), Radhey Shyam (PW-3), Rajesh (PW-4) and Mukesh (PW-6), at its best, makes out a case for conviction on the charge of robbery punishable under Section 392 IPC, there being no credible evidence to show involvement of five persons in the incident in question nor any clarity Crl.Appeal No.409/2000 Page 2 of 7 about use of a fire arm (pistol) by the appellant in the commission of the said offence of robbery.The learned counsel submitted that in this view, the prayer is for the order of conviction to be modified from one punishable under Section 393 read with Section 398 IPC to one punishable under section 392 IPC and having regard to the time that has elapsed, a lenient view being taken in the matter of punishment taking further into consideration the fact that the appellant does not have any past criminal record, nor has he been involved in any criminal case after his involvement in the present one.Appeal No.409/2000 Page 2 of 7The FIR (Ex.PW-5/A) was registered on the basis of the statement (Ex.It was also her version that the alarm raised had also drawn the attention of her two said sons and one another Kamal, who also came on the scene but were similarly threatened by the three intruders.In the FIR, it was also stated that the neighbour Radhey Shyam (PW-3) also came on the scene, his attention being drawn due to the commotion and it is he (PW-3) who had caught hold of the appellant at the spot, the other intruders statedly having run away from the scene.Appeal No.409/2000 Page 3 of 7The charge of Arms Act against the appellant, however, failed at the trial.In the course of the trial, PW-1 (the first informant) initially narrated the incident along the lines of the prosecution story wherein she referred to the appellant as the person who had pointed the pistol at her neck.Her attention was drawn to her initial statement in the FIR (Ex.PW-1/A) whereupon she stated that the said earlier version would be incorrect.During her cross-examination, however, she expressed confusion stating that she could not tell as to which persons had shown pistol to her.In contrast, her husband (PW-2) also spoke almost along the same lines that one of the three intruders (with muffled faces) had pointed pistol on the neck of his wife and another Crl.Appeal No.409/2000 Page 4 of 7 person had similarly threatened him with a pistol but he was not clear as to whether the appellant was one of the said persons who had used the pistol for extending such threats.He only deposed about the appellant being apprehended at the spot.Noticeably, at the same time, in the deposition of PW-1 and PW-2, there is lack of clarity as to whether the persons who had entered into the house, apparently with the intention to commit robbery, were three or four in number.Appeal No.409/2000 Page 4 of 7PW-4 and PW-6 have also spoken about the incident.But then it is clear from their respective testimonies that they were not present at the scene at the initial stages, neither of them being in a position to specifically narrate the role of the appellant their evidence only confirming that he was one of the three persons who had entered the household, at least two of whom were armed.There is no clarity in their version as to whether the appellant was one of the persons who was armed at the relevant point of time.There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-6 as to the fact that the appellant had actually entered the house of the first informant in the morning hours of 27.01.1995 and the intent of the three persons in question was to commit robbery.The evidence of PW-1 clearly brings out that she was the first person to be accosted and threatened and her gold chain snatched from around her neck, though mercifully the one who had snatched the chain could not take it away the chain having come to be broken and getting entangled in her wearing apparel.Appeal No.409/2000 Page 5 of 7On the above facts, and in the circumstances, this Court is inclined to accept the submissions of the appellant that it is not clear from the evidence as to whether the appellant was one of the persons who were carrying fire arms or who may have used it to commit the offence of robbery.The nominal roll does not indicate any past criminal record nor were any such antecedents shown to the trial court since nothing to that effect is indicated in the order on sentence.It is directed that instead of the sentence awarded by the trial court, the appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years with fine of Rs.10,000/-.In case of default, he shall undergo further simple imprisonment for four months.Ordered accordingly.The appeal is disposed of in above terms.R.K.GAUBA, J.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
116,866,939 |
This is the first bail application filed by applicant Rajesh Pav under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.The allegation against the applicant is that the prosecutrix is alleged to have remained in company of the present applicant for a long time.She also conceived a child.Accordingly, the application is allowed.Applicant Rajesh Pav is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.30,000/- with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of JMFC concerned or CJM for his appearance in the trial Court on the dates so fixed by that Court during the trial.Certified copy as per rules.(Vijay Kumar Shukla) V.Judge anu Digitally signed by ANUPRIYA SHARMA Date: 2018.06.12 11:13:34 +05'30'
|
['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.
|
85,102,877 |
This application has been preferred by the petitioner for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the Asha Gauba (mother-in-law), Kanika Gauba (nanad) and Shiv Kumar Gauba (Taya) on the ground that the learned ASJ while granting anticipatory bail had not appreciated the facts correctly.The respondent no.2 is the widowed mother in law of complainant, respondent no.3 is unmarried sister in law(husband's sister) of the complainant and respondent no.4 is the elder brother of deceased husband of respondent no.2 (Taya Sasur).In the complaint, the applicant had made allegations against the husband and these three respondents for harassing her for dowry.The learned ASJ while granting bail to them had considered that mother in law of complainant was a government servant in Ministry of Railways and was aged around 50 years.The respondent no.4 Taya Sasur was aged around 70 years and respondent no.3 was an unmarried sister of respondent Crl.The learned ASJ observed that he had perused the police file and without commenting upon the merits or otherwise of the allegations, considered that no useful purpose was likely to be served by directing the investigating officer to arrest these three persons for the purpose of investigation and he therefore granted anticipatory bail to them.In the grounds for cancellation of anticipatory bail, it is stated that the husband of the petitioner played fraud upon the petitioner.While petitioner and husband were living under the same roof, he filed a divorce petition against the petitioner without information of the petitioner and even after filing divorce petition, he continued to maintain physical and sexual relations with her.The respondents no.2, 3 and 4 were having knowledge of this act of the husband of the petitioner.The husband in order to blackmail her and to disrepute her took vulgar snaps of her to force her to withdraw the petition.She also alleged that she was badly beaten up by mother in law, nanad.Even servant of respondent no.2 gave her merciless beatings.Her husband hatched up a criminal conspiracy of criminal assault on her on 25th April 2010 and she had to be taken to DDU Hospital by the police where her MLC was prepared.MC 2462/2010 Page 2 Of 3 of the husband poses a grave problem for the courts during trial and while deciding bail applications.Only oral statement of complainant and her parents is there in respect of cruelty and dowry demand, and normally there is no agreed list of articles given at the time of marriage Dowry Prohibition Act proved futile to bring to an end to the evil of dowry for this reason.Mere oral allegations of giving huge dowry without substantiating these allegations by bills of purchase of the articles or list prepared at the time of marriage and signed by both the parties cannot be given credence.Even those people, who have meager salaries or are hand to mouth, claim of giving huge amounts at the time of marriage.It is in the interest of both the parties that a list of dowry articles should be prepared by the parties at the time of marriage duly signed by both the parties.The application for cancellation of bail is hereby dismissed.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
8,510,855 |
Item No. 99And In the matter of: Sunil Chandra Saha & Ors.- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Sourav Chatterjee Mr. Debapratim Guha For the Petitioners Mr. Ashraf Ali For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Falakata Police Station Case No. 259 of 2013 dated 10.05.2013 under sections 498A/306 of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned Advocate for the State and have also considered the case diary.The Petitioner No.1 is the father-in-law, the Petitioner No.2 is the mother- in-law and the Petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are the brothers-in-law.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)
|
['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
85,114,426 |
The State of West Bengal & Ors.Mr. Madan Mohan Verma Mr. Abhishek Verma......For the Petitioner.Mr. Samrat Sen Mr. Sudhakar Thakur......For the State.It appears from the instructions received by Mr. Sen, learned advocate for the State from the Inspector-in-Charge, English Bazar Police Station, Malda that English Bazar P. S. Case No.163/2012 dated 06.3.2012 registered on the basis of the complaint of the petitioner under Sections 148/149/447/448/452/354/323/326/379, Indian Penal Code has culminated in filing of a police report under Section 173(2), Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter the Cr.P.C.) vide English Bazar P.S. C.S. No.353/2012 dated 15.05.2012 under Sections 148/149/447/448/452/354/323/326/379, Indian Penal Code.It also appears that English Bazar P.S. Case no.248/2012 dated 04.04.2012 under Sections 147/148/149/323/506, Indian Penal Code, which was registered on the complaint of the petitioner, has culminated in filing of a police report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C vide English Bazar C.S. No.324/12 dated 04.04.2012 under Sections 147/148/149/323/506, Indian Penal Code.
|
['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
85,115,254 |
The evidence collected during the investigation in the casesrevealed that both the incidents were part of the same transaction andin pursuance of a welldesigned common conspiracy, they werecommitted.The motive was to spread terror amongst the Hindus.Itwas a part of an international conspiracy.Mr. Haren Pandya was aBJP leader who earlier held the post of Home Minister.He had playedan active role in postGodhra riots at Ahmedabad.It was alleged thathe had led a mob which demolished a Masjid at Paldi locality andresisted its reconstruction.One Mufti Sufiyan, absconding accused, apreacher at Lal Masjid at Ahmedabad used his oratory skills, doctoredvideo CDs.depicting atrocities committed on Muslims and spreadradical Islamic literature to instigate and inculcate a strong feeling ofhatred and retribution amongst the members of the Muslimcommunity against members of the Hindu community after postGodhara riots.Said Mufti Sufiyan in association with Rasul KhanParty, a defamed absconding accused of Ahmedabad allegedly, at 3present residing at Karachi (Pakistan), and other close associates,Suhail Khan Pathan, also absconding accused and Anas Machiswala(A5) conspired to avenge the atrocities and implemented the same inthe form of a series of violent incidents.There was an incident of tiffinbombs being planted in AMTS buses of Ahmedabad city on 29.5.2002by a number of Muslim youths which prompted Mufti Sufiyan, SohailKhan Pathan and others.They planned for larger conspiracy andcontemplated incumbents to be sent for terrorist activities.Infurtherance, thereof several youths from Ahmedabad and Hyderabadhad been sent to Pakistan in groups for arms training with a view toindulge them in terrorist activities of larger magnitude on their return.3. Rasul Khan @ Suleman before shifting to Karachi (Pakistan)resided at Hyderabad.He motivated Mohmed Abdul Rauf (A2), a localpolitician to participate in the conspiracy to avenge the allegedatrocities committed on the Muslims in Gujarat and create terror inthe minds of members of Hindu community.On Suleman's instance, 4Mohmed Abdul Rauf selected, motivated and sent 14 boys fromAndhra Pradesh for arms training to Pakistan which included AsgharAli (A1) a known criminal of Hyderabad.They were trained in Pakistanand were motivated to work in Gujarat and create terror.Asghar Aliwanted to commit big terror act and wanted to shift ultimately toPakistan.He acted as per the advice of Rasul Khan and Mufti Sufiyanand went to Udaipur from where he reached Ahmedabad.Asghar Ali(A1) motivated his friend Mohmed Shafiuddin, a resident of Nalgonda,Andhra Pradesh to join him at Ahmedabad.Conspirators decided tofinish Mr. Jagdish Tiwari in the first instance who allegedly played aleading role during the postGodhra riots.A few days after the incident on 11.3.2003 a meeting wasarranged which was attended by Mufti Sufiyan and others to eliminateMr.Haren Pandya and it was conveyed to other conspirators by SohailKhan on 17/18.3.2003 the minute aspects of the execution of the planwere finalised resulting into execution of the same by Asghar Ali (A1)on 26.3.2003 with the support of other accused persons at 7.30 a.m.opposite Law Garden.During the investigation as the conspiracy wasrevealed, provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (in short 5‘POTA') had been invoked and accordingly, information was sent to theconcerned Magistrate.The cases were made over to the Special Courtunder the POTA.Four accused persons were absconding that is A13, A14, A18and A19 hence no charges could be framed against them whereasother accused persons were charged for commission of offencepunishable under sections 120B, 302, 307, 201 read with section120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “the IPC”) and sections25(1)(B)(a), 27(1) and section 5 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short, “theArms Act”) and under sections 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4) and section 4 ofPOTA.The accused persons abjured their guilt.As per the prosecution case, as reflected in the common chargesheet, the two cases are the outcome of deeprooted criminalconspiracy to cause communal disharmony and to create fear in theHindu community.The prosecution has alleged as under:(i) A meeting was held in April/ May 2002 at Lal Masjid which was attended by Mufti Sufiyan (A13 absconding accused), a Muslim Cleric (Kaleem Ahmed, A4) and Anas Machiswala (A5).During the said meeting, A13 urged the persons present there to avenge the killing of Muslims during the riots and strike terror 11in the minds of the Hindu community by committing violentacts.It is to be noted that A13 exploited the sentiments ofMuslims by showing them doctored videos and CDs.andliterature showing dead bodies of victims of Naroda Patia, burnthouses, dead bodies, plundered mosques, etc. and the saidmaterial has been duly recovered during the investigation.(ii) In furtherance of criminal conspiracy on 29.5.2002, tiffinbox bombs were planted in crowded buses destined for Hindulocalities by A4, A5 with the assistance of Mohd. Yunus, AbdulRahim Sarshewala (A5), Rehan Abdul Maji Puthawala (A7),Mohd.Riaz (A8), Mohd. Parvel Abdul Qayum Sheikh (A9),Shahnawaj Gandhi (A12) and others.Accordingly, POTA CaseNo.7 & 9 were registered and pertinently, A4 and A5 have beenconvicted by the High Court in the aforesaid case and they areundergoing life imprisonment in the aforesaid matter.(iii) In SeptemberOctober, 2002 accused Rasool Khan Party(A18absconding), a wanted criminal of Ahmedabad while livingin Hyderabad from 1994 till 2002 came in touch with Mohd.Abdul Rauf (A2) and instigated him to send Muslim boys toPakistan for training in arms.A2 accordingly selected 14 boyswhich include Asghar Ali (A1), a notorious criminal in about 10 12cases in Hyderabad and they were sent to Pakistan for armstraining.(iv) In November 2002, A5, A14, and A12 were sent toPakistan via Mumbai and Dubai.(v) After returning from Pakistan, A1 reached Udaipur on31.12.2002 and stayed at Muslim Musafarkhana.(vi) On 24.1.2003, PW49, along with A11 and A13 went toUdaipur in a silvercolored Tata Indica car of PW38 and broughtA1 to Ahmedabad.Sometime before5/6.3.2003, a meeting was held at Lal Masjid and it was decidedto kill Jagdish Tiwari (PW39).A4 handedover two pistols each to A1 and A3 with live cartridges.Around9.3.2003, A10 pointed out Jagdish Tiwari at his shop to A1,and on 9.3.2003, a meeting was held at Jaliwali Masjid where A 1314 disclosed that Jagdish Tiwari would be their next target.A1and A3 waited for the arrival of Jagdish Tiwari to kill him, buthe did not pass through the scheduled route.(vii) Thereafter, on 11.3.2003, at around 9.15 PM, A1 and A3went to the shop of PW39 (Jagdish Tiwari) and asked for a stripof the sorbitrate tablet.When PW39 bent down to take out thesaid strip, A1 fired his pistol at him, which hit the metal buckleof his belt, and after ricocheting, entered his body near his navel.(viii) Sometime later, on 15/16.3.2003, A13, in consultationwith A14 disclosed to A5 that the next target would be HarenPandya, who used to come to Law Garden for a walk.On17/18.3.2003, at a meeting at Juni Jama Masjid, it wasdisclosed that Haren Pandya was the next target.On 22.3.2003,another meeting was held at Juni Masjid.On 23.3.2003, ataround 7 a.m., A9 and A6 then visited the Law Garden whereA1 also joined them, but they could not see Haren Pandya.(ix) On 24.3.2003, A9 visited Law Garden in the morning on hismotorcycle and saw Haren Pandya.Later,a meeting was held near Juni Jama Masjid.Again, the next day on 26.3.2003, Haren Pandya was killed.On receiving information, an FIR was registered by PW101 atEllisbridge Police Station.Police patrol jeep came around 10.40 a.m.followed by the arrival of PW101 from Navrangpura Police Station.The deceased Haren Pandya was immediately taken to the nearby V.S.Hospital.Simultaneously, PW1 lodged a complaint with PW101regarding the murder of Haren Pandya.At 11.30 a.m. the same wasregistered at Ellisbridge PS.The inquest was prepared by PW101followed by post mortem of deceased by a panel of 4 doctors heldbetween 2.15 p.m. and 4.50 p.m. on the same day.Inquest of thecrime scene was prepared by PW101 and statement of eyewitnessPW55 was also recorded the same day.After transfer of investigation to the CBI on 28.3.2003, theaccused persons were arrested and their confessional statements wererecorded under section 32 of POTA from which as per the prosecutionare the modus operandi and criminal conspiracy is amply proved.The arrest of A1 is 22doubtful.Call records are not reliable.The prosecutionhas withheld evidence.There is tampering with the same, andinterpolation has been made in spot map, rendering the prosecutioncase unreliable and improbable.The vital flaws in the prosecutionshould lead to the benefit of the doubt to the accused.There isdirect and circumstantial evidence as to the involvement of otheraccused with A1 in the commission of attempt to murder of PW39and murder of the deceased Haren Pandya.There is evidence of doinga recce of the Law Garden which used to be frequented by thedeceased for taking morning walks, mobile calls bear the time of thefatal attack by the accused persons on the deceased.Besides themobile tower location of the mobile phone and data of telephone useeven shortly before and after the attack on PW39 as well as ondeceased Haren Pandya.Facts regarding stay of A1(Mohmed Asgar Ali) had also been corroborated by Mohammed JamilNasir Mohammed (PW30) and Dr. Mohmed Aizaz Ali (PW88) andExhibit 253, which is the confessional statement of A1 (MohmedAsgar Ali).Thereafter, he returned to Hyderabad from Udaipur andtook Rs.2,0003,000/ from A2 (Mohmed Abdul Rauf).He wasdirected by A18 through email to reach Udaipur and to contactUsman Khan Nawab Khan (PW29).22. A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali) reached Udaipur on 20.1.2003 andstayed at Muslim Musafirkhana for a day.The same had been provedby Exhibit No.299 i.e., the visitor register showing entry No.8682;Exhibit 297 i.e., deposition of Mohmed Jamil Nasir Mohammed (PWFacts regarding stay of A1 (MohmedAsgar Ali) had also been corroborated by Mohammed Jamil NasirMohammed (PW30) and Dr. Mohmed Aizaz Ali (PW88) and Exhibit253, which is the confessional statement of A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali).For 23 days, he stayed at the residence of Usman Khan NawabKhan (PW29), which had been corroborated by Usman Khan NawabKhan (PW29) in Court also.During the stay of A1 (Mohmed AsgarAli) at Udaipur, he used to visit Netsavy Cyber Café situated at ChetakCircle, Udaipur for operating emails.While in Udaipur, A1 (MohmedAsgar Ali) telephonically contacted A3 (Mohmed Shafiuddin) andprovided him the Landline Number of Usman Khan Nawab Khan (PW29) and mobile number 9426039937 of A14 (Sohail Khan Pathan)and asked him to come to Ahmedabad.The same had been proved byExhibit 250 i.e., confessional statement of A3 (Mohmed Shafiuddin).On 23.1.2003, A3 (Mohmed Shafiuddin) reached Udaipur andstayed at Muslim Musafirkhana for a day.Mohammed Sharif Amir Mohammed (PW31), owner ofPCO situated in the basement of Muslim Musafirkhana had alsoproved stay of A3 (Mohmed Shafiuddin) at Muslim Musafirkhana,Udaipur.On 24.1.2003, Turk Salim Pasa Majarirule Islam (PW49) alongwith A11 (Mohmed Faruq) and A13 (Mufti Sufiyan) went to Udaipurin Tata Indica Car (silver color) of Mohmed Muslim Mohmed ShabbirAnsari (PW38) and brought A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali) to Ahmedabad.This fact had been proved by Exhibit 365 i.e., the deposition of TurkSalim Pasa Majarirule Islam (PW49) who admitted that they hadbrought A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali) to Ahmedabad.At Ahmedabad, A1(Mohmed Asgar Ali) stayed in a room at Lokhandwalichali, Bapunagarowned by Mushtaq Ahmed Munir Ahmed Ansari (PW63).It had alsobeen proved by Exhibit 652 though Mushtaq Ahmed Munir AhmedAnsari (PW63) has turned hostile, who admitted that A1 (MohmedAsgar Ali) had stayed at his house on the request of A14 (Sohail KhanPathan).25(a).On 25.1.2003, A3 (Mohmed Saifuddin) reachedAhmedabad from Udaipur and stayed at Hotel Garden.Stay of A3(Mohmed Saifuddin) at Hotel Garden had been proved by Exhibit 220i.e., the visitor register showing entry no.2137 made in respect of hisstay at Hotel Garden, which was signed by him and RajendrasinghVajesinh Rathod, Manager, Hotel Garden (PW18) had also proved theaforesaid entry in his deposition in Court.Exhibit 486 i.e., CFSLReport of Subhash Mittal, Principal, Scientific Officer (PW79) had also 31proved the handwriting of A3 (Mohmed Saifuddin) at entry no.2137.A3 (Mohmed Shafiuddin) was then taken to Lokhandwalichali ofMushtaq Ahmed Munir Ahmed Ansari (PW63) by A1 (Mohmed AsgarAli) and A10 (Parvez Khan Pathan).This fact had been proved byExhibits 250, 253 and 244 i.e., the confessional statements of A3(Mohmed Shafiuddin), A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali) and A10 (Parvez KhanPathan) respectively.25(b).At the end of January 2003, A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali) andA3 (Mohmed Shafiuddin) were shifted to Flat No.902 in M.B. Complexby A11 (Mohmed Faruq).The said flat was arranged by A10 (ParvezKhan Pathan) through Tawabhai Yusufbhai Shaikh (PW66) andMohmed Jalis Ahmed Rajput (PW68).This fact had been proved byTawabhai Yusufbhai Shaikh (PW66) and Mohmed Jalis Ahmed Rajput(PW68) in their deposition made in the Court.25(c).Between January and February 2003, A1 (Mohmed AsgarAli) and A3 (Mohmed Shafiuddin) were moved to Flat No.401, RoyalApartment, Rakhial by A10 (Parvez Khan Pathan) and A11 (MohmedFarooq).The said flat was owned by Abdul Banki Abdul Bari Ansari(PW44 hostile witness) and an advance of Rs.5,000/ was paid tohim by A10 (Parvez Khan Pathan).When the said flat was vacated,Rs.3,500/ was refunded by Abdul Banki Abdul Bari Ansari (PW44) to 32A10 (Parvez Khan Pathan) through cheque no.17296 drawn onGujarat Industrial Coop.Bank, which was encashed by A10 (ParvezKhan Pathan).The stay of A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali) and A3 (MohmedShafiuddin) had been proved by Yusufbhai Idubhai Pathan, (PW95 occupant of neighbouring flat).Exhibit 209 i.e., a notebook of theRoyal Apartment had also proved that an entry had been made byMushtaq Yusufbhai Mansoori (PW59) regarding the stay of A1(Mohmed Asgar Ali) at Royal Apartment.25(d).On 31.1.2003, a mobile no.9825491421 was procured byusing Voter ID of Shivabhai Virabhai Rathod (PW53) and wasprovided to A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali) by A14 (Sohail Khan Pathan).This fact had been corroborated by Shivabhai Virabhai Rathod (PW25(e).On 1.2.2003, a Suzuki Samurai Motorcycle (Black Colour)bearing registration no.GJ1SS5934 was purchased by A10 (ParvezKhan Pathan) from Abdul Samad Abbasali (PW54) and the deliverynote was signed by A10 (Parvez Khan Pathan) while taking possessionof the same.The deposition of Abdul Samad Abbasali (PW54) as wellas the Exhibits 383 and 384 i.e., a delivery note of the motorcycle had 33clearly proved that the motorcycle was purchased by A10 (ParvezKhan Pathan).On the instructions of A14 (Sohail Khan Pathan), themotorcycle was provided to A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali) by A10 (ParvezKhan Pathan).After the arrival of A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali) and A3(Mohmed Shafiuddin) at Ahmedabad, A4 (Kalim Ahmed) and A5(Anas Machiswala) visited Surat on the instructions of A13 (MuftiSufiyan) and collected two pistols from one Maulana Tahir.25(f).Before 5/6.3.2003, a meeting was held at Lal Masjid,which was attended by A4 (Kalim Ahmed), A5 (Anas Machiswala), A13 (Mufti Sufiyan) and A14 (Sohail Khan Pathan), in which it wasdecided to kill Jagdish Tiwari.25(g).On 5/6.3.2003, A14 (Sohail Khan Pathan) introduced A1(Mohd.Asgar Ali) and A3 (Mohmed Shafiuddin) to A4 (Kalim Ahmed)and A5 (Anas Machiswala).A4 (Kalim Ahmed) handed over twopistols each to A1 (Mohd. Asgar Ali) and A3 (Mohmed Shafiuddin)with live cartridges.Before 9.3.2003, A10 (Parvez Khan Pathan)pointed out Jagdish Tiwari (PW39) at his shop to A1 (Mohd. AsgarAli).On 9.3.2003, a meeting was held at Jaliwali Masjid, which wasattended by A5 (Anas Machiswala), A6 (Mohmed Yunus Sareshwala),A7 (Rehan Puthawala), A8 (Mohmed Riyaz), A9 (Mohmed ParvezSheikh), A12 (Shanavaz Gandhi) and A14 (Sohail Khan Pathan) 34and in the said meeting, it was disclosed by A14 (Sohail Khan Pathan)that Jagdish Tiwari would be their target.In the night of 9.3.2003, A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali) and A3 (Mohmed Shafiuddin) waited for thearrival of Jagdish Tiwari (PW39) in order to kill him, but on thatnight, Jagdish Tiwari did not pass through the scheduled route.On10.3.2003, A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali) and A3 (Mohmed Shafiuddin)followed Jagdish Tiwari (PW39), who was on his motorcycle and whenhe took Uturn for his flat, A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali) tried to fire a shotfrom his pistol, but the bullet did not come out.25(h).On the very next day i.e., 11.3.2003 at about 9.15 pm, A1(Mohmed Asgar Ali) and A3 (Mohmed Shafiuddin) went to the shop ofJagdish Tiwari (PW39) and A3 (Mohd. Shafiuddin) asked for a stripof the sorbitrate tablet.While he was taking out the medicine, A1(Mohmed Asgar Ali) fired a shot from his pistol at Jagdish Tiwari (PW39), but the bullet hit on his metal buckle of belt and after ricochetingentered in his body near navel portion.The weapon of A1 (MohmedAsgar Ali) got jammed and in the process of clearing the blockage, twolive cartridges fell at the shop.Two more bullets were fired on JagdishTiwari (PW39), but he hid behind a pillar and fridge.The identity ofA1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali) and A3 (Mohmed Shafiuddin) had beenproved by Exhibit 329 i.e., the deposition of Jagdish Tiwari (PW39) injured eyewitness.At 9.16 pm, A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali) informed A 3510 (Parvez Khan Pathan) on his mobile about the attack on JagdishTiwari (PW39).At that moment his location was under the tower ofJay Chemicals, Odhav, GIDC.At 9.20 pm, A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali)again called A10 (Parvez Khan Pathan) and at that point of time, hislocation was Vohra Marriage Hall, Char Rasta, Rakhial.JagdishTiwari (PW39) was rushed to Shardaben Hospital and was treated byDr.Hasuben Kalubhai Patel (PW9) in casualty.Thereafter, he wasshifted to the emergency of Surgery Department.A wardi regardingthe incident was received at PS Bapunagar on the basis of which,Nagindas Kalidas Barot (PW96) visited the shop of Jagdish Tiwari(PW39) and from there he went to Hospital.At the Hospital, NagindasKalidas Barot (PW96) wrote down the complaint of Jagdish Tiwari(PW39) and sent the same to PS Bapunagar where ICR No.101/03was registered at 11.35 pm.25(i).On 12.3.2003, clothes of Jagdish Tiwari (PW39) weretaken into possession by Nagindas Kalidas Barot (PW96) vide Exhibit491 (panchnama) in the presence of Sureshbhai Chelwalya Patel (PW81).Panchnama of the crime scene was prepared by Nagindas KalidasBarot (PW96) in the presence of Popatbhai Virchandbhai Padhiyar(PW78).Two live cartridges, three cartridge cases, and one firedbullet were recovered and taken into police possession vide Exhibit 36Jagdish Tiwari (PW39) was operated by Dr. Pranjal Desai andhis senior and a bullet was removed.25(j).On 14.3.2003, Dr. Virendra Kanaiyalal Shah (PW10)handed over the recovered bullet to Himmatsinh Ratansinh Chauhan(Rathod) (PW15), who produced the same before Nagindas KalidasBarot (PW96) in the presence of Chandrakishan Bageshwar Tiwari(PW80) (Panch).Exhibit 489 is the memo of handing over ofrecovered bullet.On the same day, A3 (Mohmed Shafiuddin) wasdropped at Gita Mandir Bus Stand by A10 (Parvez Khan Pathan) andwas provided bus ticket for Jaipur.The ticket was sold byMaqsoodbhai Ismailbhai Mansoori (PW22).A6 (Mohmed Yunus Sareshwala)and A9 (Mohmed Parvez Sheikh) visited the Law Garden where A1(Mohmed Asgar Ali) also came but they could not locate HarenPandya.25(o).On 24.3.2003, A9 (Mohmed Parvez Sheikh) visited the LawGarden again in the morning on the motorcycle and saw HarenPandya.In thenight of 24.3.2003, a meeting was again held in Juni Jama Masjid, 38which was attended by A4 (Kalim Ahmed), A5 (Anas Machiswala), A7 (Rehan Puthawala), A8 (Mohmed Riyaz) and A9 (Mohmed ParvezSheikh), where A9 (Mohmed Parvez Sheikh) was directed by A4(Kalim Ahmed) to point out the spot at Law Garden to A1 (MohmedAsgar Ali).A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali) was telephonically called there andtaken to Law Garden by A9 (Mohmed Parvez Sheikh), where the spotwas pointed out to him where Haren Pandya parked his car.Meticulous planning was done to execute the murder of Haren Pandyaon the next morning, where A8 (Mohmed Riyaz) was assigned the roleof driver of A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali) and A9 (Mohmed Parvez Sheikh)was assigned the task to keep watch to safeguard A1 (Mohmed AsgarAli) and A8 (Mohmed Riyaz).A7 (Rehan Puthawala) was given thetask to escort A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali) and A8 (Mohmed Riyaz) toShahpur Mill Compound, where A4 (Kalim Ahmed) and A5 (AnasMachiswala) were to wait in an autorickshaw.25(p).On 25.3.2003, an attempt was made to kill Haren Pandyaat Law Garden, but A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali) could not open fire due tothe presence of many persons.In the afternoon, it was decided to killHaren Pandya next morning.25(q).On 26.3.2003 at around 7.30 am, Haren Pandya was killedby A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali) by firing from close range at Law Garden.39Entire incident was witnessed by Anilram Yadram Patel (PW55), whoidentified A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali), whom he saw firing at HarenPandya from firearm and he had narrated the entire incident in hisdeposition and fully supported the version of the prosecution videExhibit 175 i.e., identification memo of A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali).Afterthe incident, A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali) called A14 (Sohail Khan Pathan)on mobile no.9426039937 from his mobile no.9825494421 at 7.33 amand 8.17 am.The location of these mobile numbers had confirmedthe presence of A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali) at Law Garden.These factshad been proved by Exhibit 467 i.e., CDR of mobile no.9825494421.Hemantkumar Ratilal Patel, Assistant Divisional Engineer, VastrapurTelephone Exchange (PW33) had also proved the location of mobilenumber used by the accused persons on the basis of tower locationchart.At 10.40 am, a message was sent to PS Navrangpura and PSEllis Bridge by City Control Room to reach Law Garden.HarenPandya was evacuated to B.S. Hospital by police officials of P.S.Navrangpura.A complaint was lodged by Janaksingh KhusalsinhParmar (PW1) with Yusuf Miya Ahmed Miyan Shaikh, P.I., PS EllisBridge (PW101) regarding the murder of Haren Pandya.At 11.30 am,ICR No.272/02 was registered at PS Ellis Bridge regarding the killingof Haren Pandya.Inquest panchnama was prepared by Yusuf MiyaAhmed Miyan Shaikh, P.I., P.S. Ellis Bridge (PW101) between 1.00 40pm to 2.00 pm.Postmortem examination of Haren Pandya wasconducted between 2.15 pm to 4.50 pm.Panchnama of the crimescene was prepared by Yusuf Miya Ahmed Miyan Shaikh, P.I., PS EllisBridge (PW101) between 2.30 pm to 3.30 pm.A notification wasissued under Section 6 of the DSPE Act for investigation by CBI in themurder of Haren Pandya.Statement of Anilram Yadram Patel (PW55)was recorded.On 28.3.2003, the investigation was taken up by CBIand records of FIR No.272/03 were seized from PS Ellis Bridge.Further investigation also unearthed and supported theconspiracy.On 3.4.2003, A6 (Mohmed Yunus Sareshwala), A7(Rehan Puthawala), A8 (Mohmed Riyaz) and A9 (Mohmed ParvezSheikh) were arrested by Tarunkumar Amrutlal Barot, P.I. of DCB,Ahmedabad (PW114) on suspicion of obtaining arms training atPakistan.ICR No.6/03 was registered against the aforesaid accusedof waging war against the State and taken into police custody forremand.A mobile phone was recovered from A7 (Rehan Puthawala).26(a).On 6/7.4.2003, when A7 (Rehan Puthawala) wasconfronted with the contact details of his mobile phone, in whichnumbers were stored against the names of Mehman and Uncle, hedisclosed that Mehman is killer of Haren Pandya and Uncle is A5(Anas Machiswala), who played a key role in the murder of Haren 41Pandya.The same had been proved vide Exhibit 728 i.e., the evidenceof Sushilkumar S. Gupta (PW120).The location of phones was tracedto be at Ahmedabad.26(b).On 17.4.2003, A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali), A2 (MohmedAbdul Rauf), A15 and A16 were arrested from Medchal Bus Stand,Hyderabad.On 18.4.2003, A3 (Mohmed Shafiuddin) was arrestedfrom J.D. Math Bus Depot, RR District, Andra Pradesh by V.Prabhanjan Kumar (PW118).26(c).On 22.4.2003, bullets recovered from the body of HarenPandya along with his clothes were handed over to CFSL, New Delhifor opinion (Exhibit 441).26(d).On 23.4.2003, A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali) had confessedabout his stay at House No.206, Block 61, Gujarat Housing Board,Old Bapu Nagar, Ahmedabad in the presence of Harikishan HarpalMeena (PW23).He had also mentioned this fact in his confessionalstatement and it had also been mentioned in the statement of MustaqAhmed Munir Ahmed Ansari (PW63 – hostile witness).At the pointing of A1 (MohmedAsgar Ali), Bajaj Boxer Motorcycle No.GJ1BG3849 was seized from 42the house of A10/A14 along with registration papers.26(e).On 25.4.2003, Suzuki Samurai Motorcycle No.GJ1SS5934 and Hero Honda Motorcycle No. GJ1CD8973 were seized fromthe parking of Kalupur Railway Station and PS Kagdapeethrespectively.A4 (Kalim Ahmed), A5 (Anas Machiswala) and A12(Shahnavaz Gandhi) were arrested from Sadashiv Pet Bus Stand,Sangareddy, Andhra Pradesh by Udham Sinh Ramkaran Sinh Solanki(PW108) and was remanded to transit custody till 29.4.2003 by theJudicial Magistrate.26(f).On 26.4.2003, a revolver No.B40350 Webley & Scott andone pistol No. EE0330 was discovered at the instance of A1 (MohmedAsgar Ali) in the presence of Srinathsinh Shambhausinh (PW13) fromFlat No.4B, Kamar Flats, Shahapur, Ahmedabad.RC Book of Suzuki Samurai MotorcycleNo.GJ1SS5934 was recovered during a search of the said flat.26(g).On 28.4.2003, A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali) disclosed of havingused various cyber cafes at Ahmedabad and Udaipur.Two hard disksfrom Modern Cyber Café, Ahmedabad and one hard disk each from 43Mittal Cyber Café and Net Savy Cyber Café, Udaipur were seized.On29.4.2003, a hard disk of Cyber Space Café, Ahmedabad was alsoseized (Exhibit 762).26(h).On 30.4.2003, A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali) and A2 (MohmedAbdul Rauf) had disclosed about their email IDs, passwords and printout of emails was taken in the presence of Prakashbhai Babulal Modh(PW16) (Exhibits 213 & 215).26(i).On 5.5.2003, A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali) was identified byAnilram Yadram Patel (PW55) during a test identification parade.26(j) On 8.5.2003, a pistol was discovered at the instance of A5 (AnasMachiswala) from his house.It had been proved by Exhibit 423.26(k).On 22.5.2003, A7 (Rehan Puthawala) and A8 (MohmedRiyaz) made a disclosure about the shop of Star Number from wherethey got prepared fake number plates bearing no.GJ1CF5189.Babarbhai Maljibhai Rabari (PW34) was the punch witness of the saiddisclosure and had fully supported the same during his deposition.Shaikh Mohmed Riyaz Hussainmiyan Pirmiyan (PW52) owner of StarNumber Plate had also deposed regarding the making of number 44plates.These facts had been proved by Exhibits 312, 313, 314 and315.26(l).On 1.6.2003, POTA was invoked in FIR No. RC.2(S)/2003 SCUIand an intimation were sent to Principal Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad,and Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Exhibit 744).26(m).On 2.6.2003, ICR No.101/03 of PS Bapunagar wasregistered in CBI as FIR No.RC.5 (S) 2003 – SCU.I and investigationwere taken up (Exhibit 746).Police custody remand of A6 (MohmedYunus Sareshwala), A7 (Rehan Puthawala), A8 (Mohmed Riyas) andA9 (Mohmed Parvez Sheikh) was extended till 9.6.2003 (Exhibit 745).26(n).On 3.6.2003, records of ICR No.101/03 were collectedfrom DCB by CBI (Exhibit 747).26(o).On 4.6.2003, A10 (Parvez Khan Pathan) and A11(Mohmed Faruq) were arrested on the basis of transfer warrant.Statement of Jagdish Tiwari (PW39) was recorded, who claimed thathe can identify the assailants.A6 (Mohmed Yunus Sareshwala), A7(Rehan Puthawala), A8 (Mohmed Riyas) and A9 (Mohmed ParvezSheikh) expressed their desire to make a confessional statementbefore Sushilkumar S. Gupta, Investigating Officer (PW120), who 45produced them before Vinayak Prabhakar Apte, Superintendent ofPolice (PW21).26(p).On 5.6.2003, A10 (Parvez Khan Pathan) and A11(Mohmed Faruq) were produced before Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,Ahmedabad and were remanded to police custody till 19.6.2003.26(q).On 6.6.2003, Jagdish Tiwari (PW39) identified A1(Mohmed Asgar Ali) and A3 (Mohmed Shafiuddin) during a testidentification parade.Statements of Jagdish Tiwari (PW39), JavedAbdul Rashidkhan Pathan (PW45) and Faridkhan Majidkhan (PW74)were recorded.A7 (Rehan Puthawala) also made a confessionalstatement, which was recorded by Vinayak Prabhakar Apte (PW21).The same had been proved by Exhibits 203, 366, 557, 558 and 229.26(r).On 7.6.2003, confessional statements of A6 (MohmedYunus Sareshwala) and A9 (Mohmed Parvez Sheikh) were recorded byVinayak Prabhakar Apte (PW21).26(s).On 8.6.2003, Vinayak Prabhakar Apte (PW21) recordedthe confessional statement of A8 (Mohmed Riyaz) (Exhibit 238).26(t).He waspresent in early morning hours and his presence has beencorroborated and proved by PW55, owner of Chitty Bang CW1 whohas confirmed that PW55 used to keep his hand cart in the ChittyBang compound with his permission and used to sleep there at night.The version of PW55 has also been corroborated by medical evidenceand by other independent evidence.His disposition has beencorroborated by medical as well as ballistic expert, PWs.8, 15, 55, 101and 120 with respect to the position of the accused and the bulletinjury suffered by the deceased.The Post Mortem examination wasconducted by 4 doctors.Dr. Pratik Patel (PW8) has proved 7 gunshotscaused by 5 bullets.Forensic and biological reports prove the death ofthe deceased inside the car.The weapon used by A1 at the time of thecommission of the offence was duly recovered from same flat.Anil Yadram, PW55 has stated that he stationed hishandcart near Law Garden outside the gate of Chitty Bang,Thakorbhai Desai Hall, and Nanubhai is the owner of the Chitty Bang.He used to leave his handcart in the compound of Chitty Bang ofNanubhai (CW1) during the night.If the handcart is kept outside, thecorporation might tow away the cart.Therefore, he used to keep thehandcart in the said Chitty Bang during the night.Kanhayalal told him that he would be there at 10’O clock.He wasinside the gate of Chitty Bang when he saw a Maruti Fronti came from 50Gajjar Hall Cross Roadside and stopped where he kept his larry.Haren Pandya was inside the car.He parked the car and was rollingthe window glass up.In the meantime, a boy came from the sidewhere the car had come and he fired 4 to 5 rounds.The feet of HarenPandya was raised up and he fell on the back side.Witness shoutedwhat are you doing? The assaulter ran away.The police officer came in civil dress and asked him features of theassaulter.As estimation oftime may differ and as per Jagrutiben, deceased left for Law Gardenonly where he used to go for a morning walk.The accused persons were in possession of mobilephones and were in constant touch with each other before, during andafter the commission of the crime through their mobile or landlinephones, as depicted in the call details records, in order to execute theconspiracy.As mobile phone No.9825491421 was used by A1, hislocation at 7.33 a.m. on 26.3.2003 in the area near Law Garden andA14 providing three new BSNL SIMs.to A7, A8 and A9 on25.3.2003 and their location on 25.3.2003 and 26.3.2003 near LawGarden were strong corroborative evidence of the presence of some ofthe accused in the Law Garden area.The motorbike used by A1 and A6 at the time of thecommission of the offence was duly recovered.The entire gamut offacts relating to the motorbike is as under:(i) A10 purchased motorcycle No.He was shown present at postmortem at 2.15 p.m. PW101 in this regard he has explained that hehanded over the papers to Head Constable.Post Mortem might havebeen made at 2.15 p.m. but he was not present in the post mortemroom at that time.Sd/ 21.6.03 Vinayak P. Apte Supt.Of Police CBI/ACB Gandhinagar Accused Asghar Ali has been handed over to Dr. S.K. Gupta, Dy.S.P, SICI, CBI, New Delhi Camp Gandhi Nagar today on 21.6.2003 at 3.00 PM.Sd/ 21.6.03 Vinayak P.The observations:Same forms part of the chain of criminal conspiracy to create terror inthe community of Hindus which has led to the murder of HarenPandya.The confessions have beenproved by Vinayak Prabhakar Apte, SP CBI (PW21).IN RE: CONFESSION OF A1 (MOHMED ASGAR ALI)It was confessed by A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali) that he was askedby coaccused Abdul Rauf to get prepared for training at Pakistan withother boys.He was given Rs.20,000/ by Abdul Rauf and they went toCalcutta from Hyderabad.One Parvez from Calcutta promised to takethem to Bangladesh.For about 1 ½ month, they were in Bangladeshand he was in constant touch with A2 (Mohmed Abdul Raouf).Hewas given the name of Afdan during his stay at Dhaka, Bangladesh.In the camp, they were trained in firearms like a pistol, gun, LMG,grenades, etc. for about a month.He also confessed that he spoke toSuleman before proceeding to Karachi for training, who was aggrievedby the atrocities committed on Muslim.He was asked to go toUdaipur by Rasul party where he would be picked up for Ahmedabadto avenge atrocity and as being native of Hyderabad, nobody would beable to recognize him at Ahmedabad and the terror could be createdamongst the Hindus.It was confessed by A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali)that he had received an email from Rasul Khan Party in which he wasgiven the address and phone number of Usman who lived in Udaipur.After his return from Udaipur to Hyderabad, he took Rs.2,000 –Rs.3,000/ from A2 (Mohmed Abdul Rauf).He also received onemessage on his email that one Sohail Khan would come to Udaipur totake him to Ahmedabad.On 22.1.2003, Sohail Khan, Salim Pashaand Haji Faruk went to Udaipur in Tata Indica Car and they left forAhmedabad in the morning.He first went to the residence of HajiFaruk and thereafter to Sohail Khan’s place from where he was takento Lokhandwali Chawl, Bapunagar.He contacted A3 (MohmedShafiuddin) and gave the address of Musafirkhana and also called himto Ahmedabad.He was provided with the mobile number of SohailKhan i.e., 9426034937 and also intimated Sohail Khan about thisfriend.He went along with Sohail Khan and Parvez and brought Shafito Hotel Garden near Ahmedabad Railway Station.Thereafter, A1and Shafi were taken to M.B. Flats and from there to Royal Apartmentto Sundaramnagar.He was given a mobile phone with SIM cardno.9825498421 and also one Suzuki Samurai motorcycle.He was intouch with Suleman (Rasul Party) through Modern Cyber Café.In 138March 2003, A10 and A11 went to meet him.Sohail Khan nameBJP Leader Jagdish Tiwari to be their first target as he led the mobduring the riots.Parvez showed him the shop of Jagdish Tiwari.153(a).On 9.3.2003, A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali) and A3 (MohmedShafiuddin) went to the place of Jagdish Tiwari to target him, butJagdish Tiwari did not pass through the said route.On 10.3.2003,they followed Jagdish Tiwari, but they could not kill Jagdish Tiwari.They accordingly informed Sohail Khan and it was decided to killJagdish Tiwari at his medical store.On 11.3.2003, Shafiuddin askedfor medicine and while Jagdish Tiwari bent for taking out themedicine, A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali) fired on him and the bullet wentstraight into his stomach.He also fired a second shot, but the bulletcould not come out.Jagdish Tiwari hides behind the refrigerator.Heimmediately called up Sohail Khan on his mobile no.9426739927, buthe could not be contacted, so he informed Parvez on his mobileno.9426227349 about the incident and asked him to inform SohailKhan also.Thereafter, they changed their shirts at Sohail Khan'shome and were unhappy with the weapon and wanted to return him.A11 and A10 left them at Royal Apartment.153(b).On 17/18.3.2003, Sohail Khan named Haren Pandya astheir next target.Sohail 139Khan told him that Haren Pandya used to go for a morning walk atLaw Garden and he could be killed there.153(c).On 23.3.2003, Sohail Khan took him to Law Garden andYunus and Parvez met them.On that day, Haren Pandya did notcome to Law Garden.On 24.3.2003, he went to Jumma Masjid andwhere he met Anas, Rehan, and Goru.On 25.3.2003, he was givenblack colored loaded revolver with six bullets by Anas in the toilet ofJaliwali Masjid.Goru took him to Law Garden.He walked with HarenPandya, but upon seeing a man in uniform, he decided not to killHaren Pandya inside the garden and dropped the plan of killing himand came back to Shahpur with Goru.The weapon was returned toAnas Machiswala and Shahnavaz asked him to accomplish the taskthe next day.153(d).Next day inside the Jaliwali Masjid, he was given loadedrevolver by Anas Machinswala.It was confessed that Haren Pandyacame in Maruti Fronti car at the place and parked the car at hisregular place.He also confessed that he fired five bullets on HarenPandya from the window of the driver seat and fled away on Yunus’motorbike.They went to Shahpur Mill Compound and he called upSohail Khan and informed him that work is accomplished.He waspiloted by Rehan and Sohail Khan and Anas Machiswala were waiting 140in the auto rickshaw.Five empty cartridges were handed over to AnasMachiswala and kept the pistol of Yunus with him to guard himself.He then went to the Royal Apartment and stayed there for three days.Due to safety purpose, Sohail Khan asked him to vacate RoyalApartment.His task was appreciated by Anas Machiswala, SohailKhan, and Mufti Sufiyan.He was asked to stay at Sikandar's place atKanodar village, but he refused to keep him and he had stayed atKanodar Masjid.Later, he was moved to Flat No.4B, behind ShahpurPolice Station.153(e).Next day Sohail Khan called A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali) nearJuhapura, Afzal Masjid.A4 (Kalim Ahmad Karimi) was part of the conspiracy to murderHaren Pandya.On 7.12.2002, he went to Udaipur along with A13 150(Mufti Sufiyan) and two others and visited the house of Usman KhanNawab Khan (PW29).He also spoke to A18 from a PCO at Udaipur.It was further submitted on behalf of A4 (Kalim Ahmad Karimi)that regarding the allegation of procuring the weapons from Surat isbased on his confessional statement, which is vitiated in law andhence inadmissible.The confession under Section 32 regarding thisallegation cannot be used against A4 (Kalim Ahmad Karimi) as heldby this Court in Parliament Attack case.No weapon was found in his 153possession nor did he lead to any discovery.The relevantexhibits were not signed by the accused as is evident from thetestimony of Sanjay Rameshbhai Brahmane (PW65) the panchwitness.Itproves nothing against accused as they knew each other and thustheir presence in the same vicinity or having talked with each othershould not arouse any suspicion.All cautions were given to him.Voluntariness was ascertained.157174(b).It comes forth in A5's confession that it was Mufti Sufiyan(A13) who had instigated one and all to take revenge of the 2002 riots.He (A5) describes his role of instigating other boys for the Tiffin BoxBombs.A5 describes the arms training that he underwent in Pakistan.He also names others who had also obtained training at Pakistan.After the training, he stayed at Karachi, where he was constantly intouch with Sohail Khan (A14absconding), who in turn was veryfriendly with Rasool Party (A18absconding).A5 further states thatafter his return to Ahmedabad, he was informed by Kaleem (A4) thatthree Hero Honda Motorcycles were arranged at the instance of A13,through Hussainbaba (PW57).One of these motorcycles was given toAnas (A5), which bore Registration No. GJ1BD5739.174(c).Three SIM Cards were given to A5 by A14, one eachto be inserted in the phones of A5, A7 (Rehan), and A8 (Goru).Thecode words "P", "G" and "R" for the names Parvez, Goru, and Rehanwere also fed by A5 in his phone.This was done at A14's instance.Inrelation to the attack on Jagdish Tiwari, A5 states that while he wassitting one day with A13, A14, and A4, it was A14 who had said thatTiwari of Medical store had played a major role in Communal Riots.Tiwari should be done away by "Mehman".A5 states that he came to know of this the next day.Afterthis incident, A4 took back both the firearms.174(d).It is further stated that on 15 th and 16th of March, A13 toldhim (A5) that Haren Pandya would be killed next.A5 was inattendance at the meetings that took place on 17 th and 18th of March,2003 at Juni Jama Masjid.A14, A8, A7, and A4 also attended thosemeetings.A14 named Haren Pandya as the next target because,according to A14, Haren Pandya had perpetrated atrocities onMuslims during the communal riots apart from taking a major lead inthe demolition of Paldi Masjid.A5 describes as to how the task ofdoing a recce of Law Garden was first assigned to A12 and, uponA12's failure, the same came to be entrusted to Parvez.The events of23.03.03 and of 24.03.03 are also described.On 23.03.03 HarenPandya had not turned up at Law Garden.On 24.03.03, registrationNo.of the Maruti Fronti Car used by Haren Pandya came to be notedat Law Garden.174(e).After A1 undertook the taskassigned to him of killing Haren Pandya, A1 along with A6 and 159Rehman came to Shahpur Mill Compound, where A5 was present atthe autorickshaw.A6 kept the pistol and helmet in the autorickshaw,but A1 refused to give either of the firearms but handed over fiveempty cartridges.Evidence of PW21, PW120, PW122, and PW91 show duecompliance of all procedures, including confirmation proceedings.PW108 arrested A5 from Andhra Pradesh.Disclosure, discovery, and seizure of both the pistol and theemail printouts are supported by PW65 (panch witness).The pistolwas discovered at the instance of A5 in the presence of this witness.Printouts of the emails weretaken out in the presence of this witness.It was submitted by Shri Raju Ramachandran, learned SeniorCounsel on behalf of A6 (Mohmed Yunus Sareshwala) that hispresence at the Law Garden area at the time of the incident has notbeen established.It was submitted on behalf of A6 (Mohmed YunusSareshwala) that as per prosecution he was present in the meetingdated 25.3.2003 in the Masjid.A5 (Anas Machiswala) told him thatA6 (Mohmed Yunus Sareshwala) would take A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali)to Law Garden on a motorcycle for killing Haren Pandya.A5 (AnasMachiswala) also provided him black coloured Hero Honda motorcyclefor the purpose and mobile instrument of A8 (Mohmed Riyaz) havingSIM card.Discovery has been made on the basis of disclosure memounder Section 27 of the Evidence Act furnished by A1 (Mohmed Asgar 162Ali) regarding pistol and it is recovered in the presence of SrinathSinhShambhauSinh (PW13).CDR call records of mobile no.9426325774has been placed on record.Disclosure memo Exhibit 196 of the pistol and its seizure videExhibit 195 have been proved on record.The confessional statementof A6 (Mohmed Yunus Sareshwala) disclosed that he was given 72hours to reflect upon the aspect of his confession.He stated of hishaving taken the training at Pakistan with Parvez and Goru.Aftergiving details of his role in AMTS blasts on 29.5.2002, they alsopurchased countrymade revolver from money given by A5 (AnasMachiswala).Masak told them to create terror amongst the people bykilling the leaders.He was informed that 1520 guests were to cometo Ahmedabad and A4 (Kalim Ahmad Karimi) had to makearrangement for all of them.On 9.3.2003, A5 (Anas Machiswala)called up on mobile of A7 (Rehan Puthawala) and told that they wererequired to meet at Sidi Saiyed Jaliwali Masjid.They also met A5(Anas Machiswala) and A14 (Sohail Khan Pathan) asked them tocreate terror since extensive training was imparted to them.The firsttarget was Jagdish Tiwari (PW39).On 18.3.2003, A7 (RehanPuthawala) called upon his residence and said that it was HarenPandya who is enlisted next for killing and with his killing, a terrorshall be created in Gujarat.A10 (Parvez Khan Pathan) was doing a 163recce to kill Haren Pandya.On 25.3.2003, A7 (Rehan Puthawala)called up A10 (Parvez Khan Pathan) and asked him to come at PanGalla near Al Fazal Masjid.On 25.3.2003, an unsuccessful attemptwas made to kill Haren Pandya.On 26.3.2003, he was required totake accused A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali) on a motorcycle at Law Gardenso as to kill Haren Pandya.A5 (Anas Machiswala) told him that hewould be given Hero Honda motorcycle at Law Garden.A4 (KalimAhmad Karimi) also told him that he would be given a pistol and ifanybody is following them, he could do firing in the air.A5 (AnasMachiswala) got a new SIM card for A6 (Mohmed Yunus Sareshwala)which was used in the mobile phone of A8 (Mohmed Riyaz @ Goru).At 7 O'clock in the morning, he was required to take Mehman to LawGarden.He went on that motorcycleat 6.30 am to Lucky Restaurant.He purchased Sandesh newspaperat Juhapura and at 6.56 am reached to Lucky restaurant and by thattime A5 (Anas Machiswala) reached there and called him at JaliwaliMasjid and in the bathroom, he was given pistol by A5 (AnasMachiswala) and said that it was locked and loaded.Thereafter, hewent along with A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali) to Nehru Bridge.He had 164worn a helmet and near the gate of Thakardas Hall, he pretended toread a newspaper.He saw A10 (Parvez Khan Pathan) passing fromthe opposite side and nodded at him.He heard firing of 4 to 5 bullets.He started the motorcycle and wore the helmet.After about 1 to 1½minutes, Mehman approached him and set as a pillion rider.He wenttowards Gujarat College to Gandhidham Railway Station to NehruBridge.From there they went to Shahabuddin Dargah to ShahpurMill Compound, where they met A14 (Sohail Khan Pathan) and A7(Rehan Puthawala), who was waiting in an autorickshaw.A6(Mohmed Yunus Sareshwala) went with A7 (Rehan Puthawala) on hismotorcycle after changing two autorickshaws.He went to hisresidence at Juhapura.EE330 at the instance of A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali) from FlatNo.4/B, Kamar Flats was from Batiwala stove and SrinathsinhShambhausinh (PW13) was the witness of that discovery.In histestimony, he had discussed at length A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali) hadhidden two weapons given to him by the accused.JayantibhaiVitthaldas Suthar (PW27) had proved the landline number at thehouse of A6 (Mohmed Yunus Sareshwala) at A/12, SunriseApartment, Juhapura, and the said fact had also been admitted by A6 (Mohmed Yunus Sareswala).Evidence against A7 (Rehan Puthawala) is that on 9.3.2003 hewas present at Jaliwali Masjid along with A5 (Anas Machiswala), A8(Mohmed Riyaz), A9 (Mohmed Parvez Sheikh), A12 (ShahnawazGandhi) and A14 (Sohail Khan Pathan), where A14 (Sohail KhanPathan) disclosed that Jagdish Tiwari (PW39) would be their targetdue to his role in riots and task will be accomplished by Mehman (A1– Mohmed Asgar Ali) who has come from Hyderabad.On17/18.3.2003, he attended meeting at Juni Jama Masjid where A14(Sohail Khan Pathan) disclosed that Haren Pandya would be their nexttarget and A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali) would execute the killing.He also 170attended the meeting held on 22.3.2003 at Juni Jama Masjid where A14 (Sohail Khan Pathan) assigned the task of a recce of Haren Pandyaat Law Garden to A12 (Shahnawaz Gandhi).On 23.3.2003 at about7.00 am, A9 (Mohmed Parvez Sheikh) called A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali)using his mobile in which A5 (Anas Machiswala) had stored thenumbers of A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali) and A5 (Anas Machiswala) asMama and Uncle respectively.On 24.3.2003, he was present in themeeting at Juni Jama Masjid where A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali) wascalled by A4 (Kalim Ahmed) by making a phone call.On thedirections of A14 (Sohail Khan Pathan), A9 (Mohmed Parvez Sheikh)took A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali) to Law Garden for familiarisation withtopography.In the said meeting, he was assigned the task to remainpresent at Nehru Bridge in order to escort A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali) andA8 (Mohmed Riyaz) after killing Haren Pandya.A5 (AnasMachiswala) handed over to him one SIM Card of BSNL for using nextmorning.The CDR of mobile no.9825398516 and print out of mobileno.9426325775 vide Exhibits 469 and 310 respectively have beencited.It is apparent from the record that he could not go for training toPakistan as during the month of Ramzan his parents were to comefrom the USA and he decided to opt out.However, he has providedcomplete logistic support to all those who went for training.He was 171also contacted by Anas Machiswala (A5) from Dubai and the othersfrom Calcutta.He was in regular touch with A4 (Kalim AhmadKarimi) and has helped his friends who were in difficulty in Calcutta.On his asking, he was informed by A14 (Sohail Khan Pathan) that A1(Mohmed Asgar Ali) @ Mehman, who is coming from Hyderabad, wouldperform the task of killing Haren Pandya and rest of the membershave to provide logistic support only.He has also attended themeeting on 22.3.2003 called by Sohail Khan Pathan (A14) and AnasMachiswala (A5) at Old Jumma Masjid, where A9 (Mohmed ParvezSheikh) was directed by A14 (Sohail Khan Pathan) to carry out recceof Law Garden as A12 (Shahnavaz Gandhi) could not do so.He hadhis own mobile no.9825398516, where he fed mobile no.9825498241of A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali) and mobile no.9825311510 of A5 (AnasMachiswala) as Mehman and Uncle respectively.It is also apparentthat he had waited at the corner of Nehru Bridge for A1 (MohmedAsgar Ali) and A6 (Mohmed Yunus Sareshwala) to come.He escortedthem to Shahpur Mills Compound where A5 (Anas Machiswala) andA14 (Sohail Khan Pathan) were waiting for them in an autorickshaw.He also accompanied A6 (Mohmed Yunus Sareshwala) for handingover the helmet and weapons to A5 (Anas Machiswala) and A6(Mohmed Yunus Sareshwala) gave him brief detail about the killing ofHaren Pandya.He also accompanied A8 (Mohmed Riyaz @ Goru) for 172getting the fake number plate.His mobile phone directory gave amajor lead in the investigation and his active role at every stage andovert act are visible from the evidence adduced by the prosecution.It is also apparent that A7 (Rehan Puthawala) is a close friend ofA10 (Parvez Khan Pathan), A12 (Shahnavaz Gandhi) and A8(Mohmed Riyaz).He has given his confessional statement to VinayakPrabhakar Apte (PW21) and the same had been confirmed byDahyabhai Mathurbhai Patel (PW91).Though HussainmiyanAmirmiyan Shaikh (PW57) has not supported his own statement, yethe has stated that he was known to A4 (Kalim Ahmed Karimi)through A13 (Mufti Sufiyan) and also knowing all the accusedincluding A7 (Rehan Puthawala).Shaikh Mohmed RiyazHussainmiyan Pirmiyan (PW52) the owner of “Star Number Plate”shop has categorically stated about A8 (Mohmed Riyaz @ Goru) andA7 (Rehan Puthawala) having approached for number plate and alsotaken the delivery and at the end of May 2003, they had shown hisshop to CBI Officer from where the number plate was got prepared.The motorcycle having fake registration no.GJ1CH5189 originallybelonged to Gaurang Gandhi.This motorcycle was stolen and theoriginal owner Gaurang Gandhi had made a request not to transferthe stolen vehicle in the name of any other person.As stated earlier,the fake number plate was discovered from the bushes near Tarapur 173Highway and it was A10 (Parvez Khan Pathan) who left the motorcycleat Tarapur Highway while he and A11 (Mohmed Faruq) were runningaway to Bharuch to Surat to Pune and to Hyderabad and thismotorcycle was found by PS Koth.The discovery of motorcycle is dulyproved by Bhagwan Singh Samantsinh Rathod (PW50), PSI posted atPS Koth.After killing Haren Pandya, the fake number plate was putby the accused so as to save themselves from the clutches of law.Sirajbhai Mustufabhai (PW60) has stated about the visit of A7(Rehan Puthawala) along with other accused to his Pan Parlour.All necessary cautionsand explanations were given to him.He had not complained of anything when producedbefore PW91 at 10.40 am.A8 stated that he undertook arms training in Pakistan.He wentthere via Dhaka, along with Yunus (A6), Parvez (A9), and anotherperson named Munaver Beg @ Captain.Fake passports were used forthis, where A8’s name was Abdul Karim.Besides this, he also spoke ofhis close association with other persons, namely, Kaleem (A4), Anas(A5), Yunus (A6), Parvez (A9) Shahnawaz (A12), and Rasul Khan Party(A18absconding).The plan to murder Haren Pandya was abortedon that day (i.e. on 25.03.03) as the place was found to be verycrowded.Next day, i.e. on 26.03.03, it was Yunus (A6) to whom thetask of taking A1 to Law Garden for the murder of Haren Pandya cameto be handed over.Although he had complained of forcible extraction of hisconfessional statement by making him sign on blank papers, trial 180court did not attach much importance to this in view of his lateretraction which was held to be on legal advice, with no priorcomplaint having been made to any judicial officer and all safeguardsof Section 32, POTA had been duly observed by the S.P.Additionally,all witnesses examined to prove A7’s guilt are examined to prove A9’scomplicity as well.Depositions of PW119 and PW33 (working asSubDivisional Engineer and Divisional Engineer, respectively atBSNL, Ahmedabad) are in relation to cell phone records.The same is restored.IN RE: A9 (MOHMED PARVEZ SHEIKH)In a nutshell, details of his training at Pakistan and return fromthere, together with his knowledge and role in AMTS Blasts, attack onJagdish Tiwari (PW39), and murder of Haren Pandya are allmentioned in the statement.A9 also provides details of the role playedby others in the entire sequence of conspiracy.60 hours of reflectiontime was given to him.Willingness was again verifiedafter recording the statement.A9 put his signatures to it.His custodywas handed over to PW120 at 4.50 pm.No complaint was made of any physical ormental illtreatment at the hands of police.He went for training at Pakistan via IndoBangla Border.A4 hadtold him that even those who did not have passports were also to gothere.There, A14 disclosedtwo things.Firstly, that Jagdish Tiwari would be their target andsecondly that two ‘guests’ from Hyderabad had also been called; bothof whom trained at Pakistan.It is stated that firing upon JagdishTiwari came to A9's knowledge via a newspaper.A14 disclosedthat a sharpshooter had come from outside for accomplishing this.A9 states that the first task assigned to him was forundertaking the recce of Law Garden.This fell to him since earlier A12 had failed to undertake the same task.A14 is so stated to have disclosed certain aspectsof Haren Pandya's movements in/around Law Garden: that HarenPandya would go for a morning walk at Law Garden every day, andentering from towards the Thakarbhai Desai Hall, Haren Pandyawould park his White Maruti Fronti Car near Children's Park.Uponnot sighting their target on the morning following the meeting dated22.03.03, A9 once again went to Law Garden on 24.03.03 on hismotorbike.On this occasion, he found Haren Pandya.Whatthereafter followed on 25.03.03 and on 26.03.03 is also mentioned byA9, including as to why it was that on 25.03.03 the plan to murderHaren Pandya came to be aborted.On both these days, A9 waspresent in the vicinity of Law Garden, opposite H.A. College.Besides the aforesaid, A9 also provides details of themobile numbers used by various coconspirators.50) has also been adversely commented upon that looking at the frontof the motorcycle there was one white color number plate, but nonumber was written on it.On 3.5.2003, when the motorcycle wasseized, it was in standing position, hence he brought it to the policestation and broadcast as to the motorcycle in every police station as itwas found unclaimed.The disclosure statement refers to the numberof the plate being removed and thrown away.As per prosecution case, A10 (Parvez Khan Pathan) is the realbrother of A14 (Sohail Khan Pathan) and during the entire period ofthe conspiracy, he had the main role of providing lodging, arms,ammunition, mobile phones, and SIM cards.In January 2003, A14(Sohail Khan Pathan) disclosed to him that as per directions of A13(Mufti Sufiyan), one Mehman (A1 Mohmed Asgar Ali) is to be broughtfrom Udaipur for taking revenge in Ahmedabad.A14 (Sohail KhanPathan) along with A11 (Mohmed Faruq) and Turk Salim PasaMajarirule Islam (PW49) went to Udaipur in Tata Indica car andbrought Mehman (A1 Mohmed Asgar Ali) to Ahmedabad and wasintroduced to him.He also went to Railway Station, Ahmedabad andbrought A3 (Mohmed Shafiuddin) to Lokhandwali Chali.He and A11(Mohmed Faruq) had made arrangement for stay of A1 (Mohmed 189Asgar Ali) and A3 (Mohmed Shafiuddin) at M.B. Complex and later onat Flat No.401, Royal Apartment.He also made an advance paymentof Rs.5,000/ for the flat to Abdul Banki Abdul Bari Ansari (PW44).This fact had been corroborated by Abdul Banki Abdul Bari Ansari(PW44 – hostile witness) in his deposition.He also purchased SuzukiSamurai motorcycle bearing no. GJ1SS5934 from Abdul SamadAbbasali (PW54) from the money provided by A14 (Sohail KhanPathan) in February 2003 for A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali), the shooter.This fact had been corroborated by Abdul Samad Abbasali (PW54) inhis deposition.He acted as an intermediary between A1 (MohmedAsgar Ali) and A13 (Mufti Sufiyan).About 56 days before the attackon Jagdish Tiwari, he was called by A14 (Sohail Khan Pathan) at theshop of A4 (Kalim Ahmed) where A14 (Sohail Khan Pathan) disclosedthat as per the directions of A13 (Mufti Sufiyan), Jagdish Tiwari wastheir target.He pointed out Jagdish Tiwari (PW39) and his shop to A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali) on the directions of A14 (Sohail Khan Pathan).On 7.3.2003, he collected two weapons from A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali)and gave them to A14 (Sohail Khan Pathan).It is further the stand of prosecution that on 9.3.2003, A1(Mohmed Asgar Ali) and A3 (Mohmed Shafiuddin) made an abortiveattempt on Jagdish Tiwari (PW39) where he along with A11 (MohmedFaruq) waited for them at Afzal Cold Drink in order to exchange the 190motorcycles with A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali) and A3 (Mohd. Shafiuddin).After the attack on 11.3.2003 on Jagdish Tiwari (PW39), A1(Mohmed Asgar Ali) called him twice on his mobile.After attackingJagdish Tiwari (PW39), they visited his house and changed clothes.He along with A11 (Mohmed Faruq) dropped them at RoyalApartments.39), on the directions of A14 (Sohail Khan Pathan), he dropped A3(Mohmed Shafiuddin) at ST Bus Stand for going to Jaipur.On1.4.2003, he was informed by A14 (Sohail Khan Pathan) that FlatNo.401 at Royal Apartment has been vacated.On 3.4.2003, he wentto Abdul Banki Abdul Bari Ansari (PW44) and collected a cheque forRs.3,500/ out of the advance amount paid.Thereafter, on theinstructions of A14 (Sohail Khan Pathan), he handed over SuzukiSamurai and Hero Honda motorcycles to Javed Abdul RashidkhanPathan (PW45) and asked him to keep them in some parking place.This fact had been corroborated by Javed Abdul Rashidkhan Pathan(PW45) in his deposition (Exhibit 558).After 4.4.2003, he along withA11 (Mohmed Faruq) fled from Ahmedabad on Hero Hondamotorcycle which they abandoned at Tarapore highway after removingits number plate.Thereafter, he went to Bharuch and stayed in false 191names of Akhtar Ali and Usman Ali.On 5.4.2003, he went to Suratand stayed in Bismillah Hotel in a false name and from Surat he wentto Hyderabad via Pune and stayed in Hotel Bluestar.The confessionabout his stay at Bharuch and Hyderabad had been corroboratedproved by Exhibits 757 and 527 i.e., the visitor registers of both theHotels.He met A4 (Kalim Ahmed), A5 (Anas Machiswala), A12(Shahnawaz Gandhi), A13 (Mufti Sufiyan) and A14 (Sohail KhanPathan) in Hyderabad.Upon seeing the news in a newspaper on26.4.2003 about the arrest of other accused persons, he along with A11 (Mohmed Faruq) decided to return to Ahmedabad.The allegationsagainst A10 (Parvez Khan Pathan) had been proved by HarikishanHarpal Meena (PW23) as panch witness.Rajendra Singh S. Chhikara(PW110) had called Harikishan Harpal Meena (PW23) working inCentral Excise and Customs Department posted at Gandhinagar asSuperintendent to be panch witness in pointing out memo prepared atthe instance of A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali).A10 (Parvez Khan Pathan)has closely worked in association with absconding brother A14(Sohail Khan Pathan).He has provided all the logistic supports forexecuting the conspiracy and made arrangement for stay of those whocame from outside and provided for their transportation, motorcycles,arms, and ammunition.There is evidence that he has provided all the logistic supportfrom the beginning in executing the conspiracy and had beensupported by A11 (Mohmed Faruq).On 23.4.2003, they went inTATA Sumo jeep from CBI Office, Gandhinagar and A1 (MohmedAsgar Ali) led them to House No.206, Block No.61, Old Bapunagar,Ahmedabad at Gujarat Housing Board flats where he stayed for threedays and from there to Flat No.902, A3 Block near Dhobi ki Chawl,Rakhial where also stayed for three days and then to House No.522,Block No.105, Bapunagar near Momin Masjid, which is a house of A14 (Sohail Khan Pathan) and A10 (Parvez Khan Pathan) and fromthere one Bajaj Kawasaki Boxer Motorcycle bearing registrationno.GJ1BG3849 had been seized along with its RC book, for whichmemo Exhibit 270 was prepared and was signed by Harikishan HarpalMeena (PW23) as well as by A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali).Abdul Banki Abdul Bari Ansari (PW44) had corroborated that hehad rented the flat at Royal Apartment on a fixed rent of Rs.1,400/and Rs.5,000/ had been deposited.In April 2003 it was vacated andafter deducting the amount of rent, he had refunded Rs.3,400/ to A10 (Parvez Khan Pathan) through cheque issued favouring A10(Parvez Khan Pathan) drawn on Gujarat Industrial Cooperative Bankfrom Saving Bank Account No.2244 and the same had been encashedby A10 (Parvez Khan Pathan).The handwriting on thecheque was also proved to be that of A10 (Parvez Khan Pathan).Suzuki Samurai black coloured motorcycle bearing no.GJ1SS5934was found at the instance of Javed Abdul Rasidkhan Pathan (PW45).Abdul Samad Abbasali (PW54), owner of Silver Auto Consultant,dealing in sale and purchase of secondhand twowheelers, on28.1.2003 purchased the aforementioned motorcycle from SanjabAkhtar Maheboob Akhtar (PW76) of India Auto Consultant and signedthe delivery notebook and he subsequently sold the same to A10(Parvez Khan Pathan).An entry was accordingly made in the deliverynotebook.It is the case of prosecution and evidence discloses that A11(Mohmed Faruq) was a close associate of A14 (Sohail Khan Pathan)and a friend of A10 (Parvez Khan Pathan).He was under theinfluence of Mutfi Sufiyan and through him, he came in contact withA14 (Sohail Khan Pathan).On their instructions, A11 (MohmedFaruq) agreed to accompany A14 (Sohail Khan Pathan) to fetch A1(Mohmed Asgar Ali) from Udaipur.He was also accompanied by TurkSalim Pasa Majarirule Islam (PW49) and he drove the Tata Indica car.Onthe very first day, A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali) stayed at the place of A11(Mohmed Faruq) and thereafter, he made arrangement of his stay atM.B. Complex for being in touch in Mohmed Jalis Ahmed Rajput (PW68) through Tawabhai Yusufbhai Shaikh (PW66).Thereafter, theystayed at the Royal Apartment.It is proved by Sajid Ibrahim Patel(PW47) that SIM card no.9825677207 was sold from his shop whichwas used while fleeing away to Hyderabad after killing Haren Pandya.ARUN MISHRA, J.The facts, in short, envisage that initially two separate cases were registered by local Police relating to the murder of Mr. HarenSignature Not Verified Pandya, exHome Minister for the State of Gujarat on 26.3.2003 andDigitally signed byNARENDRA PRASADDate: 2019.07.0517:35:11 ISTReason:The trial courtproceeded with the trial of 12 accused persons.The prosecutionexamined in all 122 witnesses.A plethora of documentary evidencehas been filed.Statements of accused persons under section 313Cr.P.C. have been recorded.They denied the charges and urged thatthe confessional statements have been recorded against each of themforcibly and there is no element of voluntariness in the same.The casehas been manufactured against them to shield the real culprits.Indefence 8 witnesses have been examined.The conviction and sentenceimposed by the trial court as modified by the High Court and theperiod have undergone is as under:The High Court on appeal has dismissed the appeal with respect to conviction under section 307 read with section 120B, IPC and section 4 read with section 3(2)(b), section 3(3) of POTA and section 25(1)(B)(a), section 27(1) of Arms Act. However, it has allowed the appeals in part and set aside the judgment of conviction with respect to the murder of Haren Pandya for the offence registered under section 302 read with section 120B of IPC and section 3(1) of POTA against all the accused persons.The CBI has come up in appeals with respect to the murder of Mr. Haren Pandya.It is pertinent to mention that as against accused A2, Mohmed Abdul Rauf son of Mohmed Abdul Kadar and A12, Shah Navaz Gandhi son of Mohmed Gandhi, the trial court held them guilty for offence under section 3(3) of POTA and has given the benefit of doubt 10of all other offences under the POTA as well as under the IPC.A3,Mohmed Shafiuddin son of Late Yusuf Ali was held guilty for theoffence punishable under section 120B read with section 307 IPC, andwas given the benefit of doubt for all the offences he has been chargedwith under the POTA as well as under the IPC.Against the acquittal ofaforesaid 3 persons under various sections, admittedly, no appeal waspreferred by the CBI before the High Court.Against the conviction ofA2Mohmed Abdul Rauf son of Mohmed Abdul Kadar under section3(3) of POTA, the question for consideration before this Court iswhether the sentence imposed by the trial court under section 3(3)was proper or the sentence reduced by the High Court on appeal byaccused.On 2/3.9.2003, a letter was written to the Commissioner ofPolice, Ahmedabad for according sanction under Section 39 of theArms Act in respect of A1 (Mohmed Asghar Ali), A3 (Mohmed 15Shafiuddin), A5 (Anas Machiswala) and A6 (Mohmed YunusSareshwala) (Exhibit 684).On 5.9.2003, the sanction of theCommission of Police, Ahmedabad, under Section 39 of the Arms Actwas accorded (Exhibit 685).On 6.9.2003, Government of Gujarataccorded sanction under Section 50 of the POTA for prosecutingaccused persons (Exhibit 697).On 8.9.2003, combined chargesheetwas filed against A1 to A19 in the Court of Special Judge, POTACases, Ahmedabad.On 29.8.2005, A15, A16 and A17 wereexonerated by the Central POTA Review Committee and their trial wasseparated.As many as 122 witnesses were examined by theprosecution in order to substantiate the charges against the accusedpersons.On 25.6.2007, two court witnesses were examined by theCourt and defence had examined eight witnesses.The learned SpecialJudge (POTA) vide judgment dated 29.8.2011 convicted all the 12accused persons.Nine of them were awarded life imprisonment andthe remaining three were awarded sentences ranging from 5 to 7 yearsrigorous imprisonment.The High Court has acquitted all the accusedpersons from the charge under Section 302 IPC.The trial court had the advantageof looking at the demeanour of the witnesses.He has urgedarguments on the following aspects:(vi) Tiffin box blast in POTA Case Nos.7 & 9 of 2003 and the conviction of A4 & A5 in the said POTA case, not only proves their criminal antecedents but it is also a material event in the chain of events with respect to criminal conspiracy to create terror among Hindus by violent means.(vii) Attack on Sh.Jagdish Tiwari (PW39) by A1 using a firearm along with A3 in conspiracy with the other accused persons, whose conviction under section 307 read with 120B have also been upheld by the High Court forms part of the same chain of criminal conspiracy to create terror in the community of Hindus.(viii) Call records of the accused persons during the entire period of conspiracy and the tower location of the phones of the accused persons near the Law Garden on the day of the murder of the deceased is a piece of strong circumstantial evidence against the accused persons.(B) It was further urged that the prosecution by leading cogentevidence proved that in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy, A1(Asghar Ali) committed murder of the deceased on 26.3.2003 andtherefore all the accused persons committed offences under section 18302 IPC to read with section 120B IPC and offences under section 3(1)and 3(3) of POTA.In this regard the following points have been urged:(a) PW55 who is an eye witness stated to have seen A1 shooting the deceased is a reliable and truthful witness.(b) Post mortem report which was conducted by a panel of 4 doctors, which was duly proved by Dr. Pratik Patel (PW8) proved 7 gunshot injuries on the body of deceased caused by 5 bullets.(c) The forensic and biological report proves the presence of blood of the deceased inside the car.(d) The weapon used by A1 in the murder of the deceased and the clothes worn by A1 at the time of the commission of the offence was duly recovered at the instance of A1 from Kamar Flats.(f) The motorbike used by A1 and A6 at the time of the commission of murder of the deceased was duly recovered.(g) PW55 who is an eye witness to the murder of the deceased and PW39, who is an injured witness of the attempt to murder of his own life, duly identified A1 as the assailant in the test identification parade before the Executive Magistrate (PW14).(h) The commission of the offence of attempt to murder on Jagdish Tiwari (PW39) by A1 along with A3 by using a firearm on 6.3.2003, which offence is duly proved and has attained finality, proves the presence of A1 and A3 at Ahmedabad during the relevant period.(i) PW95 proves the presence of A1 in Ahmedabad on 27.3.2003 as well as the fact that the phone No. 9825491421 was being used by A1 on 27.3.2003 i.e. next day of the murder of the deceased.He in his testimony proved that A1 was using the mobileNo.9825491421 on 27.3.2003 i.e. next day to the murder of thedeceased as he made a phone call from the aforesaid number to hisbrother on 27.3.2003, which has appeared in the call records of thesaid number.This witness identified A1 in his deposition before thecourt.The relevant portion of his deposition is reproducedhereinbelow:On the next day of the murder of Mr. Haren Pandya, Vishwa Hindu Parishad has called for band, I and my brother as per the direction of my parents were doing scooter coloring work at Chandlodiya.I was going to call my brother that does not go on work at that time Afdan met me on the stairs, he asked me that where are you going? I told him reason at that time he has stated that you make calls from his mobile.Due to so many time has been passed perhaps I cannot identify Afdan and his friends.Although I will try.Theadverse inference has to be drawn against the prosecution for notproducing the material witnesses.It was also submittedon that reason the case under POTA is different from TADA.Thelearned Magistrate while confirming the proceedings as to theconfessional statement has committed illegality.There are several contradictionswithin the confessional statement and there is no corroboration.There is therecovery of documentary evidence also, passenger books proved byhotel caterers, PC owners and opinion of handwriting experts.25(k).On 15/16.3.2003, A13 (Mufti Sufiyan) in consultationwith A14 (Sohail Khan Pathan) disclosed to A5 (Anas Machiswala)that their next target would be Haren Pandya, who used to come toLaw Garden for a walk.25(l).On 17/18.3.2003, a meeting was attended by A4 (KalimAhmed), A5 (Anas Machiswala), A7 (Rehan Puthawala), A8 (MohmedRiyaz), A12 (Shahnavaz Gandhi) and A14 (Sohail Khan Pathan) atJuni Jama Masjid, where A14 (Sohail Khan Pathan) disclosed theirnext target i.e., Haren Pandya.A12 (Shahnavaz Gandhi) was directed 37by A14 (Sohail Khan Pathan) to carry out a recce of Law Garden inorder to ascertain movements of Haren Pandya and his car number.25(m).In a meeting held on 22.3.2003 at Juni Jama Masjidattended by A4 (Kalim Ahmed), A5 (Anas Machiswala), A7 (RehanPuthawala), A8 (Mohmed Riyaz), A12 (Shahnavaz Gandhi) and A14(Sohail Khan Pathan), A9 (Mohmed Parvez Sheikh) was assigned thetask to carry out the recce of Law Garden as A12 (Shahnavaz Gandhi)had failed to do so.25(n).On 23.3.2003 at 7.00 am, A9 (Mohmed Parvez Sheikh)called A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali) from the mobile phone of A7 (RehanPuthawala) and asked him to come to Law Garden in order tofamiliarize with the topography.It had been proved by Exhibit 467i.e.On 11.6.2003, POTA was invoked in RC.5(S)/2003SCU.Ii.e., case of Jagdish Tiwari and an intimation was sent to Principal 46Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, and Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,Ahmedabad (Exhibits 750 and 751).26(u).Hero Honda Motorcycle was seized fromPS Koth.A10 (Parvez Khan Pathan) made a disclosure statementregarding number plates and video CDs.The number plate wasdiscovered from roadside bushes of Tarapur Highway at the instanceof A10 (Parvez Khan Pathan) and six video CDs and other literaturewere discovered from the house of A10 (Parvez Khan Pathan).A10(Parvez Khan Pathan) and A11 (Mohmed Faruq) also expressed adesire to make a confessional statement before Sushilkumar S. Gupta(PW120).26(v).On 15.6.2003 and 16.6.2003, confessional statements ofA11 and A10 respectively were recorded by Vinayak Prabhakar Apte(PW21).(Exhibits 241 and 244)26(w).A 471 (Mohmed Asgar Ali), A2 (Mohmed Abdul Rauf) and A3 (MohmedShafiuddin) expressed their desire to make a confessional statementbefore Sushilkumar S. Gupta (PW120).On 20.6.2003, confessionalstatements of A2 (Mohmed Abdul Rauf) and A3 (Mohmed Shafiuddin)were recorded by Vinayak Prabhakar Apte (PW21).A12 (ShahnavazGandhi) also expressed a desire to make confession to Sushilkumar S.Gupta (PW120).26(x).On 21.6.2003, confessional statement of A1 (Mohd. AsgarAli) was recorded by Vinayak Prabhakar Apte (PW21) and on22.6.2003, confessional statement of A12 (Shahnavaz Gandhi) wasrecorded by Vinayak Prabhakar Apte (PW21).Thereafter, A4 (Kalim Ahmed) andA5 (Anas Machiswala) also expressed a desire to make confessionbefore Vinayak Prabhakar Apte (PW21).IN RE: ANIL YADRAM (PW55)Commission of offence visàvis PW39, JagdishTiwari has attained finality as that has not been questioned byaccused persons by filing appeals, which also proves the presence ofA1 and A3 at Ahmedabad during the relevant period.PW95 proves 49that A1 was present in Ahmedabad on 27.3.2003 and used phoneNo.98254 91421 even up to the next day of the murder of thedeceased.The High Court has committed gross perversity in settingaside the findings recorded by the trial court without coming to closequarters of the reasoning employed by the trial court as well asmarshalling of evidence in detail, as done by the trial court.On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of theaccused sought to discredit the testimony and deposition of PW55Anil Yadram by raising various grounds to be dealt with in extensohereinafter.He used to sleep inthe Chitty Bang, the place of Nanubhai.On 26.3.2003 he went tonature’s call, and after brushing he washed his face and came nearthe front gate and then he saw that Kanhaiya Lal was standing nearbythe gate.He told him that the Corporation was towing the handcarts.Thereafter Ramesh,Sweeper came and asked what had happened.The boy was neitherhere nor there.He has specified some features of the accused.He wasscared and sat so for some time and then went towards B Desai Halland saw Shukla Chacha in a rickshaw.He informed Shukla Chachathat Haren Pandya has been killed.Shukla Chacha and he both wentin a rickshaw.Since goods were loaded and as there was traffic policeon Panchvati Circle, he dropped him off from rickshaw at PanchvatiCircle and again asked him to board the rickshaw at Ambawadi Circle.Then they reached Nanubhai’s place.He informed Nanubhai thatHaren Bhai Pandya has been killed by 4 to 5 rounds of firing at theplace where he used to keep his larry.Nanubhai told that after havingtea he will reach Law Garden.They went back to Law Garden, thepolice had arrived, Haren Pandya was taken in a jeep to V.N. Hospital.The witness explained him in the same manner as he has 51deposed in the court.The CBI had prepared the map.He has affixedhis thumb impression and Kanhaiya has signed it.It was submitted on behalf of the accused persons that the caseof gun firing set up by the witness PW55 is not correct as in Maruti800 car, no gunshot residue (GSR) has been found and no bullet hasbeen recovered from the car.It is not in dispute that the bullets wererecovered from the body as such they were not found in the car.Learned counsel for A1 submitted that from the seat no blood wasfound though on Kurta and Pyjama and underwear there were bloodstains.The High Court has observed that there was profuse bleeding,as such from the driver’s seat cover blood ought to have been found.On the other hand, it was pointed out on behalf of the CBI that bloodhas been recovered from the Maruti car and it was of Group B of thedeceased.Thus, merely on the cover of the seat blood was not found,would not discredit the incident.As a matter of fact, it would dependupon the nature of the wound and whether the bleeding is internaland the position of the body as to how much blood would go down.Whether it will go to the seat cover or to the bottom of the car, itcannot be said to be a universal formula that whenever an incidenthas happened in a car, blood should be found on a particular place.Thus, an attempt to discredit the deposition of the witness on theaforesaid ground that some blood has not been recovered from the 52seat cover of the car by itself, cannot be said to be circumstancesleading to doubting of the incident in the car.Hehas duly identified A1 in a test identification parade on 5.5.1981before PW7 who has given Panchnama.The trial court has rightlyfound him to be a reliable witness.It was submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf ofthe accused that the car had dark window glasses.Driver’s right sidewas slightly open.PW55 has also stated that the car window wasopen as shown in the photograph.Thus, it was submitted that by theopening of roughly 3 inches, gunshot injuries are rendered impossible,to be caused especially injury No.7, which renders it doubtful that thecar was the site of the shooting.PW55 has stated that Haren Pandya 53after stopping the car, drank water from the bottle and thereafter hewas fired at when he was rolling up the window glass.In our opinion, precise rolling of the glass when he was fired at,cannot be stated by any person with precision.It is too much to expecta person to state how much rolling of the glass of windows had beendone at the time of firing.Even if the witness had stated so, thatwould be merely his guesswork.When a person is rolling the glass up,it is possible that he might have been fired the shot when the windowwas quite wide open and when he was in the process of rolling it up.The person in order to save himself from the firing would also try toroll up the glass with speed then also gunshot firing can be made inthe process.Thus the argument raised that there was a tiny openingof 3 inches when the shots were fired, is against the normal course ofhuman conduct to make such statement and the way in which theincident has taken place it cannot be said with precision how muchrolling of the glass of windows was done before firing took place andhow much rolling was done after suffering some shots or in theprocess of firing.It can only be said that he was in the process ofrolling the glass up when the firing took place.PW55 has demonstrated the position of the deceased inside thecar in his deposition.With respect to shooting from the driver’s side 54glass is corroborated medically by the direction of injuries 1 to 4 whichare from upward to downward and right to left.PW55 has furtherstated that the legs of deceased came up and he fell on the codriver’sseat which explains injury No. 7 also which is from downward toupward and left to right.The position of thedeceased has been confirmed by PW85, a constable who took thebody of the deceased out of the car.PW85 has stated that legs wereslightly up from knee level.The right leg was slightly more on theupward direction.To discredit version of PW55, it was submitted that there were 7injuries and 5 bullet injuries were found.That falsifies the prosecution case.This aspectrequires a close examination of the evidence.It was submitted onbehalf of A1 that in the post mortem conducted by 4 doctors, 5bullets described as white metal bullets were found from the body asagainst 7 gunshot wounds.All of them had blackening around.InjuryNo.6 also had blackening as found by PW19, the treating doctor.Theholes in the clothes corresponding to the blood wounds including theright bone show blackening.The emergence of all 7 holes on theclothes including those on the right GSR and later examined by CFSL.5 and 6 in the post mortem report is their communicating injury.The track of injuries 5 and 6 is not noted.It was submitted that incase of injury Nos.5 and 6, there should have been wrist fracture andthe injury should have been on the palm region.Thus the eye witnessaccount of firing 5 shots is not reliable.For causing injury No.7 theweapon would have to be at the level of the scrotum and to its left andthe autopsy surgeon has stated that assailant to cause injury No.7 willhave to be in front and beneath.Thus injury No.7 could not have beencaused in Maruti car.So that is not the place of the incident.Due tothis aspect, the ocular evidence of PW 55 stands contradicted.It was submitted on behalf of the prosecution that whilecountering that coherent and succinct nature of the medical andforensic evidence with ballistics bolsters the case of the prosecutionand unambiguously establishes that murder was committed by A1.Injury Nos.2 to 4 were direct shots to the chest; injury Nos.1, 5 and 6were caused by the same bullet, injury No.1 was on the neck, injuryNo.5 on the righthand metallic bone and injury No.6 at back of thehand, injury Nos.5 and 6 are communicating injuries and thereafterinjury No.1 has been caused in the neck by the same bullet.In the post mortem report D160 dated 26.3.2003 of HarenPandya following injuries have been noted:About 0.8 cm diameter, punch red contused lacerated entry wound with inverted edges is present on the lower part of front of neck on right side, about 1 cm above and 2 cm right to medial end of right clavicle.Blackening is seen on skin surrounding the wound.About 0.8 cm diameter, punch red contused lacerated entry wound with inverted edges is present in front of right chest, about 1.2 cm right to midplane over right 2nd intercostal space.About 0.8 cm diameter, punch red contused lacerated entry wound with inverted edges is present on front of right chest, 5 cm below and 1 cm left to right nipple.About 0.8 cm diameter, punch red contused lacerated entry wound with inverted edges is present on back of right hand, 2 cm proximal to junction of index and middle fingers.Blackening of skin is seen surrounding the wound.Lacerated wound with everted margin is present on front of right forearm at junction of upper 2/3 to lower 1/3rd, g___ obliquely downward to medially, 2 cm.7. 0.5 cm diameter, circular punch lacerated wound with inverted margins present on lower part of left scrotum 1 cm __ midplane (scrotal raphe) covered with clot.8. 0.4 cm x 0.4 cm, redcolored, abrasion present on mid of lateral aspect of phalanx of the right middle finger."When we consider the aforesaid report, injury No.1 is on thelower part of the front of the neck on the right side, that is on the right 57clavicle.The doctor has clearly expressed that injury Nos.5 and 6 arecommunicating ones.As a matter of fact, in communicating injuries itis not necessary that the bullet to have entered the proximal tojunction of the index and middle finger.The entry and exit wounds have been seen and explained bythe doctor in the aforesaid manner which has to be communicatingone only caused by the same bullet.The tightest packed are wrist bones and thecarpal tunnel is just about 8.3 mm in depth (as per medical journals).A 0.32 caliber bullet has a diameter of 7.65 mm.Therefore, in theabsence of any credible competent forensic explanation of the track ofinjuries 5 and 6, this theory set up by CBI at the stage of arguments,is liable to be dismissed.Inthe instant case, as the bullet has not entered inside and only touchedthe soft tissue in injury No.5, the injury was caused on the soft tissueand then it has superficially touched the wrist.The doctor has stated in para 8 that external injuries 5 and 6were found communicating with each other.Fracture of 2 nd rightmetacarpal bone was present.He has further stated that bullets weremade of white metal, they were sealed, labelled and handed over to thepolice officer on duty.When the treating doctor was asked how therewere 5 bullets and 6 entry wounds, he has opined that one injury will 60be of the entry of the bullet and that was precisely the communicatinginjuries 5 and 6 leading to injury No.1 that was the reentry wound.The doctor while admitting that there was some such confusion in his evidence as well as the post mortem report, in our opinion, has clarified the said position during the course of his examination, though belatedly.It was further submitted that in the police statement PW55 hasstated that Haren Pandya collapsed on the front seat then speaks ofShri Pandya having fallen on the driver’s seat.Later speaks about hisfalling on the adjacent seat.They have not given any explanation as to what they did after witnessing the assault on the deceased.These lapses on the part of PW 3 [doctor] and PW 6 [investigating officer] are a deliberate attempt on their part to prepare reports and documents in a designedly defective manner which would have prejudiced the case of the prosecution and resulted in the acquittal of the accused, but for the correct approach of the trial court to do justice and ensure that the guilty did not go scotfree.The evidence of the eyewitness which was reliable and worthy of credence has justifiably been relied upon by the court.”” (emphasis supplied)With respect to track of bullet for injury No. 7 much was argued.The clothes of the deceased bore telltale signs of profuse bleeding from injuries on his neck and forearmand mobile phone and keys lying under the seat had stains of blood.Thus, it is apparent that there was blood on the seat as well as on themobile phone and keys which were lying on the floor.(c) Ex. 547: opinion of serology goes to indicate that human blood wasfound.(d) Ex. 458: CFSLbiological division report: biological report wouldshow that cotton swabs had B group blood which belonged to thedeceased.(e) Ex. 451: 5 cotton swabs all indicating B group blood.(f) The evidence of Y.A. Shaikh (PW 101) who deposed that he haslifted the blood sample by a cotton swab.(g) The evidence of Satyam Patel, PW4 (Panch Witness) who deposedthat blood was seen on the seat at the relevant time which was rubbedwith a small pellet of cotton which was sent to the laboratory.(h) The PM report would indicate that there was a lot of blood in thethoracic cavity to the tune of 2.2 litres.(i) Ex. 457, 458 and 169: Panchnama of the clothes would indicatethat the clothes had B group blood.He first wanted to inform the owner ofthe place as to the murder of Haren Pandya.He was not a literateperson.The timeframe employed by the High Court with respect tothe witness travelling time that he should have come back at 10.30a.m.and not at 11 a.m. is based on estimation as if PW55 was not awitness but was an accused.As a matter of fact, the doctor has clearlyopined that white bullets were seized and they were sent for ballisticexamination and they have been produced from the CFSL.In ouropinion, it was necessary to put in the crossexamination of PW8 thefact that the bullets which were produced in court were not the samewhich were recovered at the time of post mortem, which has not beendone.Hecompared the seals.The bullets were fired from a .32 revolver.It was the duty of the crossexaminer to obtainexplanation that whether these bullets which were shown and statedby the doctor to have been recovered from the body of Haren Pandyawere not the same.When the doctor has seen the bullets and hadidentified them that they were recovered from the body, no dent iscaused by the statement of the doctor that they were made of whitemetal.PW8 has stated that duringautopsy five bullets were recovered from the body of Haren Pandyawhich was handed over to the (PW170) police constable in sealedcondition.(PW170) Bipin Bhai, a constable on duty has stated thathe received five bullets in the sealed condition and has handed overthe sealed five bullets to police inspector Y.A. Sheikh (PW101) in the 85presence of panchwitness, Falgun Pandya (PW2).The evidence further discloses that PW120, Dy.The evidence discloses that during the course of police custodyMohmed Asgar Ali (A1) on 26.1.2003 gave a disclosure statement andindicated the place for recovery of the weapon in the presence ofAdditional S.P. Chikara and Police Inspector PW3 Shri Rathi.Mohmed Asgar Ali (A1) has mentioned in his disclosure statement(Exh.656) information pursuant to which two weapons – i.e. onerevolver and one pistol and the cartridges were recovered vide inquestmemo Exh.196 along with the clothes Exh.1 which A1 worn at thetime of occurrence.PW13, Shrinathsingh, panch witness and Mr.Chikara have proved the aforesaid aspects.The weapons wererecovered hidden in the tank of Battiwla Stove at Kamar Flat inShahpur.They were recoveredfrom his shop tied in a cloth vide seizure memo (Exh.628 dated10.7.2003).In all, they recovered four .32 bore S & WL fired cartridgecases.As they were required to be compared with .32 bore revolverbearing Serial No.B 40350, the same had been received by him onceagain and he opined that these four .32 bore fired cartridges containedin parcel No.22 had been fired from .32 bore revolver bearing SerialNo.He also found that though the revolver was in workingcondition the firing pin of the revolver was found tampered.Thewitness was not able to explain the reason for examining the weapononce again and for the examination of the damaged firing pin.Thedefence submitted that in the circumstances the identification wouldnot be possible.The prosecution has submitted that the breach facemark, if available and sufficient, can lead to provide identification incase of tampering of a pin.Reliance has been placed on behalf of theaccused on the deposition of Dr. Jitendra Kumar Sinha (DW8).It was the wrong noncommittal reply.Anil Sharma (PW19) and Bipinchandra Mehta (PW70), panchwitness PW10, Y.A. Shaik (PW101), etc. These were received by PW75, Mr. Arora after the Department of Biology tested it.The weaponwas seized on 27.04.2003 and sent on 2nd/ 3rd May 2003 to CFSL.Itis a fact that initially when the expert first examined the revolver hedid not realise the fact that the firing pin of the said weapon tampered.When once again after the cartridge cases discovered at the instanceof the accused (A17) were sent for the laboratory testing, he realisedthat the firing pin had tampered.No twobullets encounter precisely the same conditions in passing through abore, nor do the corresponding striae always appear at the samelengthwise position on “identical‘‘ specimen.Dr. Arora emphasised that while giving his testimony before thecourt that degree of similarities which are found was never perfectidentity considering the striking area covered by the tampered fire pinand comparison of the same with the untampered firing pin.Thus, the evidence of DW8 also makes it clear that breach facealone is sufficient to confirm the opinion if they are found to berepetitive and also of repetitive character of the striations which aredue to an individual firearm can be related to a particular firearm.In Eshwaraiah & Anr.The site map was sought to be discredited on the basis that PW120, I.O. of CBI gave a contradictory reply.He said that the originalspot map was drawn by pencil and later on drawn in ink.The High Court has also doubted by prosecution case withrespect to interpolation and site map with respect to the name of A1.Dr.Gupta, I.O. of CBI, PW120 has explained the said aspect in thefollowing manner:NONEXAMINATION OF JAGRUTIBEN, W/O. HAREN PANDYAThe printouts of email sent by A1, A2 and A18 revealed that they were operating in furtherance of acommon object as also the presence of some of them in Udaipur andAhmedabad, even as the text of email messages did not reveal anyspecific plan of committing any particular crime.GJISS5934 from PW54 andgave it to A1 in the first week of February 2003 for hismovements in Ahmedabad.(iii) In December 2002, on the directions of A13, PW57 (hostilewitness but statement under section 164 Cr.(iv) One of the stolen motorcycles was handed over by A10 toPW45 on 3/4.4.2003 while fleeing from Ahmedabad.This number plate was put on the second Hero Honda motorcycle after the commission of a crime.(vi) The said motorcycle was abandoned by A10 and A11 while fleeing from Ahmedabad at Tarapur Highway.the said motorcycle was taken into possession by PS Koth and thereafter seized by CBI on 12.6.2003 from PS Koth.With respect to the disappearance of the mobile phone ofaccused A1, no such question was put to I.O., PW120 that mobile ofA1 had disappeared from Muddamal.Neither any mobile phone norany sim card was seized from A1 on his arrest by one DIG ShriBehra.It is, in fact, Yusufbhai, PW95 who is an independent witnesswho stayed in the same Royal Apartments as A1 has proved that A1was using mobile No.9825491421 during the relevant time.PLACE OF EYE WITNESS NOT DEPICTED IN SPOT MAP 99Spot mapwould be admissible so far as it indicates all that the Inspector sawhimself at the spot.Any mark put on the spot map on the basis ofstatements made by the witness to the Inspector would beinadmissible in view of the clear provisions of section 162 Cr.P.C. ThisCourt has observed thus:We are of opinion that neither of these arguments has any force.The validity of this argument depends mainly on the spot which has been marked on the sketchmap Ex. Ka9 as the place where the deceased received his injuries.In the first place, the map itself is not to scale but is merely a rough sketch and therefore one cannot postulate that the spot marked on the map is in exact relation to the platform.In the second place, the mark on the sketchmap was put by the Sub Inspector who was obviously not an eyewitness to the incident.The statement of the witnesses ought to haveprevailed as to his presence on the spot.The confession shall be recorded in an atmosphere free fromthreat or inducement.(vi).SP, CBI on 18.6.2003 wrote a letter tothe SP, ACB, Gandhi Nagar to the effect that accused Asghar Ali hasexpressed his willingness to make confessional statement voluntarily.The Superintendent of Police was requested to record his statementunder section 32 of POTA.After receiving the said communication, theSP, ACB, CBI has recorded that he directed the Dy.S.P. to producethe accused person before him on 18.6.2003 at 7 p.m. after handingover custody of the accused to some other officer.Followingproceedings had been recorded by the S.P. :“Today on 18.6.2003, I received a requisition from Dr. S.K.Gupta, Dy.S.P., CBI, SIC I, New Delhi, (Camp Gandhi Nagar), in CBI RC.5(S)/2003 SIU.I/SIC.I/CBI/New Delhi requesting me to record the confessional statement of accused Asghar Ali under Section 32 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (POTA).Accordingly, I directed Dr. S.K. Gupta to produce accused before me on 18.6.2003 at 7.00 p.m. after handing over the custody to some other officer.”On the accused Asghar Ali being produced before the S.P., hehas recorded the following proceedings:Accused Asghar Ali, S/o Mohd. Wazir Ali, aged 27 years, R/o House No.8/3/113, Darusafa Colony, Nalgonda, Hyderabad, was today produced before me on 18th day of June, 2003 at around 7.00 p.m. in the Chamber of S.P., CBI/ACB by ASI Shri Ishwar Chand Sharma, for recording his statement under Section 32 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (POTA) in connection with Case No. CBI RC.5(S)/2003 SIU.I/SIC.I/CBI/New Delhi (Jagdish Tiwari case).”After the ASI who produced him was asked to go out of the roomwhen he went away, only the S.P. and accused remained inside theroom.The S.P. had again put certain questions and apprised him allthe details of the case and also ascertained from him whether hewanted to make a confessional statement.He was told that he was notlegally bound to give the confessional statement.The S.P. ordered in writing for keeping the accusedMohd.Asghar Ali for the purpose of his reflection in order to make uphis mind whether he actually wanted to make a confessional 107statement or not and no one is allowed to meet him during the periodof reflection.On 18.6.2003 following questions were put :Thereafter, only myself and the accused remained inside the room.I asked the following questions from the accused and the answers to the questions were given by the accused.Q. Tell me your name, your father's name, your age, and address?A. My name is Asghar Ali, s/o Mohd. Wazir Ali, aged 28 years, R/o House No. 8/3/113, Darusafa Colony, Nalgonda, Hyderabad.Q.What are your educational qualifications? A. I am 10th fail.Q. What is your occupation?A. I was doing business of grocery and general stores.Q. Do you know that I am a Superintendent of Police? A. Yes, I know that.Q. Do you know why you have been produced before me? A. Yes I know I have been produced before you for recording of my confessional statement.Q. Do you wish to confess to your crime?A. Yes Sir.Q. Do you know that you are not legally bound to five the confessional statement, and if you give any such statement, it would be used as evidence against you?A. I do not know anything about this.But you have explained me and therefore I have understood it now.Q. Are you giving this confessional statement under any fear, pressure or greed?A. No. I am giving this statement voluntarily on my own.Q. Have you been beaten or tortured physically and mentally anyone?A. No. .The answers to the above questions were given by accused on his own volition and the questions and answers were read over and explained to accused and he admitted them to be correct and signed the same.Sd/ Illegible Mohd. Asghar Ali Sd/ Illegible Vinayak P. Apte Superintendent of Police CBI/ACB, Gandhi Nagar”On 21.6.2003 the accused was again told that he was not boundto give a confessional statement as mentioned above.The proceedingsrecorded on 21.6.2003 by the S.P. are extracted hereunder :“At this time, I warned the accused that he is not legally bound to give the confessional statement and if he gives any such statement, it would be used as evidence against him.After 65 hours lapsed, after the accused was given warning, hewas directed to be produced before the S.P. who has recorded thatduring his period of reflection, no person was allowed to meet him.109Once again warning was given.He was asked why he wanted to give aconfessional statement.He was told the consequence of confessionalstatement once again that it could be used against him to which heanswered that he knew it very well.Q. Why are you willing to give confessional statement? A. Because I want to lessen my burden and I want to confess my crime.Q. I am once again warning you that you are not legally bound to give the confessional statement and if you give any such statement, it would be used as evidence against you?A. Yes, I know very well.The haunting fear of again landing himself into police custody soon after appearance before the CJM would be an inhibiting factor against speaking anything adverse to the police.The same objective seems to be at the back of subsection (3) of Section 164 CrPC, though the situation contemplated therein is somewhat different.No witness had spoken to this effect.Exh. 228 and Ex. 229 had concluded just 4 hours before.The period of total recording is20 to 22 hours and not 39 hours as attributed.The argument was raised that when accused asked for a glass ofwater, this renders the confessional statement unworthy of credence.The court has individually heard each and everyaccused.A1 has stated that his signatures had been obtained on theblank papers.A7 says that by hook or crook, he was asked to make this confessionand was forced to make it.A8 says that he was forced to make aconfession.When he refused to sign, blinds were applied for 2 days.He signedthe written confession.A12 says that his confession was forcible and 134was obtained under threat.A13 also made a similar statement.Mufti Sufiyan gave the order for his killing.He received a call from Mohd. Ayub who wascalled at the hotel.His stay arrangement was made at Silver Flat No.2,where Dr. Harun used to stay and A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali) also stayedthere for about a week.He continued to chat with his friends at CyberSpace Café at Afzal Mosque.It is stated that he was extremelyannoyed with the maltreatment meted out to him after killing HarenPandya, on writing to Rauf, he urged him that he should intimateSuleman at Pakistan that fact but the next day he did not receive anymessage and therefore, the next day he chose to go to Hyderabad.On7.4.2003 when Ayub brought food for him, he requested him to drophim at Railway Station, got the ticket for himself for Mumbai.Hehimself was very perplexed and perspiring and told Ayub the true 141story and Ayub was extremely scared.At Hyderabad, he went toIftikhar's place and met Rauf there and requested him to take him toPakistan after talking to Suleman.They were asked to wait, but sincehe was scared, he was planning to go to Bangladesh on his own.Raufalso told him that Haji Faruk and Parvez had reached Hyderabadhiding from Police.On his way to Calcutta and Bangladesh fromHyderabad, the police caught him.The confession was signed by him.PW55 claims to have shouted out at him.Confession of accused A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali) does not refer to rollingup of the window but speaks of Haren Pandya drinking water at thetime of shooting. "Jaise use Gadi khadi karke pani peene ke liye botalka dhakkan khola main gadi ki taraf ghooma aur driver ki taraf sethoda khule sheeshe se Haren Pandya par panch fire kiye." In ouropinion, the nonrecovery of a water bottle from the car is not at allmaterial as it had nothing to do with the offence in question.Everymaterial found in the car was not required to be seized.The witnessPW55 has also said that Haren Pandya drank water from the bottle.Confession of A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali) has been supported byvarious other evidence on the record like phone calls, recovery of theweapon, vehicle, hiring of rooms, etc. It was submitted that conduct ofA1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali) as stated in the confession does not inspireconfidence.There is no conceivable reason for preserving cartridgecase and weapons and spending time which must be precious to amurderer for escaping from the spot.It was not reasonable for theaccused to preserve empty cartridges.There was the possibility of theirrecovery from the place of occurrence.In case he had thrown them atthe place of occurrence, as such, in our opinion, it was not unusualfor accused A1 to carry them and he wanted to run away from thespot also as such he did not waste time in throwing them on spot andleave the evidence.On behalf of accused A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali), it was submittedthat CBI case is that A9 had called A7 at 7.18 a.m. on 26.3.2003 tosay that A1 has not arrived at Law Garden.At 7.33 a.m., A1 hadcalled A14 from some kilometers away from Law Garden after themurder.At 8.17 a.m., A1 again called A14 from some 1517 km.away.It was further submitted that there is no evidence to show that 143these were phones used by A7 and A9 or A1 or to show the natureof the conversation save the confessions.Even the cell location of oneof those numbers is missing.It was also submitted that taking thistheory at face value it means that A1 did not reach the spot before7.19 a.m. Also, he must necessarily have left the spot before 7.29 a.m.because it would take 45 minutes to reach the spot from which thecall at 7.33 a.m. was made.The time band for the murder is thusbetween 7.19 a.m. and 7.28 a.m. at the outer limit going by CBI case,it is even less if the confession is taken into account for that says thatA1 wanted a few minutes before Mr. Pandya arrived.After the incident, A1 (Mohmed Asghar Ali) called A14 Sohail'sMobile No.9426039937 from His Mobile No.9825494421 at 7.33.27a.m.and at 8.17 a.m., the location of these mobile phone confirms thepresence of A1 Asghar Ali at Law Garden area.PW 33Hemant Kumar Ratilal Patel, Asstt.Divisional Engineer, VastrapurTelephone Exchange, proved the location of mobile number used bythe accused persons on the basis of tower location.On 25.3.2003 there was an abandoned/aborted attempt tomurder Haren Pandya.CDR and call records indicate the presence of 144A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali) in the area of Law Garden on the said date.On 26.3.2003 after the incident, the call was made to mobile of Sohailand it was said that the work was done.In our opinion, it makes hardly any difference of one or twominutes when it is possible to travel the distance from where the callswere made by A1 to A14 in a few minutes and from distance of 15 to17 km. calls in 45 minutes.Cell phone location also supports theocular version and lends credence to the fact that murder had takenat the place near Law Garden.In addition, for tracking A1 (MohmedAsgar Ali), a landline at Nalgonda was used.In the confession also, the number hasbeen stated.Even on the next date of the incident, the phone wasused by A1, stands established by the prosecution.There is corroborative evidence of confession with respect to A1(Mohmed Asgar Ali), Shooter.He fired at Jagdish Tiwari andmurdered Haren Pandya as stated in his confession in December 2002after return from Pakistan.He reached Udaipur and stayed at MuslimMusafirkhana, which is corroborated by the deposition of MohammedJamil Nasir Mohammed, Manager, Muslim Musafirkhana (PW30)(Exhibit 297) and has also produced guest register (Exhibit 298).145Entry no. 5846 (Exhibit 298) was made in respect of stay of A1(Mohmed Asgar Ali) from 31.12.2002 to 5.1.2003, which was signed byA1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali).He also received a message from A18 through email to reachUdaipur and contact Usman Khan Nawab Khan (PW29).The samehad been corroborated by Usman Khan Nawab Khan (PW29) in hisdeposition.A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali) reached Udaipur on 20.1.2003and stayed at Muslim Musafirkhana for a day.Entry no.8682 (Exhibit299) was made in the visitor register regarding his stay.Thereafter, hestayed with Usman Khan Nawab Khan (PW29) at his house for 23days and went to Chetak Circle and used a computer in the computercentre.It had been corroborated by Usman Khan Nawab Khan (PW29) in his deposition.He also procured a stolen bike of Hero Honda,this fact had been corroborated by PW57 (hostile witness) in thisdeposition.He met Salim Pasha and on 23.1.2003, A3 (MohmedShafiuddin) reached Udaipur and stayed at Muslim Musafirkhana fora day.This fact had been corroborated by Dr. Mohmed Aizaz Ali,Principal Scientific Officer (Document) CFSL, New Delhi vide report(Exhibit 524) and he had also given a positive opinion with respect toEntry No.8699 (Exhibit 300) made in the visitor register for a stay ofA3 (Mohmed Shafiuddin).After reaching Ahmedabad, A1 (MohmedAsgar Ali) was accommodated in a room at Lokhandwalichali, 146Bapunagar owned by Mushtaq Ahmad Munir (PW63), which had beenproved by Mushtaq Ahmad Munir (PW63) in his deposition (Exhibit652).He had also confessed that after firing on Jagdish Tiwari (PW39), he called A14 (Sohail Khan Pathan) on mobile no.9426039937.A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali) further confessed that on 25.3.2003, therewas an abandoned attempt to kill Haren Pandya.CDR call record hadindicated his presence in the area of Law Garden.He confessed thaton 26.3.2003, after the incident, he made a call to A14 (Sohail KhanPathan) and said: "work done".He received three stolen Hero Honda motorcycles from HussainmiyanAmirmiyan Shaikh (PW57) on the directions of A13 (Mufti Sufiyan).He kept one motorcycle with him and handed over the other two to A5(Anas Machiswala) and A14 (Sohail Khan Pathan).On 24.4.2003, hecalled A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali) to Juni Jama Masjid and handed overthree weapons in the same night to A5 (Anas Machiswala).Theweapon was recovered at the instance of A5 (Anas Machiswala).A4(Kalim Ahmad Karimi) and A5 (Anas Machiswala) visited Surat andprocured two weapons from one Maulana Tahir.As per theprosecution, A4 (Kalim Ahmad Karimi) had kept the weapons at hisshop and had given the same to A5 (Anas Machiswala) on the night of25.3.2003 for killing Haren Pandya.Thereafter on 24.6.2003, he made theconfession after he was given time for reflection.He admitted hissignature on his confessional statement on the day on which he wasproduced before the Magistrate.He furtherstated that he had not given any statement in the crime branch andonly his signatures were taken on written paper before the Magistrate.He has denied his statement under Section 164 Cr.The statementunder Section 164 Cr.It was also submitted on behalf of A4 (Kalim Ahmad Karimi)that prosecution has relied on the deposition of Javed Abdul RashidKhan Pathan (PW45) who had purportedly disposed of twomotorcycles after the incident.He had also stated that he was forcedto give the statement.He has denied that motorcycle recovered fromApsara Cinema was seized in his presence and he has also denied thatmotorcycle was shown to him at PS Kagdapith.He has denied therecovery of Suzuki Samurai motorcycle recovered from the railwaystation.The confession isuncorroborated.A4 (Kalim Ahmad Karimi) had been convicted andsentenced in POTA 12/2003 and in the present case for the chargeunder Section 3(3) of POTA, for the generic charge of conspiracy asalso the Arms Act, these sentences he has already undergone.He hasundergone the punishment for all the charges that relate to the timeperiod prior to an alleged conspiracy to murder Haren Pandya.TheHigh Court has rightly acquitted him from the commission of anoffence under Section 120B and 302 IPC.It is apparent that though Hussainmiyan Amirmiyan Shaikh(PW57) has turned hostile, his statement had been recorded underSection 164, Cr.PC (Exhibit 546).The confessional statement of A14(Sohail Khan Pathan) is supported by the recovery of motorcycles fromPS Kagdapith in the presence of Bhaveshbhai Nagindas Shah (PWBhaveshbhai Nagindas Shah(PW103) corroborates the recovery of the motorcycle from PSKagdapith.The weapon was also recovered at theinstance of A5 (Anas Machiswala).Hence, there is corroboration ofconfession of A4 (Kalim Ahmad Karimi) by the recovery of the weaponwhich was procured by him.It is apparent that A4 (Kalim Ahmad 154Karimi) was a close associate of A13 (Mufti Sufiyan) and has workedas a link between A13 (Mufti Sufiyan) and the rest of accomplices.Hereceived three motorcycles which were stolen in 2002 and kept on thedirections of A13 (Mufti Sufiyan) one motorcycle with him andhanded over the other two to A5 (Anas Machiswala) and A14 (SohailKhan Pathan).After shooting incident of JagdishTiwari on 11.3.2003, he had attended meetings dated 17/18.3.2003,22.3.2003, 24.3.2003 and 25.3.2003, where modalities to murderHaren Pandya were chalked out.He kept the weapon received on17/18.3.2003 from A5 (Anas Machiswala) and A13 (Mufti Sufiyan) inhis shop.On 24.3.2003, he handed over three weapons which werekept at his shop to A5 (Anas Machiswala).On 25.3.2003, he receivedback those weapons from A5 (Anas Machiswala) after a failed attempton Haren Pandya.Later in the night, he again handed over weaponsto A5 (Anas Machiswala) as Haren Pandya was to be killed on thenext day.It is also apparent that he received emptycartridges of bullets from A5 (Anas Machiswala), which were allegedlyshot at Haren Pandya and handed them over to A13 (Mufti Sufiyan), 155which were ultimately recovered.Few days after the incident, he tookA1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali) on the instructions of A13 (Mufti Sufiyan) toSikander Bhai at Kanoder for providing shelter, who refused to keepA1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali) and then he dropped A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali)at Shahpur flat.However, the High Court hasmaintained and confirmed the conviction for the offence punishableunder Section 3(3) of POTA and sentence has been reduced to theperiod already undergone by him in jail with fine of Rs.5,000/ each,and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo RI for 6 months.The High Court has acquitted A4 (Kalim Ahmad Karimi) of chargesunder Section 120B read with Section 302 of IPC and the charge forthe offence under Section 3(1) punishable under Section 3(2)(a) ofPOTA.He procured vehicles and weapons and due to his active role inthe conspiracy, he is liable to be convicted for commission of offence 156under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of POTA and Section 120Bread with 302 IPC as ordered by the Trial Court.This witness supported alldocumentary evidence in relation to the above.Thissanction under Section 39, Arms Act was accorded by PW115, beingthe InCharge Police Commissioner of Ahmedabad City at the relevanttime.Vide notification dated 28.02.02, State of Gujarat had beendeclared to be a notified area under the POTA.Mere possession of afirearm in a notified area is an offence as per Section 4 of the POTA.This witness was a Senior Scientific Officer atCFSL, New Delhi.PW87 opined that bullet recovered from the bodywas Jadish Tiwari was fired from the 7.65 mm pistol discovered atA5's instance.The evidence of PWs 87, 65, 108and 120 has no inter se anomalies.For inter se cellular mobile communication of accused persons,testimonies of PW11, PW17, PW33 PW36, and PW46 arespecifically relevant.Besides them, PWs 25, 26, 35, 40 also providecorroborative evidence.In the face of this evidence, nonrecovery of themobile handset from A5 would, in fact, be an incriminatingcircumstance against him.It is thus apparent that A5 played a vital role at all stages ofconspiracy, right from the very inception, extending to the murder ofHaren Pandya and the subsequent abscondment of various accused,including himself.He was present in several meetings at variousMasjids where different aspects of the conspiracy were hatched andput into operation.He played a crucial role in the procurement,handling, and storage of the illegally procured arms.7.65 mm pistol 161was in fact discovered and recovered at his instance.No greatsignificance can be attached to PW69 not supporting the prosecution.First of all, this witness was A5's first cousin.Secondly, his Section164 CrPC statement is on record.No complaint to any authority wasever made that this statement was forcibly extracted.He was, thus, rightly convicted and sentenced by the Trial Courtfor commission of offence under section 3(1) r/w 3(3) of POTA as wellas 120B and 120B read with 302 IPC for commission of offence ofmurder of Haren Pandya.He was very happy to know about the deathof Haren Pandya.His confessional statement has been corroborated by AlpeshRanchhodbhai Patel (PW11), SrinathSinh ShambhauSinh (PW13),Manojkumar Baldevbhai (PW17), Hemantkumar Ratilal Patel (PW33)and Rajendra Singh S. Chhikara (PW110).They are the witnesses tothe recoveries of SIM cards.Alpesh Ranchhodbhai Patel (PW11) andManojkumar Baldevbhai (PW17) are the witnesses relating to BSNLSIM cards, which were used by the accused persons during theconspiracy of murder of Haren Pandya, to remain in touch with eachother.At the instance of A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali) 7.5 mm pistol 165bearing no.EE330 was discovered from Flat No.4/B, Kamar Flats fromBatiwala Stove and Srinathsinh Shambhausinh (PW13) was thewitness to the said discovery.Jayantibhai Vitthaldas Suthar (PW27)has proved the landline of the house of Mohmed Yunus Sareshwala(A6) at A/12, Sunrise Apartment, Juhapura, Ahmedabad and thesame has been admitted by A6 (Mohmed Yunus Sareshwala) in hisfurther statement recorded under Section 313, Cr.PC.Theincriminating circumstances are proved by the said evidence.Rajendra Singh S. Chhikara (PW110) was present at the time ofdiscovery at Kamar Flat.The motorbike used during the commissionof an offence was driven by A6 (Mohmed Yunus Sareshwala) and washanded over to Javed Abdul Rashid Khan Pathan (PW45).It isapparent that A6 (Mohmed Yunus Sareshwala) has also providedlogistic support throughout the conspiracy and on the date of thekilling of Haren Pandya.He had not only driven A1 (Mohmed AsgarAli) to Law Garden but also waited near Thakarbhai Desai Hall underthe pretext of reading a newspaper till A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali)accomplished the task assigned to him and drove him back toShahpur Mill Compound.He was also provided one pistol bearingno.EE330 by A5 (Anas Machiswala) for his own protection and alsofor the protection of A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali).Proximity of A6(Mohmed Yunus Sareshwala) with rest of the group, his explicit act in 166taking A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali) to Law Garden and waiting till killing ofHaren Pandya under the pretext of reading newspaper and thereafter,taking A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali) to Shahpur Mill Compound andhanding over the weapon and vehicle and completing everything withmeticulous detail are all reflected in the confessional statements.It is submitted on behalf of accused that sole eyewitness AnilramYadavram Patel (PW55) has not made any reference with regard to A6 (Mohmed Yunus Sareshwala) presence at the place of incident.It is submitted that Hemantkumar Raitlal Patel,BSNL Officer (PW33) has given the call details and location based onit of aforesaid three mobile numbers on the morning of 26.3.2003 inhis deposition.As per him, the following calls were made on26.3.2003:As per him, the 167 location of A9 was Law Garden and that of A7 was Nehru Bridge.At 7:34:43 another call was made by A9 (Mohmed Parvez Sheikh) to A7 (Rehan Puthawala), but their location could not be traced due to technical lag.It is further submitted that there was no call either made orreceived by A6 (Mohmed Yunus Sareswala) on that date between 7.00am to 8.30 am.Hence, A6 (Mohmed Yunus Sareswala) presence hasnot been conclusively established at the place of incident.With regard to recoveryof pistol carried by A6 (Mohmed Yunus Sareswala), it is contendedthat it was not recovered at the instance of A6 (Mohmed YunusSareswala), but from the purported disclosure made by A1 (MohmedAsgar Ali), which only binds the maker of the statement and cannot beused against A6 (Mohmed Yunus Sareswala).It is inadmissibleunder Section 27 of the Evidence Act against A6 (Mohmed Yunus 168Sareswala) as it only binds the maker of the disclosure.Thus, there isno evidence to hold him guilty for the involvement in the conspiracy ofmurder of Haren Pandya.Record of mobile phone location alsorevealed the incriminating circumstances as proved by the evidence.169Rajendra Singh S. Chhikara (PW110) was present at Kamar Flatwhen the discovery was effected.Motorbike used during thecommission of the offence was handed over to Javed Abdul RashidKhan Pathan (PW45), who turned hostile to the case of theprosecution.He had taken A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali) to spot andbrought him back also and carried a weapon too.The sanction granted by Kuldeep Chand Kapoor (PW117) to A7(Rehan Puthawala) under Section 50 of POTA; the deposition of Dr.Sushilkumar S. Gupta (PW120), Investigating Officer relating topointing out of Star Number Plate shop; and the deposition ofBabarbhai Maljibhai Rabari (PW34), a panch witness to thedisclosure of making of fake number plate and pointing out andseizure of rough bill book of Star Number Book are strongcorroborative evidence to corroborate the confession of A7 (RehanPuthawala) recorded by Vinayak Prabhakar Apte (PW21).and he was present at Nehru Bridge in the morningof 25.3.2003 and escorted A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali) and A8 (Mohmed 174Riyaz) to Shahpur Mills Compound where A5 (Anas Machiswala) andA14 (Sohail Khan Pathan), were waiting for them with anautorickshaw.On 26.3.2003, he reached Nehru Bridge corner atabout 7.15 am and he received a phone call from A9 (Mohmed ParvezSheikh) while he was on his way.On seeing A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali)and A6 (Mohmed Yunus Sareshwala) on a motorcycle, he escortedthem to Shahpur Mill Compound where A5 (Anas Machiswala) and A14 (Sohail Khan Pathan) were waiting with an autorickshaw andreturned the SIM card to A5 (Anas Machiswala).It was submitted on behalf of accused by Shri RajuRamachandran, learned Senior Counsel that there was no necessity toescort A6 (Mohmed Yunus Sareshwala), who is a local resident ofAhmedabad.The CDR (Exhibit 310) has failed to show the location of 175the number which was being used by A7 (Rehan Puthawala) on26.3.2003 and the CDR was inadmissible in evidence.The allegationagainst the accused was far from the truth and also baseless.Theevidence of Shaikh Mohmed Riyaz Hussainmiyan Pirmiyan (PW52) isfraught with infirmities.There is a doubt as to whether A7 (RehanPuthawala) approached him for a false number plate of themotorcycle.The receipt produced contains no name and he haserased Splendor and written Yamaha against the entry of number5189, whereas it is his original case that he was asked to prepare anumber plate for Yamaha which was later changed to Splendor.The statement is typedon a computer, but there is no computer at the shop of ShaikhMohmed Riyaz Hussainmiyan Pirmiyan (PW52) and he has not beenconfronted with number plate in the court as a material object toidentify as the one made at the behest of A7 (Rehan Puthawala).In our opinion submissions are baseless.There is no reason forShaikh Mohmed Riyaz Hussainmiyan Pirmiyan (PW52) to speak lieand it is apparent that he is a reliable witness and that the fakenumber plate of motorcycles had been got prepared by the accusedwas recovered and it was used at the time of the commission of theoffence.Shaikh Mohmed Riyaz Hussainmiyan Pirmiyan (PW52) is 176categorical about A7 (Rehan Puthawala) and A8 (Mohmed Riyaz)having approached him for a number plate.It was at the instance ofA7 (Rehan Puthawala) and A8 (Mohmed Riyaz) CBI officers came toknow of the place where number plates have been prepared.Themotorcycle was stolen one and fake number plates have beendiscovered from the bushes near Tarapur Highway.It was A10(Parvez Khan Pathan) who left the motorcycle at Tarapur Highway inthe bush.The recovery of the motorcycle is proved by Bhagwan SinghRathod (PW50) corroborated by Alpesh Ranchhodbhai Rathod (PW86 the panch witness) and by deposition of Investigating Officer, CBIand Dr. Sushilkumar S. Gupta (PW120).The vehicle was used inkilling Haren Pandya and the fake number plate was put by theaccused so as to save themselves from the clutches of law and preventidentification.The guilt stand proved against the A7 (RehanPuthawala) as found established by the Trial Court.The conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court onRehan Puthawala is found to be proper under section 3(1) and 3(3) ofPOTA as well as section 120B r/w section 302 IPC for commission ofmurder of Haren Pandya.IN RE: A8 (MOHMED RIYAZ @ GORU) 177It is the contention of the learned counsel that there is no recordor written evidence against A8 (Mohmed Riyaz) that he has given theorder for the number plate.It is also averred that alterations weremade in the job workbook of Star Number Plate.There is noindependent evidence linking the number plate to the offence.It isfurther submitted that prosecution has picked up abandoned bikesalready in the local police custody and foisted the same on theaccused.Each motorcycle recovered is the planted recovery and hasbeen falsely connected to this case.It is further submitted that thereis no independent evidence to establish the connection of motorcyclerecovered by PS Koth, which CBI claimed to be connected withnumber plate 5189, with the offence.The discrepancies as to thepresence or absence of a number plate on the motorcycle in thepanchnama and in the testimony of Sushilkumar S. Gupta (PW120)creates suspicion.It is further urged that on account of broadcast inMay 2003, the CBI came to know about the motorcycle being at PSKoth.Despite Court’s directions, no broadcast documents havebeen produced.However,Javed Abdul Rashidkhan Pathan (PW45) denies being shown themotorcycle at Kagdapeeth PS and also states that CBI did not seize itin his presence.It is also contended that original owner AshokbhaiAmbalal Shah (PW36) of the above motorcycle has deposed that from24.12.2002 i.e., the day he filed a complaint of theft of motorcycle till4.5.2003, he regularly visited (every 1530 days) the Kagdapeeth PS toinquire about his stolen motorcycle.It is, thus, completelyincomprehensible as to why Amduji Pabji Chavda (PW46) did notinform him immediately when the bike was recovered.It is further alleged that Bhagwan Singh Samantsinh Rathod(PW50) has categorically stated that broadcast made in May 2003about the recovered motorcycle indicates that CBI was aware of themotorcycle at the time of recovery of the number plate and fabricateda connection between the two later.A8 was given 78 hours of reflection time.One specific instance of his association with Rehan(A7) came after the murder of Haren Pandya.A8 had gone with A7 for thispurpose.Number plate registration No. GJ1CA5189 was suggestedfor this task by Anas (A5).Prior to changing the number plate, he wasinstrumental in taking Asgar Ali (A1) to Law Garden on 25.03.03.Black coloured Hero Honda motorcycle was used for this; it wasprovided by Anas (A5).On 25.03.03 A8 drove A1 to Law Garden.Haren Pandya was tobe murdered on that day as per the conspired planning.This was done at A14’s instance, lest repeatedvisits should blow away A8's cover.Further, after Haren Pandya wasmurdered, a fake number plate was obtained for the stolen HeroHonda motorbike.Fake number plate bore registration No. GJ1CH 1815189, whereas the motorbike earlier had a plate bearing registrationNo.Thestolen motorbike had been procured through PW57 at the instance ofA13 (absconding accused).The number plate was discovered at theinstance of A10, who had left the motorcycle at Tarapur Highway.A8 was arrested on 03.04.03 from Parimal Garden.Depositionsof PW114 and DW3 bear on this aspect.DW3 lived in A8’sneighborhood.DW3deposed nearly three years after the happening.Therefore, even if, arguendo, his version was to be believed, it wouldstill not dent the prosecution.As for the discrepancies alleged in the format of the call records,these would not go to the falsify the prosecution’s case.At the time ofhis arrest, SIM Card was found from his pocket.Mobile Nos.9426007240 and 9825384241 (Hutch) belonged to A8, along with 182mobile phone bearing IMEI No. 448478527477630).In view of theevidence on record, A8 (Mohmed Riyaz @ Goru) had rightly beenconvicted and sentenced by the Trial Court for commission of offenceunder section 3(1) read with section 3(3) of POTA as well as undersection 120B and 120B read with section 302 IPC for commission ofmurder of Haren Pandya.No grievancewas raised against police.A9 states that although Rehan (A7) could not make it, for his(A7's) parents were visiting from the USA, Anas (A5), Shahnawaz (A12), Sohail Khan (A14), and Yunus (A6) had all gone for training atPakistan.Along with them, A9 met A4, A5, A12, and A14 at JuniJama Masjid.This time, Haren Pandya came to be named as theirtarget.Haren Pandya was stated to have worked very actively duringthe riots, as also in the demolition of the Paldi Masjid.Specifically, voluntary recording of A9's confession was 185stated to be improbable.To this end, certain aspects of PW21'sdeposition were pressed into service.Accused had been sent for amedical checkup as part of compliance of the guidelines in D.K.Basu’s Case.PW21 had mentioned that about 12 hours and 50minutes were taken to record A9’s confessional statement.There wasno interruption of any kind while recording the confession.Recordingstarted at around 4 am; ended at 4.30 pm.Medical papers (Ex.773) show his presence along with other accused.Mr. I.C. Sharma ofCBI had taken A7, A8, A9, A10, and A11 for medical examinationaround 10 am.With aforesaid as the position, defence contention wasthat there could have been no uninterrupted recording of thestatement.Thus, PW21 perjured himself.A confessional statement ishence rendered, suspect.There is no substance in the aforesaid defence arguments.Thedefence did not ask for a recall of PW21 to crossexamine him as toaforesaid aspects.Even if medical papers were produced late, nothingprevented the defence from asking for his recall.It cannot thus beconcluded that PW21 perjured himself.In fact, PW21 was dutybound to refer the accused persons for medical checkup every 48hours.The outer timelimit for medical examination is provided forunder D.K. Basu Guidelines.Bonafide compliance of this mandate 186cannot be held to be against prosecution’s case.It is to be also kept inmind that during the reflection time of 60 hours given to A9, he wasnot sent for medical examination.A perusal of Ex. 772 shows that A9was last sent to Civil Hospital on 03.06.03 at 9.35 am.Lastly, the defence contention of forcible extraction of confessionis also to be noted, if only to be rejected.There is no proof of thealleged torture.There is no medical evidence substantiating the same.On the other, sufficient corroboration is available for A9’s confession.Considering the overall evidence, the Trial Court convicted andsentenced him rightly under section 3(1) read with section 3(3) ofPOTA as well as 120B IPC and 120B read with 302 IPC also forcommission of murder of Haren Pandya.The same is restored.IN RE: A10 (PARVEZ KHAN PATHAN)On behalf of A10 (Parvez Khan Pathan) and A11 (MohmedFaruq), it was contended that they were not part of the conspiracy ofkilling Haren Pandya.A10 (Parvez Khan Pathan) got the knowledge ofkilling after a few hours.Their participation with the other accusedwill not amount to conspiracy.They have been punished for a generalconspiracy to take revenge for atrocities against Muslims.They havebeen tried and punished not once but twice and spent over 8 years in 187custody.They were accused in the case of Jagdish Tiwari (PW39)also.It was furthersubmitted that tires were deflated and flung down.It could not havebeen brought to the police station.The Koth Police Station had 188broadcast this news in May 2003 and that is how CBI came to knowabout it.The statement of Bhagwan Singh Samantsinh Rathod (PWAfterkilling Haren Pandya, the aforesaid motorcycle was handed over toJaved Abdul Rashidkhan Pathan (PW45) by A10 (Parvez KhanPathan) on 3.4.2003 and this fact had been proved by Javed AbdulRashidkhan Pathan (PW45).The aforesaid motorcycle was found 194from Magnet System Car Parking, Kalupur Railway Station on17.4.2003 in an abandoned condition.Another motorcycle bearing fake registration no.GJ1CD8973was found at ApsaraAradhana Theatre.The original registrationnumber of this motorcycle was GJ1CH6692 and it was owned byRutul Ashok Shah and his father Ashokbhai Ambalal Shah (PW36)had stated that this motorcycle was stolen from New Cloth Market.On intimation by Kamlesh Bamanrao Marathe (PW40), Manager ofApsaraAradhana Cinema, the aforesaid motorcycle was fetched by theofficers of Kagdapith Police Station.It is also apparent that JanakraiRavishankar Pandya (PW25) in response to a letter of CBI hadproduced registration papers in respect of Hero Honda Splendorbearing registration no.GJ1CJ6692 and Suzuki Samurai owned byAnil Mehta as well as Bajaj Kawasaki Boxer having registration no.Another Hero Hondamotorcycle having registration no.The aforesaid motorcycle was found without any numbernear TarapurBagodara Highway at the instance of A10 (Parvez KhanPathan) in the presence of Sushil Kumar S. Gupta (PW120) andArpesh Ranchhodbhai Rathod (PW86).It was seized by Bhagwan 195Singh Samantsinh Rathod (PW50), Incharge, PSI, Koth PoliceStation.Thereafter, the six CDs and written material were alsodiscovered from the residential place of A10 (Parvez Khan Pathan)which depicted the plight of Muslims after the Godhra incident inGujarat.The aforesaid evidence clearly proves the role of A10 (ParvezKhan Pathan) in the conspiracy to murder Haren Pandya and he hasbeen rightly convicted by the Trial Court under POTA and for murderof Haren Pandya.IN RE: A11 (MOHMED FARUQ)It is contended by Shri Shadan Farasat, learned counsel onbehalf of A11 (Mohmed Faruq) that there is no evidence against A11(Mohmed Faruq) other than confession.It is alleged that he hasaccompanied A10 (Parvez Khan Pathan) when the bike wasabandoned at Tarapur Highway.There is no evidence to support it.Turk Salim Pasa Majarirule Islam (PW49) had also confirmed thesame by naming A11 (Mohmed Faruq).Sajid Ibrahim Patel (PW47)also corroborated that Turk Salim Pasa Majarirule Islam (PW49) hadrequested for SIM card, but later he agreed that by way of proof of 197residence with the application of A11 (Mohmed Faruq), he had sentthe driving license, which was forwarded to the company.He statedthat sometimes company, in order to achieve the targets, request thedealers to activate the SIM in the name of any his employees and itwas done in name of Sarvarmiyan Anvarmiyan Saiyed, however before4.4.2003, not even a single call was made from the aforesaid SIM cardand the same was sold to A11 (Mohmed Faruq).He furthermaintained that if the company requests for activation of SIM card forachieving its target, the proof sent with the application suffice theneed of the company.Mubinuddin Pirsaabmiya Shaikh (PW116),Manager, Bismillah Hotel has deposed that two persons in the name ofAkhtarali Sabirali and Fazalbhai Ganibhai had stayed at Surat in fakenames.As per the prosecution, they were A10 (Parvez Khan Pathan)and A11 (Mohmed Faruq).After purchasing the SIM card, A10(Parvez Khan Pathan) and A11 (Mohmed Faruq) left the motorcycle atTarapur Highway and fled away to Bharuch to Surat to Pune toHyderabad.Their stay at Hotel Bluestar at Hyderabad was also dulyproved by the prosecution.A11 (Mohmed Faruq) has provided allsorts of logistic support in executing the conspiracy and he has playeda very crucial role in the conspiracy and prosecution has also provedhis alleged involvement in the crime.There is supporting evidence of Usman Khan Nawab Khan (PW29) (Exhibit 295), Turk Salim Pasa Majarirule Islam (PW49) (Exhibit365), Tawabhai Yusufbhai Shaikh (PW66) (Exhibit 429) and MohmedJalis Ahmed Rajput (PW68) (Exhibit 431).It was urged on behalf of accused persons that FIR of suchincident registered belatedly is doubtful.The submissions thoughattractive have no legs to stand.It is apparent that car was parked atChitty Bang near Law Garden and the glasses of the car of HarenPandya were dark and rolled up considerably and in the process offiring he fell down on the side seat.Obviously, in order to save himself,he tried to lie down and bullets were fired at him constantly one afterthe other by A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali).In the process, his legs cameup.As the glasses were dark, obviously it was not possible for othersto take note of the fact that Haren Pandya was lying killed in thevehicle.The eye witness Anil Yadram Patel (PW55) has gone toinform the owner of Chitty Bang and by the time he could come back,police had arrived at the spot and were taking Haren Pandya toHospital.This explains the socalled delay and explains the situationof the spot and due to dark glasses, it may not have been possible forthe passerby immediately to take note of the fact that as to what hadhappened inside the car, which was parked on the side of Chitty Bang.Thus, the submission on behalf of accused persons cannot be 199accepted and the evidence discloses that family members of HarenPandya, his P.A., and other political leaders had also arrived in themeantime at the spot on coming to know of the incident.In view of overall evidence available against the accused he wasrightly held guilty by Trial Court for offence under section 3(1) andsection 3(3) of POTA as well as under section 120B and section 120Bread with section 302 IPC for murder of Haren Pandya.IN RE: ACCUSED NO.2 (MOHMED ABDUL RAOUF)Mohmed Abdul Raouf, son of Mohmed Abdul Kadar was heldguilty by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 3(3)of POTA and was given benefit of doubt of all the other offences underthe POTA as well as under the IPC.There is no appeal preferredagainst his acquittal by the State/CBI in the High Court.The minimum sentence is 5 years under 200Section 3(3) of POTA and by now 8 years have passed and the accusedhas already undergone little more than 5 years.No case for furtherinterference is called for as CBI did not prefer an appeal against thejudgment and order of the Trial Court.The decision of the High Courtas to conviction and sentence under POTA is affirmed.IN RE: A3 (MOHMED SHAFIUDDIN)He was also given benefit of doubt for all theother offences he had been charged with under the POTA as well asunder the IPC.The High Court has also maintained and upheldconviction and sentence awarded to him by the Trial Court.As noappeal was preferred by CBI against the decision of the Trial Courtagainst A3 (Mohmed Shafiuddin), no case for further interference ismade out.IN RE: A12 (SHAHNAVAZ GANDHI)With respect to A12 (Shahnavaz Gandhi), he was convicted onlyunder Section 3(3) of POTA and was sentenced by the Trial Court toundergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment.Leave granted.As accused absconded, separate trial was held with respect toMohd.Junaid Sheikh.In addition to the aforesaid charges for the murder of HarenPandya and attempt to kill Jagdish Tiwari under POTA the accused –Mohd. Junaid Sheikh was also prosecuted under Section 174 A ofIndian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”) as he had absconded.Aseparate trial was held wherein he had been acquitted by the trialcourt for commission of the offence with respect to the attempt ofmurder of Jagdish Tiwari and murder of Haren Pandya but has beenconvicted for commission of the offence under section 174A of the IPC.On appeal filed by the accused, the High Court acquitted theaccused and modified the sentence by imposing fine of Rs. 21 lakhsand in breach of default of payment of fine the sentence imposed bythe trial court shall stand.The amount of fine has been deposited.Onbeing aggrieved, the CBI has filed the appeals.Though, in the instant case, the trial court has found thatattempt on the life of Jagdish Tiwari and the murder of Haren Pandyahas been committed in the method and manner as per prosecutioncase.However, with regard to present accused M.J. Sheikh, it hasbeen held that the prosecution has not been able to prove his guiltbeyond the periphery of doubt.As per prosecution case, he is stated to have stayed in Mumbaiin the place of Mufti Sufian, the trial court has found that though hisvisit to Mumbai with Mufti Sufian stands proved, any conspiracy wasformed at Mumbai had not been established.His statement undersection 164 (1) Cr.P.C. initially was recorded as a witness that has notbeen taken into consideration.The polygraph test conducted on theaccused was not as per the laid down safeguards to be observed by the 203National Human Rights Commission and was without any permissionof the court.Even the statement had been held to be not good enoughto fasten the guilt to enter into the conspiracy for either an attempt ofmurder of Mr. Jagdish Tiwari or killing of Haren Pandya.He was notwith the main accused – Mohmed Asgar Ali on the date of the incidentand while he was running from place to place after committing murderof Haren Pandya, he is said to have stayed for three days in theaccommodation which was taken from the accused M.J. Sheikh at theinstance of the Mufti Sufian.No role has been shown of the accusedin the conspiracy leading to the attempt of murder of Mr. JagdishTiwari and killing of Haren Pandya.Maybe subsequent stay at thehouse that too when the house has been obtained by Mufti Sufian andsince the accused M.J. Sheikh was close to Mufti Sufian he has takenhis car to bring the A1 to the accommodation cannot make himconspirator in the murder of Haren Pandya since it was a subsequentevent.The phone calls made to Mufti Sufian by the accused are notsignificant since the witness was known to Mufti Sufian and hehanded him Rs.15,000 to Rs.20,000 for visit to Haj which amount waspaid back, as such it has been inferred by the trial court that thesame is not the case for funding for creating terror.Apart from that,after tiffin bomb accident the conspiracy was hatched to kill Jagdish 204Tiwari and Haren Pandya to which the accused was not a part.TheHigh Court had not disturbed the aforesaid finding.We have gone through the judgment of the trial court and theevidence on record adduced in this case.We are satisfied that thebenefit of the doubt has been rightly extended by the Trial Court.Inthe peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as the petitioner hasalready served the sentence of 17 months and has also paid the fine ofRs.21 lakhs, thus, no case for interference is made out visàvis tohim.The appeals are accordingly, disposed of.WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO.26 OF 2019Other ancillary reliefs havealso been sought.It was submitted that earlier a criminal miscellaneousapplication No.15506/2007 was filed by father of the deceased,Vithalbhai Pandya v. CBI and two others for further investigation inthe case.Thereafter, wife of deceased Haren Pandya fileda petition, being Special Crl.Application No.2327/2011, in the HighCourt of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, which was dismissed.Vide judgmentand order dated 6.2.2012 passed by the High Court of Gujarat atAhmedabad on the ground that petition filed by Mr. Vithalbhai D.Pandya, father of the deceased, had been dismissed and due to thependency of the criminal appeals in this Court, the High Courtobserved that it would not be proper to reappreciate and reevaluatethe material on record.Judicial propriety and discipline oust the courtfrom entering into the merits of the case.The present writ petition has been filed when criminal appealsfiled in this Court were already being heard for the last two months.Itwas not mentioned that criminal appeals were already being heardw.e.f.The present writ petition was listed before a Benchconsisting of Hon.Sikri and Abdul Nazeer, JJ.Statement of Mohd. Azam Khan had been recorded on 3.11.2018 in acriminal trial who was produced as a prosecution witness in the trialof fake encounter of Sohrabuddin Sheikh, his wife Kausarbi and hisassociate Tulsiram Prajapati.In the case, accused persons wereacquitted.TheCBI did not pay any heed to this information.It is submitted that a book called ‘Gujarat Files – Anatomy of acoverup" was published by a journalist Ms. Rana Ayyub wherein shehad given certain details of operation conducted by her on theinvestigating officer from Gujarat Police, Y.A. Shaikh who had started 207the investigation in the case of murder of Haren Pandya before thesame was handed over to the CBI, the shooter accused Mohmed AsgarAli was already in the police custody and the site map dated29.3.2003 had the name of Asghar Ali, main article published on thewebsite on 7.11.2018, has also been relied upon.D.G. Vanzara’sstatement was published in the Times of India who told the CBI thatSohrabuddin was involved in Haren Pandya’s murder.A photo sketch whichwas drawn did not match with the appearance of Mohmed Asghar Ali,A1 but with Tulsiram Prajapati.Mr. Pandya had given an interview published in theOutlook dated 7.11.2007 saying that he was likely to be murdered.There was a difference in the bullets 208recovered and examined.The direction of the wound has also beenadversely commented upon so as to cast doubt on ocular version.The investigation was tainted.Thereafterwife of deceased also filed a petition in the year 2012 in the GujaratHigh Court which was also dismissed inter alia on the aforesaidgrounds that judicial propriety and discipline oust the High Courtfrom entering into merits as this Court has to reassess the evidenceand the findings recorded by the Gujarat High Court in the criminalappeals.The petition is not maintainable and hasbeen filed with an oblique motive.He had consultations with said counsel to file the petition.A similarapplication was submitted on 18.12.2006 on the basis of newspaperreports which was also dismissed on 25.6.2007 by the POTA Judge.Acopy of the order was also supplied to the applicant, wife of thedeceased.A Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarathas observed thus:It is also required to be noted at this stage that atthe time when the first application Ex.855 was submittedby the applicant for further investigation/reinvestigation,the same was after 122 prosecution witnesses and 7defence witnesses were already examined by the SpecialCourt [POTA] and further statements of the accusedrunning into 202 pages had already been recorded and thetrial was at the fag end.Thus, it appears that theapplicant has either not taken the matter very seriously inchallenging the aforesaid orders passed below applicationEx.855 and 898 immediately and/or within a reasonable 218time and allowed the trial to be proceeded and concluded.Itis also required to be noted at this stage that the applicanthas specifically averred in the Appeal Memo challenging thefinal judgment and order dtd.25/6/2007 that he is notchallenging the final judgment and order of convictiondtd.25/6/2007 convicting the accused persons.If that isso, in that case, as such, the appeal against the finaljudgment and order dtd.25/6/2007 under Section 34 of thePOTA would not be maintainable, an order of conviction isnot challenged.In support of his prayer for further investigation and/orreinvestigation of the murder of Mr. Haren Pandya it isalleged that the same was a political murder.It is submittedby the applicant that the applicant was not cited as awitness in the charge sheet and that the Jagrutiben widowof deceased Haren Pandya though was cited as a witness,but was dropped.As stated above, the charge sheet wasfiled on 8/9/2003 and the applicant was not cited as awitness.Still, the applicant did not do anything.Still, the applicantdid not challenge the orders passed below applicationsEx.855 and 898 and allowed the trial to be concluded.The High Court has further observed that nonexamination ofJagrutiben is no ground for further investigation.The High Court hasalso observed that in the interview published in ‘Tehelka’ on19.8.2006, it is clearly admitted by Ms. Jagrutiben that she has noproof/material with respect to political rivalry.The I.O. has stated that during the investigation he did notget any material with respect to political rivalry on the basis of thevague statement of Mr. Vithalbhai Pandya, father of deceased, furtherinvestigation was not possible to be ordered against political figures.On the basis of approximation of the time byJagrutiben in the newspaper reports and on the basis whereof thehappening at Law Garden at 7.30 a.m. cannot be doubted at all.Nonetheless, she filed Special Crl.The High Court of Gujarat has dismissed the petition filedby the wife and observed:The CBI had moved an application before the learned Judge, Delhi, for the issuance of a letter rogatory to the Swiss authorities for assistance in conducting an investigation, which request was conceded.An advocate, Shri Harinder Singh Chowdhary, filed a criminal revision application before the High Court of Delhi for quashing the FIR and the letter rogatory on certain grounds.Itraises the mainly same questions which have been dealt with in theappeal.There is no such further material so as to direct furtherinvestigation or reinvestigation in the case.The matter should haverested finally as the petition filed by the family members also standsdismissed by this Court raking up of the matter, again and again, isnot permissible and was wholly unwarranted in the facts andcircumstances of the case.The same amounts to political vendetta.The petition is thus liable to be dismissed.CONCLUSIONCRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.140, 142146 AND 149151 OF 2012 233In view of the aforesaid discussion, we restore the conviction andsentence imposed by the Trial Court on A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali)(Criminal Appeal No.149 of 2012), A4 (Kalim Ahmed) (Criminal AppealNo.142 of 2012), A5 (Anas Machiswala) (Criminal Appeal No.145 of2012), A6 (Mohmed Yunus Sareshwala) (Criminal Appeal No.146 of2012), A7 (Rehan Puthawala) (Criminal Appeal No.143 of 2012), A8(Mohmed Riyaz @ Goru) (Criminal Appeal No.144 of 2012), A9(Mohmed Parvez Sheikh) (Criminal Appeal No. 140 of 2012), A10(Parvez Khan Pathan) (Criminal Appeal No.150 of 2012) and A11(Mohmed Faruq) (Criminal Appeal No.151 of 2012) under Section 3(1)and 3(3) of POTA and 120B and Section 302 read with Section 120BIPC as ordered by the Trial Court.The appeals are accordinglydisposed of.The appeals filed by State of Gujarat stand disposed of in termsof decision rendered in Criminal Appeal Nos.140151 of 2012.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO……./2019 @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(CRL.) NO.5530 OF 2017 AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO……./2019 @SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NOS.90289029 OF 2016With respect to accused Mohd. Sheikh, a separate trial was held.He has been acquitted exceptunder section 174A IPC by the trial court as well as by the High Court.The appeal against him filed by the CBI is dismissed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
85,118,305 |
The appellant/accused made sexual torture to PW1 continuously and while PWs 2 and 3 questioned him, the appellant used to assault them.One day while PWs.1 and 3 were alone at home, the petitioner/accused had given them boost with seductive substance and committed sexual offence on PW1 while she was asleep.PW1 informed the same to PW2 even though the appellant/accused continued the sexual torture andhttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 after hearing this, PW4 employer of PW1 takes PW1 to the police station and lodged the complaint.3.PW10 Tmt.Johtimani, then Sub Inspector of Police, based on the above complaint, a case was registered in Coimbatore West All Women Police Station Cr.No.14 of 2013 under section 376 r/w 511 of IPC and section 8 of POCSO Act 2012 on 10.9.20134.PW13 Tmt.Munira Begum Inspector of Police conducted further investigation and the victim was taken to the hospital and examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and arrested the accused on 10.9.2013 and remanded him to judicial custody.5.PW13 sent PW1 to the Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore for medical examination and also obtained the medical report.Then also sent the accused to the hospital for medical examination and obtained the report.No material objects were marked.Neither witness nor documents examined on the side of the accused.Observation mahazar occurrence by PW1 and PW5 witness taken PW1 to the police station PW6 Observation mahazar witness PW7 Asst.Headmistress of Issued Ex.P4 in respect of PW1 date of birth of PW1 PW8 Radiologist Taken X-ray of PW1, X-ray Ex.P5 PW9 Doctor Examined the accused and issued potentiality certificate Ex.P6 PW10 S.I. of Police Received the complaint from PW1 and registered FIR in Cr.FIR Ex.8.After the trial, the learned Mahila Court convicted the appellant for the offences under sections 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012, and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years and imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo 6 month simple imprisonment.16.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent supported the findings of the trial Court and sought for dismissal of the appeal.17.I have heard Mr.C.Veerarahavan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs.T.P.Savitha, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent and perused the entire materials available on record.PW1, the minor Divya, who is the second daughter of the appellant/accused alleged in the box that her father committed sexual assault on her.41.It is true that there seems to be a lot of confusion regarding the number of times she was subjected to sexual assault.Relying on the fact that going by the evidence of P.W.1, on the second day when she was sexually harassed by the appellant, for a long time she was not alone in the house and she could have sought for help, and the inaction on the part of P.W.1 to draw the attention of her sister and mother belies her version.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,331,457 |
In addition to the punishments mentioned in Sub-rules (1) and (2) Constables may also be punished with Fatique duty, which shall be restricted to the following tasks :(i) Tent pitching;(ii) Drain digging;(iii) Cutting grass, cleaning jungle and picking stones from parade grounds;In the said Gazetted Officer is the Superintendent of Police himself, the Deputy Inspector General concerned shall be moved to transfer the case to some other district or unit as the case may be.The Police Constable was dismissed for absent in duty of 109 days on the ground of illness.JUDGMENT R.B. Mishra, J.Heard Sri Shailendra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.S. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the State.In this writ petition the prayer has been made to quash the order dated 21.5.1998 and again order dated 28.11.1998 and the Enquiry Report enclosed as (Annexures No. 9, 11 and 6) respectively.The petitioner was alleged to have stolen identity card, driving licence and diary of one drawer Amar Singh.Within one day inquiry was completed and petitioner was dismissed from service.The petitioner preferred an appeal against the dismissal order which was allowed by D.I.G., P.A.C., Agra dated 30.6.1996 (Annexure-1).Fresh charge-sheet was issued on 27.12.1996 against the petitioner in reference to incident of 22.1.1996 and in reference to the allegations prior to 22.1.1996 in which enquiry was already been pending and one Kunwar Pal Singh, Assistant Commandant, 45 Bn. PAC, Aligarh, was the enquiry officer and the statement of Mitra Prakash Tiwari and Ravindra Yadav, both Constables and Amar Singh whose diary etc. were alleged to have been stolen, were recorded.It appears that in all the statements were some contradiction and there is no direct evidence where it could be said that the petitioner has stolen the alleged items.The enquiry officer Sri Kunwar Pal Singh has submitted the report on 23.4.1998 (Annexure-6).In reference to the show cause notice the petitioner was allowed 8 days time to give a response.The petitioner on 16.5.1998 wrote a letter seeking some more time on the ground his son is not well.Petitioner was not granted time and an ex-parte decision dated 21.5.1998 was taken which is the impugned order of the present writ petition.The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Dy.Inspector General of Police who after considering the same dismissed on 22.7.1998 (Annexure-10) and appeal preferred against the above order 21.5.1998 before the D.I.G. Police which was dismissed on 28.11.1998 which is also an impugned order in the writ petition.The counter and rejoinder-affidavit has been exchange.In the present case, the preliminary enquiry was done by Kunwar Pal Singh, Assistant Commandant, 45 Bn. PAC, Aligarh.The fact can be con- firmed by letter Annexures No. 1, 2 and 3 annexed to the supplementary-affidavit.Fresh enquiry was initiated by the charge-sheet dated 27.12.1996 in which the enquiry officer submitted the report on 23.4.1998, (Annexxure-6).The name of the enquiry officer mentioned in the concluding page 6, the enquiry officer was Kunwar Pal Singh, Assistant Commandant.(b) The main enquiry is also vitiated on the ground that the provisions of Regulations 486(1), (5) and (6) of the Police Regulations were completely violated by the authority concerned including the Appointing Authority as they failed to observe the process contemplated in the said regulation.[Government of A.P. v. B. Ashok Kumar, AIR 1997 SC 2447 : (1997) 5 SCC 478 : 1997 SCC (L and S) 1215 : 1997 (4) SLR 242 : (1997) 2 LLN 600 : 1997 Lab IC 2353].(J) When a Bus Conductor was charged for taking certain passengers without tickets and on holding departmental enquiry he was found guilty and the Disciplinary Authority removed the respondent from the post of the Conductor, he moved the High Court challenging the order of removal.His appeal was rejected and his claim petition before U.P. Public Service Tribunal was also dismissed.In (1985) I Supreme Court Cases 120, Hussaini v. Chief Justice of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and Ors., the appellant was working as a Sweeper and was placed under suspension for derogation of duty and was dismissed from service after enquiry.At the time of dismissal he had rendered service over 20 years and was denied retirement benefits such as pension, provident fund and gratuity to which he would have been entitled if he was compulsorily retired from service.The impugned judgment and order of the High Court were set-aside and the order of the Tribunal was restored.
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
133,148,432 |
Heard on point of admission, this revision is admitted for final hearing.Record of the lower court be requisitioned.Also heard on I.A. No.6536/2015, which is first application under Section 397 read with section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of applicant-Gajraj son of Mohan @ Mansya for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail.The present applicant suffered the conviction and jail sentence as follows :-C.C. as per rules.(Alok Verma) Judge Chitranjan
|
['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
133,150,079 |
As per the prosecution case, a girl child reported pain in her chest and she had informed to her mother that it was her teacher, who had molested her and because of that she is having pain in her chest.However, the applicant shall be free to file fresh bail application after material witnesses are examined.(S.C.SHARMA) JUDGE taj
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
133,150,516 |
ASJ, Shahdara.7/12/1993."The prosecution case is that on 27.04.1993, D.D. No. 9A (Ex. PW- 11/A) was recorded at police station Geeta Colony wherein it was stated that wireless information had been received at 03.55 p.m. that in block No.13 near Krishana Mandir, a 'brother-in-law' had stabbed his sister-in-law with a knife "devar ne bhabhi ko chaku mar diya hai".Consequently, they reached house No. 15/107, Geeta Colony, where they learnt that the deceased (Smt. Krishna) had been CRL.A. No. 366/1997 Page 3 of 24 removed to S.D.N. Hospital in a PCR Van.It is further the case of the prosecution that PW-17 SI Satpal Pawar along with the said constable went to S.D.N. hospital and collected the MLC (Ex. PW-10/A) of Smt. Krishna.It may be pointed out at this juncture itself that the MLC indicates that Smt. Krishan was brought to the hospital by Head Constable Tej Ram (PW-13) who was in-charge of the PCR Van.A. No. 366/1997 Page 3 of 24The prosecution case is also that Smt. Krishan's husband Pooran Chand was present in the hospital and he gave a statement (Ex.PW-17/A) in which he is alleged to have named his brother Madan Lal @ Maddi (appellant herein) as the assailant of his deceased wife Smt. Krishna.The prosecution case further is that after the statement of PW-8 Pooran Chand was recorded, the rukka was sent to the police station through constable Satish Kumar for registration of the case.It is further the case of the prosecution that PW-17 SI Satpal Pawar went to the police station along with PW-8 Pooran Chand and also took the dead body of Smt. Krishna to the police station from the hospital.Dead body was left at the police station and he along with PW-8 Pooran Chand went to the spot.There, he found that CRL.A. No. 366/1997 Page 4 of 24 SHO R.N. Vashisht was already there on the basis of D.D No. 11A which was recorded at police station Geeta Colony regarding the arrival of Smt. Krishna in the hospital as having been brought dead.A copy of the said D.D No. 11/A is exhibited as Ex. 19A.A. No. 366/1997 Page 4 of 24The crime team and photographer had also arrived in the presence of PW-17 SI Satpal Pawar.The inquest proceeding was completed.The brief facts (PW- 19/H) were prepared along with the inquest.Thereafter, the Investigating Officer (I.O) PW-19 SHO R.N. Vashisht sent the dead body along with the inquest papers for the conduct of the post-mortem examination.The same was conducted by PW-5 Dr. L.T. Ramani and his report is Ex.The gauze containing blood of the deceased Smt. Krishna was collected as also her blood stained clothes.The CFSL report (Ex. PW-19/11 to PW-19/13) was obtained subsequently.A. No. 366/1997 Page 6 of 24A. No. 366/1997 Page 6 of 24It is also the prosecution case that on 24.05.1993 at about 08.30 p.m. when PW-19 SHO R.N. Vashisht was about to leave the station for investigation of the case, PW-9 Kishore Kumar arrived at the said police station and he joined him in the investigation of the case.Thereafter, he along with ASI Kanchan Lal and PW-9 Kishore Kumar proceeded from police station Geeta Colony in search of the appellant Madan Lal.Upper end was acutely cut."from body surface.He is stated to have seen this incident through the window when he was standing outside the room.He stated that his father (Pooran Chand) was present in the house at that time.His grandmother was also present in the house and that his mother (Smt. Krishna) was sleeping on the bed at the time of occurrence.Importantly, PW-1 Bharat Bhushan @ Sunny also states in his examination-in-chief that after the assault, Maddi (the appellant herein) went out leaving the knife in the room.BADAR DURREZ AHMED, JThe said FIR was registered at police station Geeta Colony, Delhi.This appeal is also directed against the order on sentence CRL.A. No. 366/1997 Page 1 of 24 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 15.09.1997 whereby the appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.A fine of Rs. 1000/- was also imposed and in default of the payment of the said fine, it was directed that the appellant would undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.Insofar as the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 is concerned, the appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years along with a fine of Rs. 500/-.In default of the payment of said fine, the appellant was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 15 days.The sentences were directed to run concurrently.A. No. 366/1997 Page 1 of 24The appellant was charged as under:-"CHARGE SC No. 211/93 I, P.K. Dham, Addl.Sessions Judge, Shahdara, do hereby charge you Madan Lal as under:-That on 27.4.93, at about 3.30 PM, in house No. 15/107, Ground floor, Geeta Colony, Delhi, you committed the murder of Smt. Krishna by causing her death and thereby committed an office punishable u/s 302 IPC and within my cognizance.Secondly, on the above said date, time and place, you were found in un-lawful possession of a dagger with intent to CRL.A. No. 366/1997 Page 2 of 24 use the same for some unlawful purpose and the same was recovered at your instance on 25.5.93 and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 27 of Arms Act and within my cognizance.A. No. 366/1997 Page 2 of 24Photographs were taken.The site plan (Ex. PW- 18/B) of the place of the incident was prepared on the pointing of PW-8 Pooran Chand.Blood from the ground floor of house No. 15/107, Geeta Colony, was seized and sealed with the seal of 'RNV' vide memo Ex. PW- 8/A to PW-8/B. Earth control sample was also seized and vide memo PW- 8/C and PW-8/D in the presence of PW-8 Pooran Chand who had also signed the memos.A blood stained bed sheet which was lying on the bed was also seized vide memo Ex. PW-8/E. The bed sheet itself was exhibited as Ex. PW-17/A. At the spot, it is alleged that, apart from PW-8 Pooran Chand, his other brother (not the accused Madan Lal) was also present.It is alleged that the statement of Neelam, who is another bhabhi (sister-in-law) of the appellant Madan Lal and who also used to reside in the same house, was also recorded.It is, further the case of the prosecution that a small child by the name of Sunny @ Bharat Bhushan (PW-1) who is the son of PW-8 CRL.A. No. 366/1997 Page 5 of 24 Pooran Chand and the deceased Smt. Krishana was present at the place of occurrence at about 04.40 p.m. His statement was not recorded by the police, as according to the prosecution, the child was in a nervous and frightened condition.It is also the case of the prosecution that PW-9 Kishore Kumar a relative of the deceased Smt. Krishna was also there at the place of occurrence and his statement was also not recorded as, according to the prosecution, he was also not in a position to make any statement as he was in a disturbed state of mind.A. No. 366/1997 Page 5 of 24Thereafter, the investigation proceeded in the direction of searching for the appellant Madan Lal.However, Madan Lal was not to be found.When they reached Hanuman Mandir Jamuna Bazar, on the pointing of PW-9 Kishore Kumar, the appellant Madan Lal was arrested near the Hanuman Mandir.His search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW-9/A and on interrogation, the appellant Madan Lal is alleged to have made a disclosure statement in which he allegedly revealed that he had thrown the dagger in the bushes of Yamuna Pushta and that he had thrown his blood stained clothes near the river Yamuna.It is further alleged that the appellant Madan Lal took them to the bushes near Yamuna Pushta and got a dagger Ex. P-1 recovered from the bushes.The sketch of the dagger was prepared and it was exhibited as Ex. PW-9/B. The said dagger was seized vide memo Ex. PW-9/C. The alleged blood stained shirt of the appellant Madan Lal was however not recovered.A. No. 366/1997 Page 7 of 24A. No. 366/1997 Page 7 of 24It may be mentioned at this junction that as per the prosecution the statement of PW-9 Kishore Kumar was recorded under section 161 Cr.Thereafter, the investigation was completed and the charge sheet was filed in court.The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.In the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses.Thereafter, the statement of the appellant Madan Lal was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The defence produced 4 witnesses.Consequent upon the conclusion of the trial and upon hearing final arguments on the part of the prosecution as well as the defence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, by virtue of the impugned judgment, found the appellant to be guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC as also of the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. As pointed above, by an order dated 15.09.1997 the learned Additional Session Judge pronounced the aforesaid sentences.The appellant is in appeal before us.A. No. 366/1997 Page 8 of 24A. No. 366/1997 Page 8 of 24It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that PW-1 Bharat Bhushan @ Sunny was a small boy between the age of 5 and 6 years at the time of the incident.According to him, the said witness was impressionable and had been tutored by his maternal uncle and members of his deceased mother's family as also by the police and therefore his testimony could not be relied upon.He further contended that the testimony of PW-1 Bharat Bhushan @ Sunny has to be looked at with suspicion because of the fact that his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 08.05.1993, that is, 11 days after the alleged incident.Even his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 19.05.1993 which would be 22 days after the alleged incident.Since PW-1 Bharat Bhushan @ Sunny was the alleged solitary eye witness, there was no reason for recording his statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. after such inordinate and unexplained delay.The said PW-1 Bharat Bhushan @ Sunny was not an outsider but was a family member and was resident of the very same house in which the said alleged incident took place.He submitted that the said DW-1 Ravinder Kumar Dikshit is the headmaster of the school which was attended by PW-1 Bharat Bhushan @ Sunny on the date of alleged occurrence.He had produced the register of attendance (Ex. DW-1A) which indicated that PW-1 Bharat Bhushan @ Sunny had attended the school on 27.04.1993 and was present in both shifts.The afternoon shift being from 1 p.m. to 6 p.m. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, PW- 1 Bharat Bhushan @ Sunny could not have been an eye witness inasmuch as the alleged incident took place around 3.30 p.m. when PW-1 Bharat Bhushan @ Sunny was in school and not at home.He also submitted that the statement of PW-1 Bharat Bhushan @ Sunny made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate on 19.05.1993 is also at variance in material particulars with the testimony of the said witness in court in the course of CRL.A. No. 366/1997 Page 10 of 24 trial.He submitted that though the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. cannot be regarded as substantive evidence, it can certainly be used for the purposes of corroboration as well as contradiction of the witness who made that statement.For these reasons, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the testimony of PW-1 Bharat Bhushan @ Sunny cannot be relied upon at all.A. No. 366/1997 Page 9 of 24A. No. 366/1997 Page 10 of 24Insofar as PW-9 Kishore Kumar is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this witness is, first of all, not an eye witness at all inasmuch all that he has stated is that he saw the appellant coming from the house with a dagger in his hand toward Sethi Medical Store and that the dagger was drenched in blood.His shirt too was drenched in blood.The learned counsel submitted that there are several contradictions between the testimony of PW-9 Kishore Kumar and that of PW-1 Bharat Bhushan @ Sunny and therefore their testimonies do not corroborate each other.As an instance, the learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that while PW-1 PW-1 Bharat Bhushan @ Sunny stated that Madan Lal dropped the knife in the room where his mother was stabbed, PW-9 Kishore Kumar stated that he saw Madan Lal coming from the house with a blood stained dagger in his hand.A. No. 366/1997 Page 11 of 24A. No. 366/1997 Page 11 of 24It was also pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the conduct of PW-9 Kishore Kumar was unnatural inasmuch as although he is stated to have lifted the deceased Smt. Krishna from the bed where she was lying his clothes were not blood stained at all.It is also pointed out that PW- 9 Kishore Kumar made no effort to accompany the injured to hospital.This delay in recording his statement also creates a great deal of suspicion with regard to his testimony.We may point out at this juncture that PW-8 Pooran Chand who is the husband of the deceased Smt Krishna and the father of PW-1 Bharat Bhushan @ Sunny turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case.On the basis of the above submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that this was a fit case for setting aside the order of conviction and the order on the point of sentence.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State narrated the entire sequence of events beginning from D.D. No. 9A (Ex. PW-11/A) and D.D. No. 11A (Ex. PW-19A) till the filing of the charge sheet and submitted that there was no question of the prosecution cooking up any case against the CRL.A. No. 366/1997 Page 12 of 24 appellant.The case for the prosecution in the very first instance was that the appellant Madan Lal was the assailant of Smt. Krishna and that has not changed through time.It was, further, contended that PW-1 Bharat Bhushan @ Sunny, although he is a small boy, ought to be believed as there is no circumstance which would show that his testimony, in material particulars, is false.A child witness, according to the learned counsel for the State, is a truthful witness and there is no reason for the child to falsely implicate the appellant.Furthermore, according to the learned counsel for the State, the testimony of PW-9 Kishore Kumar clearly corroborates the testimony of PW-1 Bharat Bhushan @ Sunny.He also submitted that the blood group of the blood found on the dagger (Ex. P-1) was the same as the blood group (A) of the deceased Smt. Krishna.Therefore, the fact that the recovery of the dagger had been made at the instance of the appellant on 24.05.1993 coupled with the fact that the blood group of the blood found on the dagger match with the blood group of the deceased Smt. Krishna was clinching evidence that it was this dagger which had been used for the commission of the crime.This piece of evidence clearly linked the appellant with the murder of Smt. Krishna.It was further contended by the learned counsel for the State that the testimony of DW-1 Ravinder Kumar Dikshit is of no consequence as the CRL.A. No. 366/1997 Page 13 of 24 so-called school register has not been proved in accordance with law.He submitted that mere production and marking of the documents as exhibits by the court cannot be regarded as due proof of its contents.He submitted that the teacher/person who filled in the register had not been produced and therefore the photocopy of the school register cannot be regarded as evidence.Consequently, it cannot be said that PW-1 Bharat Bhushan @ Sunny was in school at the time of the alleged incident.He, therefore, concluded by submitting that based on the testimonies of PW-1 Bharat Bhushan @ Sunny and PW-9 Kishore Kumar, a clear case has been made out against the appellant and, therefore, the impugned judgment and order on the point of sentence ought not to be interfered with.A. No. 366/1997 Page 12 of 24A. No. 366/1997 Page 13 of 24PW-5 Dr. L.T. Ramani is the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination and submitted his report Ex. PW-P5/A. In his testimony PW-5 Dr. L.T. Ramani has stated that there was as many as 13 injuries found on the dead body of Smt. Krishna.The said 13 external injuries were as under:- CRL.A. No. 366/1997 Page 14 of 24A. No. 366/1997 Page 14 of 24"EXTERNAL INJURIES i. One tiny puncture wound on the right cheek bone area trailing into linear scratch abrasion 3" long.An incised wound 2 cms.x 1 cms.x 1 on the right side of the neck placed obliquely.Incised wound 2.5 cms.x 1 cms.x ? vertically present on the right postero lateral aspect of neck.Lower end was acutely cut.Small incised wound 0.3 cms.x 1.5 cms.x ? on the left breast near areolar margin.v. Incised wound 2.5 cms.x 1.5 cms.x ? transverse the antero-lateral surface of left side chest.Outer end was acutely cut.An incised wound 1.7 cms.x 1 cms.x ? transversely placed on the left side of waist.Incised wound 2 cms.x 1 cms.x muscle deep on the front of the left arm middle.Small incised wound 0.3 cms.x skin deep on the posterior axillary fold.Incised wound 2 cms.x 1 cms.x ? transversely placed on left posterior side chest wall, 2 cms.behind the posteric axillary fold.x. Incised wound 2.5 cms.x 1 cms.x ? obliquely placed on the lower left back of the chest wound appears spindle shaped.A. No. 366/1997 Page 15 of 24Incised would 2.5 cms.x 1.5 cms.x ? transversed on left renal angle.Anterior end was acutely cut.An incised wound 1 cms.x skin deep on the left thigh 4 cms.below the anterior iliac spine.Incised wound 3 cms.x 1 cms.x obliquely placed on the upper part of left thigh, posterior lateral surface.On internal examination he found the following:-"INTERNAL EXAMINATION:Scalp, skull bones were normal.Brain was pale, neck tissues showed blood clot in the deeper layers on the right side.Injury No.4 on the left breast was found to have cut lower margin of third rib left side and upper lobe of left lung 0.5 cms.Injury No. 5 had entered left chest through 8th I.C. space, and cuts diaphragm and anterior surface of the stomach.Injury No.9 had entered left chest through 7th I.C. space and had cut lower lobe of left lung 1 cms.Total depth of this wound was 6 cms.Left lung was partially collapsed and left chest cavity was full of blood.Injury No.6 had entered the abdomen below the 12th rib and had cut lower pole of left kidney.Injury No.10 had entered posterior abdominal wall."A. No. 366/1997 Page 16 of 24His opinion on the basis of the post-mortem examination was as follows:-"All injuries were antemortem, caused by sharp edged weapon.Injury No. 3, 4, 5, 6 & 9 were individually sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.Death was due to shock and haemorrhage consequent to injuries.Time since death was 20 hrs.Clothes and sample of blood were preserved, sealed and handed over to police along with sample seal.My report is Ex. PW-5/A."In his cross-examination he stated:-"I have seen the inquest papers, & there is MLC of Krishna Devi on the file, which bears my initial and was a part of inquest papers and the same is Ex. PW-5/B. I cannot say if deceased would have died instantaneously after sustaining these injuries.I had not seen the weapon of offence."From the above it is apparent that in the course of his cross examination PW-5 Dr. L.T. Ramani had stated that he had not seen the alleged weapon of offence.However, PW-5 Dr. L.T. Ramani was re-called for further examination when he stated that he had seen the dagger (Ex. P-1) and that he was of the opinion that the injuries recorded by him in the post- mortem report Ex. PW-5/A were possible with the said dagger (Ex. P-1).In cross examination, however, he admitted that the dagger Ex. P-1 had a sharp edge on both sides.He also admitted that he has described some of the CRL.A. No. 366/1997 Page 17 of 24 injuries as having one edge as being sharp whereas no such observation had been recorded in respect of certain other injuries.He also admitted that a weapon having a single sharp edge will normally cause an incised wound showing one edge being more acutely cut.Finally, he admitted in cross examination that he could not exclude the possibility of the injuries having resulted from the use of this dagger (Ex. P-1) and some of them with some other single sharp-edged weapon.A. No. 366/1997 Page 17 of 24Two important points emerge from the evidence of PW-5 Dr. L.T. Ramani.The first being that there were as many as 13 external injuries inflicted upon Smt. Krishna.The second important point is that some of the injuries, even according to Dr L.T. Ramani, could have been caused by a double edged weapon like the dagger (Ex.P-1) and other injuries could have been caused by some other single sharp-edged weapon.This fact introduces an element of a two-weapons theory.Meaning thereby that there could have been more than one assailant.The prosecution case, however, is that the appellant was the sole assailant.If that were to be so then how do we explain the injuries caused by the single-edged weapon?We now come to the testimony of PW-1 Bharat Bhushan @ Sunny.According to this witness, who was about between 5 & 6 years old at the CRL.A. No. 366/1997 Page 18 of 24 time of incident and 6 years old at the time his testimony was recorded on 27.01.1994, the appellant Madan Lal gave "two knife blows to his mother".The knife blows, according to this witness, were given-one on the neck and one on the abdomen.In the course of his cross examination this witness stated that PW-9 Kishore Kumar had not come after the death of his mother.He also admitted that he had made a statement before the Magistrate.He also stated that after his mother was stabbed he remained in the house and that he did not weep or cry and that Sunder Shyam, his maternal uncle, has taken him to his house in the evening.He also stated that although everyone in the family wept on the death of his mother but he did not weep.A. No. 366/1997 Page 18 of 24Since the learned counsel for the appellant had referred to the statement of PW-1 Bharat Bhushan @ Sunny recorded under Section 164 Cr.A. No. 366/1997 Page 19 of 24 P.C. in order to contradict his testimony in court, it would be necessary for us to have a look at that statement (Ex. PW-12A).In the said statement PW- 1 Bharat Bhushan @ Sunny has stated that his mother had died 6 days ago.He further stated that his mother was killed by Maddi uncle (meaning the appellant herein).He further stated that he had killed her in the evening.It was night at that time.He further stated that Maddi has assaulted his mother with a knife on her neck as well as her waist.He further stated that Maddi slapped him twice.At that time his mother was sleeping in the room.He further stated that he was playing ludo with his brother Monty.He stated that Monty was 5 years old and he was 6 years old.He further stated that when the appellant entered the room, there was nobody except him (PW-1 Bharat Bhushan @ Sunny) and Monty.He also stated that Maddi also slapped Monty thrice.And that the two of them started crying.Thereafter, Maddi ran away and left the knife next to his mother.He said that when Maddi assaulted his mother, she shrieked.He further stated that thereafter he went alone to the shop and called his father from there.His shop was nearby and he had toffees in his shop.However, at the shop he did not tell his father that his mother had been assaulted.A. No. 366/1997 Page 20 of 24 Monty remained in the house.He further stated that Kishore 'uncle' and the police persons had told him to go inside and say that Maddi had killed his mother.He reiterated after sometime that Maddi had stabbed his mother with a knife.He also stated that Kishore 'uncle' had also told him on that day (the day on which the statement was recorded) that Maddi had stabbed his mother.A. No. 366/1997 Page 19 of 24A. No. 366/1997 Page 20 of 24From the above statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it is apparent that the incident allegedly took place at about 9.30 p.m. whereas it is a fact that Smt. Krishna had been brought dead to the hospital at 4.30 p.m. The statement also indicates that PW-1 Bharat Bhushan @ Sunny had been slapped twice by the appellant Madan Lal whereas in his testimony before court this has not been stated.The presence of the younger brother Monty has not been indicated in his testimony before court.It has not been stated that immediately after the incident he went to his father's shop to call him.Interestingly it is stated in his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that he had been told by Kishore 'uncle' as well as by the police persons that he had to go inside and state that it was Maddi who had killed his mother.This is clearly indicative of tutoring.A. No. 366/1997 Page 21 of 24A. No. 366/1997 Page 21 of 24It is, therefore, clear that the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which was made on 19.05.1993, although it cannot be treated as substantive evidence can certainly be used for contradiction or corroboration of the testimony of PW-1 Bharat Bhushan @ Sunny (see Mamand vs. Emperor AIR 1946 PC 45 and Ram Kishan Singh v. Harmeet Kaur & Anr: (1972) 3 SCC 280).Furthermore, it indicates that there was an element of tutoring.Therefore, even if we disregard the evidence of DW-1 Ravinder Kumar Dikshit with regard to the presence of PW-1 Bharat Bhushan @ Sunny in school at the time of incident, the testimony of PW-1 Bharat Bhushan @ Sunny before court certainly gets dented by the contradiction with the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Coupled with this is the fact that the PW-1 Bharat Bhushan @ Sunny is a child of a tender age and is clearly impressionable.Unless there is corroboration, in the facts of this case, it would be difficult to return a finding of conviction solely on the basis of his testimony.We also note the fact that while PW-1 Bharat Bhushan @ Sunny has categorically stated that the appellant had stabbed his mother twice-once in the neck and once in the waist-the medical evidence indicates that she had been inflicted CRL.A. No. 366/1997 Page 22 of 24 13 external injuries.The possibility of the said injuries having been caused by two separate weapons cannot also be ruled out.Therefore, in our view it would be dangerous to place complete reliance on the testimony of PW-1 Bharat Bhushan @ Sunny.He is the alleged sole eye witness.The corroboration that could be sought from PW-9 Kishore Kumar is also not forthcoming inasmuch as while PW-1 Bharat Bhushan @ Sunny states that the appellant dropped the knife in the room, PW-9 Kishore Kumar categorically states that he saw Madan Lal running with a blood stained dagger in his hand.This is quite apart from the fact that although PW-9 Kishore Kumar stated that he had helped in lifting Smt Krishna onto the PCR Van there was no blood stain on his clothes.This is all the more intriguing inasmuch as Smt. Krishna had 13 incised injuries on her body and was profusely bleeding.Apart from this PW-9 Kishore Kumar made no effort to accompany Smt. Krishna to hospital particularly as there was no other adult member of the family present there.Furthermore, even PW-9 Kishore Kumar's statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 29.04.1993, after two days.The explanation given by the prosecution that he was not in a fit state of mind is far from being believable.Consequently, we cannot place reliance on the testimony of PW-9 Kishore Kumar.A. No. 366/1997 Page 23 of 24A. No. 366/1997 Page 22 of 24A. No. 366/1997 Page 23 of 24From the above discussion it is clear that there are serious doubts in our minds with regard to the prosecution version of the case.As such, the benefit would have to go to the appellant.Consequently, the impugned judgment and order on sentence are set aside.The bail bond furnished by the appellant is cancelled and the sureties stand discharged.The appeal is allowed.BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J VEENA BIRBAL, J NOVEMBER 30, 2012 kb CRL.A. No. 366/1997 Page 24 of 24A. No. 366/1997 Page 24 of 24
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
133,154,265 |
C. No. 9418/2018 & M. Cr.C. No. 11359/2018, therefore, with the consent of parties, the matters are analogously heard and decided finally by this common order.For the purpose of convenience facts mentioned in Cr.R. No. 346/2019 shall be taken into consideration.The petitioners Manoj Bhargava & Pradeep Sengar have earlier filed M.Cr.R. No. 346/2019 & Cr.The necessary facts for disposal of the present petition in short are that the petitioners Manoj Bhargava and Pradeep Sengar have instigated the deceased 3 Cr.R. No. 346/2019 Rajesh Ojha to commit suicide by alleging that the petitioners had not covered the Porch and Dumduma and had not handed over the possession of house to the deceased despite receiving the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and the petitioners further additionally demanded the sum of Rs. 50,000/- from the deceased, due to which, the deceased has committed suicide.R. No. 346/2019 tortured mentally and physically due to which he is consuming poison and committing suicide.i) After consuming the poison in the office of DHFL, the deceased became unconscious in the office of DHFL and he was taken to hospital where the statements of deceased were recorded by news reporter wherein he has alleged that the accused persons harassed him and demanded extra amount and also did not handed over the possession of his house, later on the deceased was succumbed to death due to poison and the FIR was lodged against the present petitioner and other co-accused Pradeep Sengar in which the challan has been filed before the trial court and charge has been framed.(Delivered on this Day of 14th January, 2020) Since, common questions of law and facts are involved in the present case as well as in Cr.R. No. 1044/2019, M.Cr.C. No. 9418/2018 & M. Cr.C. No. 11359/2018 under section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings which was pending in criminal original case No. 82/2018 before the court below arising out of FIR bearing crime No. 21/2018 registered at police station City Kotwali, Dist.Shivpuri for the offence punishable under section 306 of IPC.During pendency of these petitions, the court below has framed charge against the petitioners in case No. 50/2018 ST under section 306 r/w section 34 of IPC, therefore, the petitioners have filed Cr.Further, on 03/01/2018 at the office of DHFL, the petitioner Manoj Bhargava with his common intention with other co-accused has abetted the deceased to commit suicide which resultantly let the deceased to commit suicide by consuming poisonous substance.Thereafter, the petitioner and co-accused were arrested.The statements of witnesses were recorded and after completing all necessary formalities, charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner and co-accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, which is pending before the court of 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Dist.The trial court vide impugned order dated 10/01/2019 has framed the charge against the petitioner and co- accused for the offence under section 306 r/w section 34 of IPC.For ready reference and convenience, the charge framed by the court below against the petitioner vide impugned order dated 10/01/2019 is reproduced herein below :-Cr.R. No. 346/2019 vkjksi eSa] vkj- ih- feJ] prqFkZ vij l= U;k;k/kh'k] f'koiqjh ftyk f'koiqjh vki vfHk;qDr eukst iq= jked`".k HkkxZo] vk;q +------- o"kZ] fuoklh [ksM+kifr dkWyksuh f'koiqjh ij] fuEu fyf[kr vkjksi yxkrk gwa fd %& izFke% ;g fd vkius fnukad 03-01-2018 dks fnu ds 3%30 cts ds yxHkx LFkku Vh0,p0,Q0,y0 daiuh f'koiqjh ds dk;kZy; esa varxZr vkj{kh dsUnz dksrokyh f'koiqjh esa tgjhyk inkFkZ [kkdj jkts'k vks>k us vkRegR;k dh vkSj vkius jkts'k vks>k ls mlds }kjk ;fd;s x;s IykWV ij cuk;s edku esa ikspZ doMZ rFkk nqenqek ds fy;s iqFkd ls ,d yk[k :i;s ysdj dk;Z u dj edku mls gS.MvkWoj ugha fd;k rFkk ipkl gtkj :i;s dh vkSj ekax dj mls izrkfM+r dj vkRegR;k djus ds fy;s nq"izsfjr fd;k vkSj bl izdkj vkius og vijk/k fd;k tks Hkk0na0la0 dh /kkjk 306 ds varxZr naMuh; vijk/k dkfjr fd;k] tks bl U;k;ky; ds laKku esa gSA ^^fodYi esa^^ ;g fd mDr fnukad] le; o LFkku ij vkius ;g vfHk;qDr ds lkFk feydj e`rd jkts'k vks>k dks vkRegR;k djus ds fy, nq"izsfjr djus dk lkekU; vk'k; fufeZr fd;k vkSj ml lkekU; vk'k; ds vxzlj.k esa e`rd jkts'k vks>k dks vkRegR;k djus ds fy;s nq"izsfjr fd;k ftlds QyLo:i fnukad 03-01-2018 dks fnu ds 03%30 cts ds yxHkx jkts'k vks>k tgjhyk inkFkZ [kkdj vkRegR;k dh vkSj bl izdkj vkius og vijk/k fd;k tks Hkk0na0la0 dh /kkjk 306 lgifBr /kkjk 34 ds varxZr naMuh; vijk/k gS] tks bl U;k;ky; ds laKku esa gSA vkSj eSa ,rn~ }kjk ;g funsZ'k nsrk gwa fd mDr vkjksiksa ij vkidk fopkj.k bl U;k;ky; }kjk fd;k tk;sA vkj-ih-feJ prqFkZ vij l= U;k;k/kh'k] f'koiqjh ftyk f'koiqjh &%%vfHk;qDr dk vfHkokd%%& vfHk;qDr dks mDr vkjksi i<+dj lquk;s o le>k;s tkus ij mldk vfHkokd gS fd %& vkj-ih-feJ prqFkZ vij l= U;k;k/kh'k] f'koiqjh ftyk f'koiqjh 5 Cr.R. No. 346/2019b) The period of loan was fixed for 16 years and for repayment of the aforesiad loan amount monthly EMI of Rs. 9,124/- was set to be paid per month.And for obtaining the said loan the co-accused Pradeep Senger acted as a Commission Agent for the deceased Rajesh Ojha.R. No. 346/2019R. No. 346/2019 the State that prima facie the charge for the offence under section 306, 34 of IPC is made against the petitioner on the basis of the material available in the charge sheet, therefore, it cannot be said that the learned trial court has committed any illegality or irregularity in framing the charge against the petitioner.Moreover, the deceased in his dying declaration clearly stated the name of the petitioner involved in the offence, therefore, the trial court has rightly framed the charge against the petitioner.At this stage, the Magistrate performs a judicial function.
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
133,168,654 |
[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 BCDFGISSSV No.158/2017 dated 11.04.2017 by the Detaining Authority against the detenu by name, Sugu @ Subbu @ Subburaj, aged 30 years, S/o.Ganapathy, residing at No.1/88, North Street, Jambulingapuram, Ottapidaram, Turicorin District and quash the same.The Inspector of Police, S-13 Chrompet 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 case:i) Athur Police Station, Crime No.84 of 2016, registered under Sections 120(b), 147, 148, 302 (2 counts) r/w.114, 149 r/w.120(b) of Indian Penal Code.Further it is averred in the affidavit that one Abdul Khadar, aged 64 years, S/o.Khaja Moideen, residing at No.38, Periya Palayathamman Koil Street, Pallavaram, Chennai-43, as de facto complainant, has lodged a complaint wherein it is averred to the effect that on the date of occurrence, the detenu and others formed an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons and murdered his son .Further it is alleged in the complaint that on 18.12.2016, the detenu and others have abducted his brother by name Mohammed Ali and consequently, a case has been registered in Crime No.77 of 2017 under Sections 147, 148 and 302 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 derived a subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenu has committed a grave offence 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.
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
133,263,127 |
This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment passed in SC No.71 of 2005, dated 10.12.2013 by the Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram, Dindigul.2.The case of the prosecution is that the first accused is the husband of the deceased Delsi Ashirvadam, second accused is the father and third accused is the mother of the accused and the first accused married Delsi Ashirvadam on 09.09.1996 and their marriage was performed at Sowkiapuram and after marriage, the first accused and his wife Delsi were residing along with the second and third accused as joint family at Thummichampatti and the deceased Delsi gave birth of a female child Jenitha and right from the marriage, A1 to A3 tortured Dulsi as she did not bring adequate seervarisai, at the time of marriage and insisted Delsi to bring additional dowry and further, the first and third accused threatened Delsi that if she could not bring more dowry, the first accused would remarry and the second accused assaulted Delsi and attempted to drive her out of matrimonial home and further, A1 to A3 threatened and intimidated Delsi to affix her signature in unwritten white papers and persistently dowry demand andhttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 harassment meted out by Delsi instigated her to commit suicide and as the harassment and ill-treatment were unbearable on 06.09.2000 at about 11.00 hours, Delsi poured kerosene over body and set her ablaze at her residence and succumbed to burns.The Deputy Superintendent of Police attached to Oddanchatram Police Station has filed a final report against the accused examining the witnesses.3.The trial court, on appreciation of the evidence, both and documentary, found the appellant/A1 alone guilty under Section 3046 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months.During the trial, the father of the appellant/A1 namely A2 died and hence, the charge against him was abated before the trial court and then, the appellant/A1 and his mother who is A3 were tried and on 10.12.2013, they were were acquitted from the charges under Sections 498-A and 304(B) IPC.Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the appellant/A1 is before this court.http://www.judis.nic.in 44.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.5.The contention raised on the side of the appellant/A1 is that there was absence of evidence connecting the appellant/A1 with the alleged offence and there was no evidence that the deceased was insulted by the appellant/A1 in the presence of relatives during house warm ceremony held three days prior to the occurrence and the deceased did not whisper anything incriminating against the appellant/A1 to prove the guilty under Section 306 IPC and there was no evidence to show that A1 abetted the deceased to commit suicide and further, there was no evidence to the effect that the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death and presumption can be drawn only on proved facts and PW1 to PW3, PW8 to PW10 are relatives of the deceased and they are interested witnesses and hence, their evidence cannot be relied upon and prays that the appellant/A1 is entitled to acquittal.6.It is admitted on the side of the appellants/A1 that the deceased committed suicide.The deceased gave Ex.P9 complaint statement.PW1 is the mother of the deceased.PW2 and PW8 arehttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 the sisters of the deceased.PW3, PW9 and PW10 are the brothers of the deceased.On perusal of Ex.P9 complaint statement of the deceased, it was stated that on 06.09.2000 at about 11.00 hours, her husband scolded why she went to purchase grocery an she felt why her husband scolded for the above innocent and the deceased to commit the offence.7.PW1 to PW3, PW8 to PW10 stated during their evidence that frequent quarrel arose between A1 and the deceased and the due to it, the deceased came to the house of the brother and after mediation, she went to her matrimonial home, but A1 used to tortured her often by saying that he would remarry and she was subjected to frequent ill-treatment and on the fateful day, A1 scolded with strong words and due it, she decided to end her life by way of committing suicide by setting fire.8.The legal presumption envisaged by the statue with regard to the abetment of suicide by a married woman is defined under Section 113(A) of the Indian Evidence Act, which is extracted as follows:-http://www.judis.nic.in 6 “When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.” So the presumption under Section 113(A) of the Indian Evidence Act can be drawn in this case, since Delsi a married woman has committed suicide within a period of seven years of her marriage.In her complaint (Ex.P9), Delsi has specified that her husband's bad temperament and rude behaviour driven her to commit suicide.9.The prosecution witnesses PW1 to PW3, PW8 to PW10 have specifically stated that the first accused tortured and persecuted his wife Delsi and on many occasions panchayats were convened to settle the dispute and specific instance of dowry demand or torture for failure to bring more dowry has not been established by the prosecution.10.The prosecution has categorically established that Delsi was subjected to prosecution and ill-treatment and she was taunted by her husband at the matrimonial abode.Due to sincere efforts taken by relatives of Delsi, she was living with the first accused, but in un-cordial condition and Delsi had been insulted by the first accused in the presence of relatives during house warm ceremony and after three days again Delsi was scolded and severely warned by the first accused, so she got fed up and dejected and decided to end her life and accordingly, she committed suicide.Hence, in this family background, the words in the complaint (Ex.P9) given by Delsi has to be appreciated to understand the tenor of the allegation against the first accused.11.Even though the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/A1 argued on much, he stated that already compromise arrived at between the accused and her daughter.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/A1 filed a joint compromise memo and the learned counsel pleads modification.12.In AIR 2009 SC 675 (Ishwar Singh Vs.At the same time, however, while dealing with such matters, this Court may take into account a relevant and important consideration about compromise between the parties for the purpose of reduction of sentence.Even when the prayer for composition has been declined this Court has in the two cases mentioned above taken the fact of settlement between the parties into consideration while dealing with the question of sentence.Apart from the fact that a settlement has taken place between the parties, there are few other circumstances that persuade us to interfere on the questionhttp://www.judis.nic.in 11 of sentence awarded to the appellants.The parties are related to each other.14.Keeping in mind the above citations and the settlement arrived at between the parties as well as taking into account for determining the quantum of sentence and the accused served substantive part of sentence, it is held that the sentence imposed on the petitioners is reduced the sentence to the period already undergone.It is seen from the records that the petitioners have been incarceration for more than two months.http://www.judis.nic.in 1215.Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed, by reducing the sentence awarded to the appellant/A1 to the sentence already undergone by them.In respect of fine amount, the findings of the trial court is confirmed.30.08.2019 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er To,1.The Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram, (Fast Track Mahila Court), Dindigul.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 13 T.KRISHNAVALLI,J er Judgment made in Crl.R.C(MD)No.11 of 2014 30.08.2019http://www.judis.nic.in
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
133,273,170 |
Being aggrieved by the order dated 06.04.2017, petitioner filed an appeal under Section 9 of the Act of 1990 before the Commissioner.Vide order dated 04.10.2017 (Annexure-P/1), the said appeal has been dismissed.The petitioner is assailing the aforesaid order on the ground that while passing the order, five criminal cases were considered by the respondents and out of five criminal cases, in three cases, he has been acquitted by the Competent Court and in one case, application for compromise is pending.From the year 2007 to 2016, 5 cognizable criminal cases were registered against the petitioner, mainly offences punishable under Section, 147, 148, 149, 323, 506, 341, 294, 324, 34 and 153-A of the IPC.In the present case, from the record, it is not in dispute that after 2014, not a single case has been registered against the petitioner nor any material was available with the authorities to pass the order.The two conditions for an order of externment stated in Section 5(b) of the Act of 1990 do not exist in this case and the order passed by the District Magistrate and the appellate order of the Commissioner are liable to be quashed.For the above mentioned reasons, I am of the view that the impugned order dated is liable to be quashed.Accordingly, impugned orders dated 06.04.2017 and 04.10.2017 are hereby, quashed.The writ petition is accordingly, allowed and disposed of.
|
['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
133,277,877 |
The present revision petition under Section 397(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the "Cr.P.C.") has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 18.02.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Central, Delhi vide which the application filed by the State for arraying Constable Rajender and Constable Ravinder as witnesses has been allowed and their names have been added in the list of witnesses.The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner along with two other co-accused persons is facing trial before the Trial Court in FIR No.93/2010, under Section 498-C/34 IPC, Police Station Hauz Qazi.The names of Constables Rajender and Ravinder were initially in the Crl.P. 185/2015 Page 1 of 4 list of witnesses.At the time of compliance under Section 207 Cr.P.C, before committal of case to the Court of Sessions, it was submitted by the Investigating Officer that the names of Ct.Ravinder and Ct.Rajender were inadvertently added in the list of witnesses but their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were not recorded.On the request of the Investigating Officer, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dropped/deleted the names of Ct.Rajender and Ct.Ravinder from the list of witnesses, whereas names of HC Narender and Ct.P. 185/2015 Page 1 of 4P. 185/2015 Page 4 of 4P. 185/2015 Page 4 of 4Satbir were added in the list of witnesses.Thereafter, the case was committed the Court of Sessions.On 29.01.2015, an application was moved on behalf of the State seeking addition of names of Ct.Rajender and Ct.Ravinder in the list of witnesses.Vide impugned order dated 18.02.2015, the learned ASJ allowed the application and also allowed the addition of names of Ct.Rajender and Ct.Ravinder in the list of witnesses.Feeling aggrieved of the same, the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.Argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is mainly on the ground that earlier on the request of the Investigating Officer of the case, names of both the Constables Rajender and Ravinder were dropped from the list of witnesses vide order dated 15.12.2012 and now by passing the impugned order dated 18.02.2015, the learned ASJ added their names in the list of witnesses which amounts to review of its own order.It is further argued that power of Crl.P. 185/2015 Page 2 of 4 review of its own order is not vested in the criminal courts and a great prejudice has been caused to the petitioner while allowing the above said two constables as witnesses.P. 185/2015 Page 2 of 4On the other hand, learned APP for the State has argued that the names of Constables Rajender and Ravinder are there in the seizure memo of counterfeit currency recovered from the petitioner and other co-accused persons.It is further argued that both these witnesses are of vital importance and if they are not allowed to be examined, a serious prejudice would be caused to the case of the prosecution.It is matter of record that the petitioner and his co-accused persons are facing the trial under Section 489C/34 IPC for possessing forged or counterfeit currency notes.The case is at the stage of prosecution evidence.It is contended by the learned APP for the State that Constable Rajender and Constable Ravinder are the material witnesses as they remained associated in the recovery proceedings and the seizure memo of the currency notes bore their signatures.This fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that these two witnesses are the signatory to the seizure memo, though the case set up by the prosecution has been denied by the counsel for the petitioner.It is also matter of record that earlier the abovesaid witnesses were dropped by the learned Magistrate on the request of the Investigating Officer as their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were not on record.But when the fact regarding their joining of the recovery came on record, the same were sought to be added in the list of witnesses by the prosecution.The said request of the prosecution Crl.P. 185/2015 Page 3 of 4 was acceded to by the learned ASJ and vide impugned order the application for adding them in the list of witnesses and to examine them has been allowed.The order passed by the learned ASJ can in no way be called a review of the order passed earlier for the reasons that the earlier order dated 15.12.2012 was passed by the learned Magistrate and that too is before the committal of case to the Court of Sessions.P. 185/2015 Page 3 of 4Consequently, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed.Application Crl.M.A. 4564/2015 is also disposed of.(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE APRIL 26, 2016 dd Crl.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,332,864 |
2.(a) Revision Petitioner/P.W.1 is son of deceased Rani.P.W.1 laid a complaint Ex.P.1 with the 1st respondent police on3.9.2008 at about 1.30 a.m., stating that the second accused picked up quarrelwith Rani with regard to the grassing of cattle, that on 2.9.2008 at about 5.00p.m.the goat belonging to P.W.1 went into the house of 2nd accused and thedaughter of Nagalakshmi by name Malathi exaggerated the event and 2nd accusedshouted and hence the deceased asked 2nd accused why should she shout like that,that at that time 1st and 3rd accused also came and the first accused by statingthat through out the year the deceased was disturbing them, cut on the head ofdeceased by means of Vangaruval, that both 2nd and 3rd accused assaulted Rani bymeans of stick on her body indiscriminately, that on raising alarm by P.W.1 toP.W.3 and others by name Selvam, Karuppaiah came and P.W.1 took his motherto Paramakudi Government Hospital and hence the complaint.2.(b) On receipt of information with regard to the occurrence, the HeadConstable P.W.7 proceeded to the Government Hospital, Paramakudi and recordedEx.P.1 complaint from P.W.1, since the injured was not in a state of givingstatement.The 1st and 3rd accused also were being treated as inpatients in thesaid hospital and P.W.7 also recorded statement from the 1st accused.He cameto the police station on 3.9.2008 at about 1.30 a.m and registered a case inCr.At about 2 a.m. onthe same day, he sent the FIRs to the Court and placed the copy of FIRs beforethe Inspector of Police for information.He received information from theGovernment Hospital, Madurai, that on 4.9.2008 at 3.45 a.m., Rani breathed herlast.2.(d) P.W.14 Inspector of Police took up the case in Cr.No.95/2008 forinvestigation, proceeded to the scene of occurrence on 3.9.2008 at 7.00 a.m. andprepared Ex.P.17 Observation Mahajar and Rough Sketch Ex.He also liftedblood stained earth as well as the sample earth,M.O.2 and M.O.3 respectivelyunder Mahazar Ex.Then he went to Government Rajaji Hospital at Maduraiand recovered M.O.4 and M.O.5 blood stained saree and blood stained inskirt ofthe injured under Mahazar Ex.He examined the witnesses and recorded theirstatements.On getting information that the injured died on 4.9.2008, he againproceeded to the above said hospital at 7.00 a.m., got death intimation andaltered the case into one under section 302 I.P.C. under alteration reportEx.He conducted the inquest on the body the deceased in the presence ofPanchayatdars and prepared Inquest Report Ex.A contusion back of middle right forearm 5 cms x 3 cms.Multiple transverse linear contusions over both gluteal regions andback of right thigh."2.(f) P.W.14 continued the investigation by examining the policepersonnel.Again he went to Madurai Government Hospital and arrested the 1staccused and brought him to the police station.He gave a confession statementin the presence of P.W.4 and P.W.5, in which the admissible portion is Ex.P.2.In pursuance of the same, the 1st accused took the police and witnesses to hishouse and produced one Vangaruval M.O.1, which was seized by P.W.14 under coverof Mahazar Ex.P.9 is the report from the serologydepartment in which it is stated that the saree, petticoat and earth containedblood of human origin belonging to 'O' group.This revision challenges the judgment of acquittal passed in S.C.No.68 of2009 by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Ramanathapuram.The case of prosecution may tersely be stated as follows:No.95/2008 under section 341, 324, 307 IPC on the complaint given by P.W.1.He lodged FIR, Ex.2.(c) On the same day P.W.7 also registered a case in Cr.No.96/2008 underSection 324 IPC on the statement given by the first accused.He also gave a requisitionthrough P.W.7 for conducting post mortem over the dead body, to the MedicalOfficer.2.(e) P.W.11 Doctor attached to the Government Rajaji Medical CollegeHospital, Madurai, conducted Post Mortem over the dead body of the deceased andissued Ex.P.11 Post Mortem Certificate with opinion that the deceased wouldappear to have died of injury No.1 and its corresponding internal injuries andits complications thereof.He has observed the following injuries on the body:-A transversely oblique sutured incised would involving both theparietal areas of 17 cms x 1 cm x brain deep.The right end of the wound is 10cms inner to the top of the ear lobule and 8 cms above the outer aspect of theright eyebrow.The let end of the would is 11 cms inner to the top of the leftear lobule and 12 cms above the outer aspect of left eyebrow.On dissection, the wound found cutting the underlying soft tissues, bothparietal bones through and through measuring 17 cms x 1 cm, cutting theunderlying duramater measuring 17 cms x 1 cm through and through cutting theunderlying both parietal lobe of brain measuring 17 cms x 1 cm x 3 cms withdiffuse subdural haematoma both parietal regions and right occipital region.A transversely oblique incised would over outer aspect of right eyebrow4 cms x 0.5 cm x muscle deed.The inner end of the would is 7 cms from theglabella and the outer end is 8 cms from the tragus of the right ear.A contusion on the back of right side of chest measuring 7 x 3 cms.He sent the first accused for judicial custody anddespatched M.O.1 under Form-95 to the Court.Then he examined the Doctor P.W.8,who had given treatment to the deceased when she was admitted to the hospital.P.W.14 gave requisition Ex.P.12 to the Court to send the material objects forchemical examination.P.W.10, Scientific Assistant gave Ex.P.8 BiologicalReport to the Court, in which it is stated that the billhook, saree, petticoatand the earth contained blood.The blood in the billhook wasfound to be human origin and grouping test was inconclusive.He examined themand recorded the confession statement given by them.After completion of theinvestigation, he laid charge sheet under Section 302, 302 r/w 34 and 323I.P.C.2.(h) He also took up the case in Cr.No.96 of 2008 for investigation andproceeded to the scene of occurrence, prepared observation mahajar and roughsketch in the presence of witnesses.He examined 1st and 3rd accused who gotinjured on their hands and also the eye witnesses.The final report in Cr.2.(i) The accused were put on trial and on completion of prosecutionevidence, they were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as regard incriminatingmaterials available against them in the prosecution evidence.They deniedcomplicity in the offences.They examined D.W.1 and marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.4.The accused filed statement under Section 233 (2) Cr.P.C. stating that on2.9.2008 at about 8.30 p.m. there was noise heard in front of house of secondaccused, that the first and third accused proceeded there and found a crowd,that there was no light, that P.W.1 and P.W.2 possessed sticks in theirhands, also in the hands of the deceased, that her son-in-law Manimuthu washaving vettu arruval in his hand, that they were attacking the house of secondaccused, that when A1 and others asked them, they assaulted them, that since itwas dark, it could not be stated who assaulted whom, that at 9.15 p.m. on thesame day, they went to Paramakudi Government Hospital by bus and in the samebus, the injured Rani was also taken, that 3rd accused and Rani were sent toMadurai Hospital at 11.00 p.m. and he was taking treatment as inpatient inParamakudi Government Hospital, that his signature was obtained in a blank paperby the Inspector of Police in the hospital at 3.00 a.m. On 3.9.2008, that on thesame day he was sent to Madurai Government Hospital and that on 6.9.2008 atabout 6.00 p.m. he was taken by police from his house and was detained.The learned Fast Track Court Judge, Ramanathapuram, on perusal ofmaterials found the accused not guilty of the charges framed against them andacquitted them of all the charges.Hence, P.W.1 has preferred this revision.The State has not filed any revision.The following is the point for consideration:"Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilty of the accused beyondall reasonable doubts?"The first and foremost feature at a glance on the prosecution case isinordinate and unexplained delay in receipt of the complaint and FIR by theJudicial Magistrate, Paramakudi.The occurrence took place on 2.9.2008 at 5.00p.m.P.W.7 Head Constable recorded the same and registered the case in Cr.No.95of 2008 on 3.9.2008 at 1.30 p.m. But the FIR and complaint were received by thelearned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi only on 4.9.2008 at 10.30 a.m. It is inthe evidence that the distance between the Judicial Magistrate Court, Paramakudiand the respondent police station is 19 kms.But after the occurrence, the FIRreached the Court after considerable delay.In the first page of FIR, in columnNo.3.(a), it is stated that on 2.9.2008 at about 9 'O' clock the occurrence tookplace.The goat entered into the house of the deceased at 5.00 p.m. Thecomplaint does not show the time of occurrence accurately.The difference in the time of occurrence and the unexplained delayare fatal to the prosecution.It is added that neither P.W.7 nor P.W.14 haveexplained about them in their evidence.The next disturbing feature in the prosecution case is that there is noevidence with regard to the presence of light nearby the scene of crime.Admittedly, the occurrence took place at 9.00 p.m. Neither the ObservationMahazar nor the Rough Sketch would indicate that there was light in the place ofoccurrence.The eye witnesses have also stated that by means of light, theaccused were identified by them.They did not say about the source of light inthe place.In the absence of light in the place of occurrence, a serious doubthas arisen whether P.W.1 and P.W.2 were able to see the accused assaulting thedeceased and causing of injury on various parts of her body by which accused.Even though in the cross examination P.W.1 says that there was light in thescene of crime as well as the electrical post was also there, they were notmentioned in the Observation Mahazar and in the Rough Sketch.It is also one ofthe suspicious circumstances which lead the Court to lay doubt on theprosecution case.The learned Fast Track Court Judge has discussed about the obtainingsignature of P.W.1 in the hospital.His appreciation of evidence give rise tothe fact that P.W.1 took the FIR book to the Government Rajaji Hospital,Madurai, and P.W.1's signature was obtained in the hospital and it transpiresthat the FIR Ex.P.4 and the Alteration Report Ex.P.19 were together sent to theJudicial Magistrate Court, Paramakudi and they were received only on 4.9.2008alone.He has also found fault with P.W.7 in the matter of not sending the FIRpromptly to the Court.This Court does not find any infirmity in the findingsaforestated recorded by the trial Court.P.W.14 has admitted that he did not examine the Head Constable who tookthe express FIR to the Court and that he also does not produce the passportgiven to the Head Constable for taking the F.I.R. to the Court.The next suspicious circumstance in this case is the despatch ofstatements of witnesses and other records to the Court prepared by the police,belatedly.Immediately after the occurrence P.W.14 has recorded the statementsof witnesses and prepared the records.The material objects, sample earth,blood stained earth, saree and petticoat were also stated to have been seizedimmediately after the occurrence.But the statements of the witnesses and theMahazars for the recovery of material objects reached the Court on 19.3.2009only.Hence, there was a delay of over six months for the records to reach theCourt.The above said factors probablize the defence version.It is also stated that there are some discrepancies with regard to thescene of crime.But in the Rough Sketch and ObservationMahazar it is mentioned that it is on the road from Nainarkovil lead to KaduAdarthakudi.The version with regard to the place of occurrence also raisesdoubt.The name of P.W.2 has not been mentioned in Ex.If really had she been there, P.W.1 might have mentioned in her namein the complaint as if she is eye witness.The necessary corollary wouldbe that the evidence of P.W.1 remains uncorroborated.11. P.W.1 represented before the doctor that his mother was assaulted bythree known persons by Aruval but he in his complaint and evidence would saythat she was assaulted by Vangaruval.In the cross examination, P.W.1 hasstated that he told the doctor that his mother sustained injury by Vangaruval,that he knows the different between Vangaruval and Aruval and that M.O.1 isVangaruval, it is not aruval.The description of the weapon as stated by P.W.1differs from one occasion to other.When P.W.1 was able to differentiateVangaruval and Aruval, he might have stated uniformly about the weapon in hiscomplaint and his version before the Doctor.This is yet another suspiciouscircumstances in this case.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
119,606,308 |
Respondent Sher Singh is present in person.He is duly identified by the learned counsel, Shri Ankit Upadhyay.He has also filed Aadhar Card, whose no. is 302146661285 and an identity card issued by the Election Commission of India.Copies of the aforesaid documents are retained on record.It is directed against the order dated 07.07.2017 passed by the Court of Special/Sessions Judge, Shahdol.As per the prosecution case, victim Laxmi Bai used to work in the brick plant being run by the appellant Mohd. Jainuddin.On 13.04.2017, she was caught up in the machine installed for the purpose of laying bricks and was severely injured; therefore, offence under Sections 287 and 338 of the IPC was registered against the appellant.During investigation, it was found that the aforesaid brick plant has been installed on the land belonging to respondent Sher Singh.Respondent Sher Singh submits that he did not lodge any complaint regarding encroachment on his land by the petitioner.In fact he has entered into an agreement with the petitioner for the user of that land and has no objection if anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner in the offence under the S.C. and S.T. Act. Other two offences under the IPC are bailable in nature.Learned Government Advocate on the other hand has opposed the application on the ground that during investigation, respondent Sher Singh had told the Investigating Officer that the petitioner is running a brick plant on his land without his permission.Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 07.07.2017 passed by the Court of Special/Sessions Judge, Shahdol is set aside.It is directed that in the event of his arrest, appellant shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- and a solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer for his appearance before the trial Court on all dates and for complying with the conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified copy as per rules.(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE sh
|
['Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
119,609,482 |
This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.5 of 2020 registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 419, 423, 467, 468, 471 and 82(a) of IPC, as against the petitioners.http://www.judis.nic.in 1/8 CRL.O.P.No.6548 of 2020The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are an innocent person and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.5 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 419, 423, 467, 468, 471 and 82(a) of IPC, as against the petitioners.Hence they 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 M/s.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.However, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.5 of 2020 and file a final report within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.20.03.2020 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking orderhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5/8 CRL.O.P.No.6548 of 2020 kvhttp://www.judis.nic.in 6/8 CRL.O.P.No.6548 of 2020 ToThe Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Villupuram.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 7/8 CRL.O.P.No.6548 of 2020 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.kv CRL.O.P.No.6548 of 2020 20.03.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 8/8
|
['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
11,961,010 |
The daughter of the injured Roop Kunwar lodged the report alleging that she was coming with her mother Roop Kunwar from bank.When they reached near old Court gate, Post Office Gali, Sitamou, Rameshchandra S/o Onkarlal Sharma, Sunil S/o Rameshchandra, Rajesh S/o Rameshchandra, Pramod S/o Kanhaiyalal, Narendra S/o Shyamkumar, Sanjay S/o Shyamkumar, Sharda Bai W/o Rameshchandra and Anju d/o Rameshchandra have surrounded her mother.Sunil, Sanjay and Narendra were having pistol.They fired at her mother.Ramesh Sharma also fired on her mother, who sustained injuries on her head, jaw and fell down.The incident was witnessed by Palladi Bai and Naurangi Bai (PW/8).The incident has been caused due to previous enmity.Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/3) was recorded by O.K.Singh (PW/12) on the spot which was sent through Surendra Singh, P.S. Sitamau where Crime No. 193/09 under Section 147, 148, 149 and 307 of the IPC was registered.The injured was referred to District Hospital, Mandsaur, where she was declared dead.The information was sent to Kotwali Mandsaur where Merg intimation No. 65/09 was recorded.During enquiry, Panchnama of the dead body was prepared and dead body was sent for postmortem examination.Who fired gun shot, she could not say.Those, who came from the side of Rajwada, went towards Rajwada side and those, who came from the side of Post Office Gali, went towards that side.She further stated that thereafter she rushed to the spot.Her maternal aunt Naurangi Bai (PW/8) was coming from the side of Rajwada along with Palladi Bai.She left them near her mother and went to her house and brought spirit and bandage and did bandage of her mother.Police reached the spot, they took her mother to Sitamau hospital, from where she was taken to Mandsaur 9 where she lodged the report which was recorded as Dehati Nalishi vide Ex.Naurangi Bai (PW/8) testified that at about 1-30 p.m., Anita and Roop Kunwar were going towards house, Sharda, Pramod and Anju came from the side of Post Office Gali and Sunil, Rajesh, Sanjay, Narendra and Ramesh came from the side of Rajwada and surrounded Roop Kunwar.Sunil, Rajesh, Ramesh and Narendra were armed with pistol and fired at Roop Kunwar.She further stated that she and Palladi Bai were coming from Khadi market, Sharda and Anju caught hold the hand of Roop Kunwar.Roop Kunwar sustained injuries near right ear, eye and right side of the face and mouth.Anita came there shouting to save her mother, but none turned up.She and Palladi Bai rushed to the spot, Anita brought bandage and police reached the spot.Police took her to Sitamau and thereafter to District Hospital, Mandsaur where doctor told that Roop Kunwar is dead.B.L.Awasya (P.W.17) in para-69 says that he has not verified the above fact.Anita (PW/5) in para-86 of her statement says that Naurangi Bai and Palladi Bai were coming from the side of Rajwada Chowk and she did not see other person, but immediately changed her version and says that five accused persons also came from the side of Rajwada, who were ahead of Naurangi Bai and Palladi Bai.In para-100 of her statement, 14 she stated that in the report and in the statement made to police, she told that five accused persons came from the side of Rajwada and three accused persons came from the side of post office gali.She also stated the police that Sharda, Pramod and Anju came from post office gali and Sunil, Rajesh, Sanjay, Narendra and Ramesh came from Rajwada side.She also stated that on seeing the accused persons, her mother told her to run away, then she rushed to the milk dairy and stood there.In para-102, she also stated that all the eight accused persons surrounded her mother.Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/3) has been lodged by Anita (PW/5) and it has been recorded by O.K.Singh (PW/12).This witness has stated in para-2 that wrong date has been mentioned which has been corrected by him and the same is marked as D to D and E to E in Ex.P/3 and he made his initials.In para-17, 21 he has stated that in the column of place of incident, date and time, he has mentioned "17/06/09 at 2-00 p.m. near old Court".In the column of information of date and time, he has mentioned "17/06/09 at 2-20 P.M".According to O.K.Singh (PW/12), Dehati Nalishi was recorded at 2-20 P.M. and time of the incident has been mentioned as 2-00 P.M. Doctor Bhupendra Jain (PW/1) says that on 17/06/09, he was posted as Medical Officer at Community Health Centre, Sitamau.Roop Kunwar W/o Shambhu Singh was brought to Community Health Centre, Sitamou.She was brought near about 2-00 P.M., he examined her and at about 2-05 P.M., he referred her for further treatment to Civil Hospital, Mandsaur.He gave his report Ex.P/1 which bears his signature marked as A to A. Doctor Pradeep Sharma (PW/6) stated that on 17/06/09, he was posted as Senior Medical Officer at District Hospital, Mandsaur.Roop Kunwar w/o Shambhu Singh was referred from Community Health Centre, Sitamou and was brought before him.He found her dead.He informed the SHO, Mandsaur vide Ex. P/10 which bears his signature and marked as A to A. In para-3 of his cross-examination, he has admitted that he has written the report Ex.P/10 at 2-25 P.M.Babu Khan (PW/7) has conducted the enquiry with regard to merg intimation.According to this witness, after receipt of merg intimation No. 0/65/09 under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C., he reached the Govt. Hospital, Mandsaur and issued Safina Form (Ex.P/8) summoning Panch Witnesses Narendra, Naurangi Bai, Anita, Prakash and Palladi Bai and in presence of the aforesaid witnesses, he prepared the Panchnama (ExP/9) of the dead body of Roop Kunwar which bears his signature and marked B to B. In para-7, he has admitted that in 22 Ex.P/9, the date and time of death of the deceased has been mentioned as "17/06/09 at 1-00 P.M." According to him this time has been mentioned on the basis of information given by the Panch witnesses.(Delivered on /09/2015) 2 This judgment shall govern the disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 397/11 preferred by Narendra Kumar S/o Shyam Kumar Balai, Criminal Appeal No. 456/11 preferred by Rameshchandra S/o Onkarlal Sharma, Sunil S/o Rameshchandra Sharma and Criminal Appeal No. 371/15 preferred by the State of M.P. Arising out of the same judgment dated 07/03/11 passed by 6th Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Mandsaur.Criminal Appeal Nos. 397/11 and 456/11 have been preferred against the conviction of the appellants under Sections 120-B(1) and 302 r/w 120-B of the IPC and sentenced to undergo 7 years R.I. with fine of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 120-B(1) of the IPC and life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 3,000/- each under Section 302 r/w 120-B of the IPC with default stipulation.Criminal Appeal No. 371/15 has been preferred against the acquittal of the respondents Sanjay @ Pappu, Pramod @ Lala, Sharda Sharma and Anju @ Megha for the charges punishable under Sections 120-B(1), 148, 302 of IPC and in alternate Section 302/149 of the IPC.Brief facts of the case are that on 17/06/09 at about 2-00 p.m., unknown person informed police station Sitamau on telephone that Roop Kunwar Sathan has been shot near old Court gate, Post Office Gali, Sitamau.The aforesaid information was recorded in Roznamacha Sanha No. 701 and SHO Police B.L.Avasya (PW/17) along with police force reached the Post Office Gali, Sitamau where Roop Kunwar was lying in the injured condition.Anita (PW/5) along with Palladi Bai and Naurangi Bai (PW/8) were present, injured Roop Kunwar was taken to Govt. Hospital, Sitamau.During investigation, B.L.Avasya (PW/17) has recorded the statements of the witnesses.He also collected blood stained earth and plane earth, empty cartridges, sleeper of the injured Roop Kunwar.Site map was also prepared.The articles were sent for examination to FSL Sagar.Thereafter, accused persons were arrested and after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sitamau, who has committed the case to the learned trial Court.The learned trial Court frame and explained the charges.Appellants abjured their guilt and claimed that they have falsely been implicated due to enmity.Defence of accused person Ramesh Chandra, Sharda Bai, was that they were not present at the spot.Defence of accused Sanjay was that he has gone with Medical Officer on tour and came alongwith him thereafter he took Roop Kunwar on vehcle to Mandsour.Defence of Megha is that she was in her Saural.The prosecution has examined as many as 18 witnesses in support of its case while in defence, four witnesses have been examined.Learned trial Court after scrutinizing the evidence and material on record, convicted the appellants Narendra, Rameshchandra and Sunil while acquitted Sanjay, Pramod, Sharda and Anju.Feeling aggrieved with the conviction and acquittal, the aforesaid appeal has been preferred.It is further submitted that learned trial Court on the same set of evidence acquitted co-accused Sanjay, Pramod, Sharda and Anju while convicted the appellant disbelieving the statements of the defence witnesses.Learned trial Court has not properly 5 considered the evidence and material on record.There is interpolation in the report regarding time of the incident.Learned trial Court has failed to consider that the presence of Anita (PW/5), the daughter of the deceased at the time of alleged incident at the spot is doubtful.Referring the statement of B.L.Avasya (PW/17), the investigating Officer, it is contended that shopkeepers of the shop situated near the place of the incident have stated that two Nakabposh persons have shot fire at the deceased and flew away.He invited our attention towards the statement of Shankarlal (PW/10) and has submitted that on the date of incident, Yashpal Katlana had announced "Sitamau Band" on the pretext that some unknown persons have murdered Roop Kunwar.It was also announced that the memorandum should be given to SDM.This announcement was made at 8-9 p.m. At this call, Sitamau was closed on the next day of the incident.It is submitted that appellants have falsely been implicated due to previous enmity.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/State in criminal appeal No. 371/15 has submitted that learned trial Court has wrongly acquitted the respondents Sanjay, Pramod, Sharda and Anju while on the same evidence respondents Narendra, Rameshchandra and Sunil have been convicted.It is further submitted that from the evidence led by the prosecution, it is proved that respondents were the members of the unlawful assembly.They came armed with pistol.Learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence and erred in acquitting the respondents.Learned Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent/State in criminal appeal No. 397/11 and 456/11 supported the conviction of the appellants and submitted that learned trial Court has rightly convicted these appellants on the basis of the evidence available on record.As regards the homicidal death of deceased, Anita (PW/5), Naurangi Bai (PW/8) have stated that Roop Kunwar has sustained injury by means of gun shot.Doctor Bhupendra Jain (PW/1) examined Roop Kunwar and according to him, he found one lacerated wound behind right ear caused by gun shot, one lacerated wound over right angle of mouth and neck and lacerated wound of both upper and left lip.He found Roop Kunwar in a serious condition and referred her for further treatment to District Hospital, Mandsaur where doctor Pradeep Sharma (PW/6) found her dead.Doctor M.S.Chouhan (PW/14) conducted the postmortem and mode of death was shock and cause of death was haemorrhage due to gun shot injury.Thus, from the evidence, it is proved that the death of Roop Kunwar was homicidal in nature.The conviction of the appellants Narendra, Ramesh Chandra and Sunil is recorded relying on the testimony of Anita (P.W/3) and Naurangi Bai (P.W/8), who are daughter and sister of the deceased.Learned Counsel assailed the evidence of the aforesaid eye witness submitting that they are close relives of the deceased and there is previous enemity, no independent witness have been examined hence their evidence can not be relied on.In Salim Sahab Vs.Anita (PW/5) has deposed that on 17/06/09 at about 1-30 p.m., she along with her mother Roop Kunwar were coming after withdrawing amount from the bank when they reached in front of old Court, five persons namely Narendra, Sanjay, Sunil, Ramesh and Rajesh came from Rajwada Chowk side and Anju, Sharda and Pramod came from the side of Post Office Gali.After seeing them, her mother told her to run, then she moved ahead and reached near milk dairy.She saw that Sunil, Rajesh, Rameshchandra and Narendra holding pistol with them.Anju caught hold left hand of her mother and Sharda caught hold right hand of her mother.She heard 3-4 shots of fire arm, her mother fell down.Naurangi Bai (PW/8) in para-26 has stated that she used to sleep in footpath of the bus stand.In the night, prior to the date of incident, she slept in bus stand along with Palladi Bai.After she got awaken in the morning, she went to collect Kachra for about 2-3 hours.Thereafter, she went to beg meal and was going to bus stand from Khadi Bazar.She has not seen Roop Kunwar and Anita going towards bank.In para-28, she denied that she was coming behind Anita and Roop Kunwar.She has stated that she was coming from the side of Khadi Bazar and Anita and Roop Kunwar were coming from the side of Bhagoria Darwaza.In para-29, she denied that in her case-diary statement (Ex.D/7) she has stated that she along with Palladi Bai were coming behind Roop Kunwar and Anita.Why the statement marked A to A is mentioned in case-diary 10 statement (Ex.D/7) she can't say.In para-38, B.L.Avasya (PW/17) has stated that he has written the statement marked A to A in (Ex.D/7) as stated by Naurangi Bai (PW/8).Naurangi Bai (PW/8) has not stated in her case-diary statement that Anita and Roop Kunwar were coming from the side of Bhagoria Darwaza.In para-39 of his statement, he has categorically stated that Naurangi Bai (PW/8) has not stated in her case-diary statement (Ex.D/7) that she was coming along with Palladi Bai from Khadi Bazar.In the site map (Ex.P/22) it appears that post office gali and Bhagoria Darwaza are on opposite side.The location of Khadi Bazar has not been shown.According to Anita (PW/5), she and her mother were coming from the side of post office gali.In light of the statement of Anita (PW/5), the statement of Naurangi Bai that Anita and her mother were coming from the side of Bhagoria Darwaza becomes doubtful.The statement of Naurangi Bai that she along with Palladi Bai were coming from the side of Khadi Bazar is contradicted by her own case-diary statement (Ex.D/7), wherein she has stated that she was coming along with Palladi Bai behind Anita and Roop Kunwar.This contradiction raises a doubt about the presence of Naurangi Bai at the time of alleged incident.Naurangi Bai (PW/8) in para-30 of her statement has stated that she has told the police that Sharda Sharma, Pramod and Anju Sharma came from the side of post office gali and Sunil Sharma, Rajesh, Sanjay, Narendra and Ramesh came from the side of Rajwada.Why the aforesaid fact is not mentioned in her case-diary statement (Ex.D/7) she cannot say.B.L.Avasya (PW/17) in para-39 of his statement has categorically denied that Naurangi Bai (PW/8) told him in (Ex.D/7) that Sharda, Pramod and Anju came from post office 11 gali and Sunil, Rajesh, Sanjay, Narendra and Ramesh came from Rajwada side.According to Naurangi Bai (PW/8), she also stated the police that she and Palladi Bai were coming from the side of Khadi Bazar and were 20 paces away from the place of incident.Why this fact is not mentioned in (Ex.D/7), she can't say.B.L.Avasya (PW/17) in para-39 of his statement says that Naurangi Bai (PW/8) has not told him that she and Palladi Bai were coming from the side of Khadi Bazar and they were 20 paces away from the place of occurrence.Naurangi Bai (PW/8) in para-31 of her statement says that she told the police that Anju Sharma and Sharda Sharma caught hold the hands of Roop Kunwar.Roop Kunwar sustained injures near right ear on the face and mouth.She also stated that Anita came running and shouted.She also stated that accused persons have surrounded the mother and her daughter had shouted to save her mother, but none turned up.She also stated that she and Palladi Bai rushed to the spot and picked up Roop Kunwar and Anita brought bandage from her house and applied the bandage.Why the aforesaid facts are not mentioned in her statement (Ex.D/7) she can't say.B.L.Avasya in para-39 and 40 denied that the aforesaid facts have been mentioned by Naurangi bai in her case-diary statement (Ex.D/7).Thus, the omission of the aforesaid facts in the case-diary statement (Ex.D/7) of Naurangi Bai (PW/8) indicates that she has made improvement in her version before the Court statement on material points.Naurangi Bai (PW/8) in para-33 of her statement has stated that Roop Kunwar was taken by the police on jeep to Sitamau Hospital.Doctor checked her and thereafter she was referred to Mandsaur.She doesn't know that the vehicle on which Roop Kunwar was taken to Mandsaur was driven by 12 accused Sanjay, but immediately said that the vehicle was driven by accused Sanjay.Accused Sanjay was among the accused persons, who surrounded Roop Kunwar and Anita at the time of commission of the incident and had incident was witnessed by Naurangi Bai (PW/8) then there was no reason for Naurangi Bai not to tell the police, who were present in the vehicle on which Roop Kunwar was taken to Mandsaur that the driver driving the vehicle is involved in the commission of the incident.But Naurangi Bai (PW/8) remained mum.Thus, this witness is trying to hide the fact that she was the witness in the earlier cases instituted on the report of Roop Kunwar.In para-11, she says that she doesn't remember that on 03/03/10, she went to give the statement in Sitamau Court.When the certified copy of the statement (Ex.D/6) was read over to this witness, she denied that such statement has been given by her.This again shows that this witness can make a false statement to any extent.The suggestion has been given to Naurangi Bai (PW/8) in para-45 that she was sitting near Aara machine, where Abdul Hamid informed her that somebody killed her sister, then she went to post office gali.This suggestion has been denied by Naurangi Bai (PW/8).Considering the aforesaid analysis of the statement of Naurangi Bai (PW/8), who is the real sister of the deceased, we 13 find that she has improved her version before the Court on the material facts, there are material contradiction in her case-diary statement and the statement before the Court and also there are material omission in her case diary statements.Her testimony is not free from embellishment.The presence of Naurangi Bai (PW/8) at the place of incident appears to be doubtful.It seems to us that Naurangi Bai reached the spot after she came to know about the incident.Naurangi Bai is the real sister of the deceased hence she is interested witness.Her statements suffers from various infirmities and not cogent and consistent hence does not inspire confidence of the Court.Anita (PW/5) in para-70 of her statement has stated that on the date of the incident, she was in her house.She left along with her mother at 11-30 a.m. In para-77 she stated that she and her mother spent half and hour in the bank.Thereafter, some ladies met and her mother talked to them.She can not say how much time her mother talked with other ladies.In para-78 she says that marriage of his brother was settled and Rs. 5,000/- has been withdrawn for the purpose of shopping by withdrawal form which was filled up by her.To show the presence of this witness along with Roop Kunwar, the passbook and the withdrawal form filled by this witness were very material but has not been brought on record.She also said that four persons were having pistol in their hands.In para-103, she also stated that Anju caught hold the left hand of her mother and Sharda caught hold the right hand of her mother.In para- 103 she stated that 3-4 fires were made and five persons went towards the side from where they came and three persons went to the side from where they came.Why the aforesaid facts are not mentioned in the report (Ex.P/3) and the case- diary statement (Ex.D/5), she can't say.Shri O.K.Singh (PW/12) in para-4 has denied that complainant has told him that Sharda, Pramod and Anju came from post office gali and Sunil, Rajesh, Sanjay, Narendra and Ramesh came from Rajwada side.Anita has also not mentioned that on seeing them, her mother told her to run away, then she rushed towards the milk dairy and stood there.Anita has also not told that all the eight accused persons surrounded them and four of them armed with pistol.Anita has also not told him that Anju caught hold the left hand of her mother and Sharda caught hold the right hand of her mother.In para-5, he further stated that Anita has also not told him that 3- 4 fire was shot and her mother fell down and Sunil was standing behind her mother.Pramod and Ramesh saw the 15 body of her mother and five persons went towards the side from where they came and three persons went towards those side.23. B.L.Avasya (PW/17) has also stated in para-33, 34, 35, 36 & 37 that Anita (PW/5) has not told him in her statement (Ex.D/5) that Sharda, Pramod and Anju came from post office gali and Sunil, Rajesh, Sanjay, Narendra and Ramesh came from Rajwada side.On seeing the accused persons, her mother asked her to run away and she rushed to the milk dairy and stood there.Anita (PW/5) has also not stated that four persons were having pistol in their hands.She has also not told him that accused Sunil was standing on the back side of her mother and five persons went on the side from where they came and three persons went to the side from where they came.Thus, from the aforesaid statement of O.K.Singh (PW/12) and B.L.Avasya (PW/17) it becomes clear that Anita has improved her version before the Court.The omission of the material facts in the report (Ex.P/3) and (Ex.D/5) raises a doubt as to the presence of Anita (PW/5) at the time of alleged incident.According to Anita (PW/5) she witnessed the incident from milk dairy.As per the site map (Ex.P/13), the distance of place from where Anita was standing, the place of the incident has been shown as 40 ft. 6 inches.Anita in para-108 says that when she was crying, noone came there.She further admitted that shopkeepers of the shops adjacent to the place of incident were open.Shopkeepers were present in their shops, but they have not come.From perusal of the site map (Ex.P/13) and the statement of Anita (PW/5), it is gathered that there were many shops There is a Rajwada chowk near the place of occurrence and also an old Court building.The incident alleged to have been taken place at about 1-30 P.M. according to Anita (PW/5).In such circumstances, it is very difficult to believe the statement of Anita (PW/5) that none including the shopkeepers reached the place of occurrence even after she was shouting.Anita (PW/5) is the daughter of the deceased.Her conduct even after seeing the accused persons appears to be unnatural.It also appears very unnatural that the deceased after seeing the accused persons asked her daughter to run away, but she herself did not tried to save herself by running away.Had the mother of Anita (PW/5) after seeing the accused persons asked Anita to run away, the natural conduct of Anita would have been to save her mother but she ran away alone.The omission of the fact that after seeing the accused persons, mother of Anita (PW/5) asked her to run away and she ran away and stood near milk dairy from where she witnessed the incident does not find place in the report (Ex.P/3) as well as in the statement (Ex.D/5) of Anita (PW/5).The omission of this material fact again raises a question mark as to reliability of Anita (PW/5).Anita (PW/5) in para-88 says that she reached near her mother from milk dairy, the accused persons had already left the place.In para-87, Anita (PW/5) says that she put head of her mother on hand and on seeing blood, she ran to her house,which is about one furlong away (as per statement of para 41 of B.L Awasya(P.W.17), took the bandage and reached 17 the spot.When specific question was asked where Naurangi Bai and Palladi Bai reached the spot when she came at the spot, she replied that when she did "GardanToki" then Naurangi Bai and Palladi Bai came.In para-89, Anita (PW/5) says that Naurangi Bai and Palladi Bai have not extended any help when she administered medicine and did bandage after raising the neck of her mother.From this statement, it appears that Naurangi Bai (PW/8) and Palladi Bai reached the spot after the incident.Had Naurangi Bai (PW/8) witnessed the incident and reached the spot immediately there was no reason for Naurangi Bai (PW/8) not to help Anita Bai (PW/5) in administering the medicine and bandage the deceased because Naurangi Bai (PW/8) is the real sister of the deceased.It is surprising that Anita (PW/5) after seeing the accused persons firing at her mother and her mother fell down, and accused persons have left the place instead of taking care of her mother goes to her house which is one furlong away and did not inform the police or took her mother to hospital.The natural conduct of Anita (PW/5) would have been to inform the police and took her mother to hospital.This unnatural conduct of Anita (PW/5) compel us to infer that she has reached the spot after the incident has taken place and assailants have left the spot.In para-90, Anita (PW/5) stated that her mother was taken to hospital at Sitamau.Thereafter, she was taken to Mandsaur, she doesn't remember that the vehicle from which her mother have taken to Mandsaur was driven by accused Sanjay.In para-91, Anita (PW/5) says that when they reached at District Hospital, Mandsaur, accused Sanjay was present.She doesn't know that accused Sanjay accompanied her from Mandsaur to Sitamau.It is very surprising that this witness was 18 present in the vehicle from which her mother was taken from Sitamau to Mandsaur, but she don't remember that the vehicle was driven by accused Sanjay.Naurangi Bai (PW/8) had categorically admitted in para-33 that the vehicle by which Roop Kunwar, Anita and she went from Sitamau to Mandsaur was driven by accused Sanjay.Thus, in light of the statement of Naurangi bai (PW/8), it appears that Anita (PW/5) has deliberately given a false statement that she doesn't remember that the vehicle was driven by accused Sanjay.Anita (PW/5) in para-9 of her statement says that her mother contested the election against the accused Shardra Sharma, who is the wife of accused Ramesh Chandra Sharma and her mother has lost the election.Thereafter, she contested the election against the accused Sunil Sharma and again she lost the election of Parshad.She further says that on 27/10/05, accused Sunil, Rameshchandra, Nahar, Vinod and Pawan assaulted her mother by means of sword.As a result of which, left hand of her mother was cut and in that criminal case Pawan, Vinod and Nahar were convicted by life imprisonment and accused Sunil Sharma was absconded.In para-10, she further says that 15 days prior to the incident, quarrel took place between her mother and accused Ramesh Chandra and Rajesh, when FIR was not recorded, then they made a complaint to the Human Rights Commission and Superintendent of Police.Prior to this incident, Ramesh Chandra and his son Rajesh threatened her mother to kill her.The report was lodged and the case is pending.In para-17, she further says that civil suit was going on with regard to the house situated at Bus Stand, Sitamau in between her mother and Bhawarlal.In para-19, she further says that she doesn't know that the suit was filed on behalf of Bhawarlal by accused 19 Ramesh Chandra Sharma.In para-21, she says that she has contested the election in the year 1999, wherein accused Sharda Sharma was also the candidate.In para-26, she says that she lodged the report against Kailash and Narsingh and doesn't remember that the case was under Section 354 of the IPC, but says that the case was of "Ched-Chaad".In para-27, she says that compromise has taken place between them.She admitted that another report under Section 354 of the IPC was lodged by her against Shiv Singh and Gajraj Singh.She herself has stated that Shiv Singh and Gajraj Singh were the friends of accused Sunil Sharma.She further admitted that in that case, accused Ramesh Chandra Sharma was the defence counsel and accused Shivraj Singh and Gajraj Singh were acquitted in that case.In para-31, she says that order was passed against accused Ramesh Chandra Sharma in the case of 307 of the IPC by the trial Court and the order was set aside by the High Court.She has filed the SLP before the Hon'ble Apex Court.Thus, from the aforesaid statement of Anita (PW/5), it is crystal clear that there was the long standing enmity between the deceased and accused Ramesh Chandra Sharma, Sunil son of R.C.Sharma, Sharda Sharma, wife of R.C.Sharma and Anju, daughter of R.C.Sharma.Anita (PW/5) in para-35 of her statement has admitted that Vinod has lodged the report against her.She herself has stated that she has been acquitted in that case.She further admitted that another report was lodged against her and her brothers regarding rape.In para-113, she says that she doesn't know that on the date of incident, the shops were open from 8- 00 a.m. She doesn't remember that at the time of incident, shops adjacent to the place of occurrence were open or not.In view of the aforesaid analysis of the statement of Anita 20 (PW/5), it is evident that there was deep enmity between the deceased, accused Ramesh Chandra Sharma and his family members.There are several contradictions and omissions on the material points.The conduct of Anita (PW/5) during incident and after incident has also been found unnatural.Anita (PW/5) has improved her version before the Court.Further Anita (PW/5) has avoided the answers on vital questions saying that she doesn't remember.The statement of Anita (PW/5) is also not in consonance with the statement of eye witness Naurangi Bai (PW/8) on the vital points.The prosecution has not examined Palladi Bai, who is named as eye witness in the report (Ex.P/3).No explanation what so ever has been furnished by the prosecution in non- examination of such material witness.Anita (PW/5) in her statement has categorically admitted in para-117 that there is residential house, wherein persons are residing and there are also shops around the place of incident.Despite this, prosecution has not examined any witness.Considering that there was deep enmity between the deceased and the accused Ramesh Chandra Sharma and his family members.It was necessary for the prosecution to examine the witnesses, who are residing and having the shops around the place of occurrence because the incident alleged to have been taken place at 11-30 a.m. But none have been examined and no explanation has been furnished by the prosecution regarding non examination of such witnesses.According to Anita (PW/5), the incident took place at about 1-30 P.M., but in her report, the time of the incident has been mentioned as 2-00 P.M. while doctor Bhupendra Jain (PW/1) says that the injured Roop Kunwar was brought at 2-00 P.M. and he referred her to District Hospital, Mandsaur at 2-05 P.M. According to doctor Pradeep Sharma, Rook Kunwar was brought before him at 2-25 P.M. He written the report Ex. P/10 at 2-25 P.M. In para-5, he has admitted that he has taken 5-10 minutes in examining the deceased.It means that deceased was brought before this witness at about 2-15 P.M. or 2-20 P.M.The distance of the Sitamau to Mandsaur is about 55 k.m.If it is assumed that injured was referred from Sitamou to Mandsaur by doctor Bhupendra Jain (PW/1) at 2-05 P.M.,it must take atleast one and half hour to reach District Hospital, Mandsaur by vehicle, but according to doctor Pradeep Sharma, deceased was brought before him at 2-15 to 2-20 P.M.Thus, there is material variation regarding the time of occurrence of the incident, examination of the injured at Sitamou Hospital and examination at District Hospital, Mandsaur as well as the time mentioned in the report (Ex.P/9) creates doubt regarding the time of the incident.41. B.L.Avasya (PW/17), who is investigating officer in para- 43 has admitted that there are residential houses and shops near the place of occurrence.In para-44, he has categorically admitted that on 23/06/09, he has recorded the statements of 23 shop keepers namely Mangal Joshi, Dilip Kumar, Jitendra Singh, Rajmal, Vijay Borana, Gulabdas Sindhi, Mohanlal Soni, Manoharlal Sindhi, Ajay Kumar Jain, Omprakash Soni, Pankaj Jain, Shailendra Soni, Ishwar Barsani, Arvind Bhatt and Rajesh Kumar Sindhi.He categorically admitted that all these witnesses have not named the accused persons, who committed the alleged incident.In para-45, he further admitted that Ishwarlal Barsani, Arvind Bhatt and Rajesh Kumar Sindhi have stated that two Nakabposh persons have fired at Roop Kunwar and flew away from the motorcycle.In para-50, this witness has admitted that the person belonging to Sathia Samaj called band on the next day of the incident.Narendra Singh (PW/9), who is the son of the deceased has admitted in para-24 that on the second day of the incident, Sitamou town was closed.He further admitted that in Ex.D/9, his photograph has been shown in the memorandum which was given to the SDM, which bears his signature as B to B.According to this witness, he taken the photograph of the door near Sitamou Hospital at the behest of SDOP Sitamou.This witness in para- 4 has admitted that the date on which Roop Kunwar died, Yashpal Katlana announced the closure of Sitamou town.This announcement was made at 8-9 P.M. He further admitted that it was announced that some unknown persons have committed the murder of Roop Kunwar and a memorandum be given tomorrow to the SDM, therefore, the town should be closed.T.R. Suryawanshi (PW/13) in para 6 has admitted that he has recorded the statement of Ishwarlal, Basrani, Arvind, Shatanand, Vishnu Prasad Joshi, Dr. Saligram, Virendra Singh, Yashpal Katlana, Gejendra Singh Rathore, Prahlad Singh Mandloi, Krishna Vallabh Setia, Krishna Singh Rajguru, Munna 24 Khan, Shyam Kumar, Purushottom, Shivnarayan Porwal, Mukesh, Vinod and Rajesh.He categorically admitted that he has not submitted the statement of aforesaid witnesses with the Challan.In para 7 he admitted that the statement of aforesaid witnesses are available in the case-diary.Sadanand Joshi, Vishnu Prasad Joshi in their case-diary statement have disclosed that Ramesh Chandra Sharma and his wife/Sharda Bai went to Mandsaur.In para 25 he also admitted that Virendra Singh has told that Ramesh Chandra Sharma came with his wife in the Court.Gajendra Singh Rathore, Krishna Ballabh Sethia also stated that the same.He categorically admitted that the statement of these witnesses were going against the prosecution case, hence their statement has not been produced.In para 26 he admitted that Anita, Naurangi Bai, Palladibai in their case-diary statements have not told him when, where and who has lodged the report regarding the incident.In para 32 he told that bail application had been filed by Ramesh Chandra Sharma and he submitted objection mentioning that Yashpal Katlana in his statement told him that Narendra Singh, son of the deceased and brother of complainant Anita (PW/5) gave a paper in which it was written that on account of murder committed by some unknown person Sitamau town would be closed.In para 43, T.R. Suryawanshi (PW/13) has further admitted that Ishwar, Rajesh, Arvind in their case-diary statement told that shot has been fired by two Nakab Posh persons.In para 51, this witness has admitted that Shivnarayan and Vinod also stated that some unknown person fired shot.He admit that statement of aforesaid witnesses have not been filed because they were not supporting the 25 prosecution case.In para 12, this witness admit that shop of Rajesh, Ishwar and Arvind are around the place of occurrence.Thus, the statements of T.R. Suryawanshi (PW/13) and B.L.Awasya (PW/17) casts a serious doubt about fare investigation of the case.The prosecution has failed to prove the compliance of provisions of Section 157 of Cr.P.C. Ex.P/32 is the receipt of counter FIR, it reveals that it has been received on 18/06/2009 at 11.00 AM by the concerning Magistrate.B.L. Awasiya (PW/17) in para 50 and 52 has stated that distance of Court of JMFC, Sitamau from Police Station, Sitamau is 300 meter.He further says that the residence of JMFC, Sitamau is also situated in the Court campus.As noticed earlier doctor Bhupendra Jain (PW/1) referred Roopkunwar for further treatment to District Hospital, Sitamau at 02.05 PM.The distance of Sitamau to Mandsaur is about 55 kms.Doctor Pradeep Sharma (PW/6) examined Roopkunwar at Mandsaur and given his report Ex.P/10 at 02.25 PM.According to Anita (PW/5) incident took place at 01.30 PM.In the report Ex.P/3 time of incident has been mentioned 02.00 PM.There is over writing in Dehati Nalishi Ex.P/3 with regard to time and date.T.R. Suryawanshi (PW/13) and B.L. Awasiya (PW/17) in their cross-examination have categorically admitted that shopkeepers and residents were around the place of incident and further stated that two Nakab Posh persons fired shot at the deceased.Bhupendra Jain (PW/1) as well as eye-witness Naurangibai (PW/8) categorically stated that Roopkunwar was taken from Sitamau to Mandsaur Hospital on a Jeep which was driven by accused/Sanjay.The conduct of Anita (PW/5) and Naurangibai (PW/8) have been found un-natural.There are no many 26 contradictions and omissions on the vital points.There is a deep previous enmity between the deceased and appellant/Ramesh Chandra Sharma and his family members.The prosecution has not examined any independent witness, though the incident taken in a busy place surrounded by various shops and residence.The delay of about 21 hours in dispatching FIR to Magistrate while the Court is only about 300 meter away from police station and variation of time noted above along with interpolation in Dehati Nalisi coupled with the statement of Anita (PW/5) and Rajesh that report was lodged at Mandsaur casts a serious doubt regarding the time of recording Dehati Nalisi (Ex.P/3).[Thandedar Singh Vs.State of M.P. (2004) 1 SCC 487 relied on].In view of the aforesaid analysis, in our opinion, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges against the appellants.Criminal Appeal Nos. 397/11 & 456/11 deserves to be allowed and Criminal Appeal No. 371/15 is liable to be dismissed.Consequently, criminal Appeal Nos. 397/11 and 456/11 are allowed and the conviction of the appellants Narendra Kumar, Rameshchandra Sharma and Sunil Sharma under Sections 302, 120-B and 120-B(1) of the IPC is hereby set aside.Appellants are acquitted from the aforesaid charges.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
119,611,115 |
1 Sl No. 181 05.08.2016 allowed pk C.R.M. 4913 of 2016 In the matter of : An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 23.06.2016 in connection with Titagarh Police Station Case No. 402 of 2016 dated 05.06.2016 under Sections 326A/307/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.Sl No. 181And In the matter of: Prabhas Chandra Biswas alias Pravash Chandra Biswas ... Petitioner Mr. Shamim ul Bari ... For the Petitioner Mrs. Sujata Das ... For the State Apprehending arrest in connection with Titagarh Police Station Case No. 402 of 2016 dated 05.06.2016 under Sections 326A/307/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, this application for anticipatory bail has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.He has been falsely implicated in the instant case.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Samapti Chatterjee, J. ) 3
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
119,611,137 |
C.C. as per rules.(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE Digitally signed by RAVI KANT KEWT Date: 2018.01.25 02:27:43 -08'00' H rk.ig h C ou rt of M ad hy a Pr ad e shHeard on I.A.No.26474/2017, which is an application for suspension ad of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant- Ramkishore.M The appellant has been tried and convicted for an offence under section 354, 354-A of IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. of 3 years and of fine of Rs.2000/- with default stipulations.rt Looking at the short sentence is only 3 years, I.A.No.26474/2017 is ou allowed and suspend the remaining part of the jail sentence of the appellant and direct that he be enlarged on bail upon his furnishing a C personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand h Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of ig the trial Court.H Call for the record of the trial Court and list the case, thereafter for orders on admission.
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
119,613 |
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM,J) The appellants, five in number, have challenged the judgment of the District and Sessions Division, Thiruvannamalai, made in S.C.No.59 of 2002, whereby, the appellants/accused stood charged as follows:-A-1 to A-5 were charged under Section 120(b) IPC. A-1 and A-2 were charged under Section 323 IPC. A-1 to A-5 were also charged under Section 506(ii) IPC.A-2 to A-5 were charged under Section 147 IPC.i.P.W.1, an Astrologer by profession, is a resident of Ulagampattu.The deceased, Sekar, is his younger brother.Hence, A-1 beat P.W.1 on his left cheek and A-2 beat P.W.1 on his left thigh with a stone.Thereafter, all the accused left the place.At about 11.00 a.m., A-1 to A-5 again came to the house of P.W.1 and asked about his younger brother, Sekar, and challenged that they would finish him of.On the next day morning, i.e., on 8.2.2001 at about 7.00 a.m., P.Ws.1 to 4 along with his younger brother, Sekar, went outside for attending nature's call.At that time, all the five accused constituted an unlawful assembly having a common object and came to the spot.A-1 attacked Sekar with an iron rod on his neck, A-2 to A-4 attacked Sekar with bamboo sticks on his legs, joint and stomach.They also beat him with their hands.A-5 hit Sekar on his left cheek with a stone.Sekar fell down unconscious.Thereafter, all the accused fled away from the place of occurrence leaving their weapons.Thereafter, Sekar was immediately taken to a private hospital in a car driven by P.W.7, from where, he was taken to another private hospital at Chetpet, where the doctor advised them to take the injured to Government Hospital, Vellore.Accordingly, The injured Sekar was taken to Government Hospital at Vellore, where he was admitted at 1.40 p.m. by the doctor, P.W.13, who, on examining the injured, issued Ex.P-4, the copy of the accident register.An intimation was sent to the Outpost Police Station.On receipt of the intimation from the hospital authorities, P.W.8, the Head Constable, who was on duty at that time, went to the hospital and since the injured was in an unconscious state, he recorded the statement from P.W.1, which is marked as Ex.P-1, on the strength of which, a case came to be registered in Crime No.47 of 2001 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 323 and 506(ii) IPC.by P.W.15, the Sub Inspector of Police attached to Chetpet Police Station.The first information report, Ex.The bail bonds executed by them shall stand cancelled.The fine amount, if paid, shall be refunded to them.bs/To1.The Judicial Magistrate, Polur, Thiruvannamalai.2.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvannamalai.3.The District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai.4.-do- through the Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai.5.The Inspector of Police, Chetpet Police Station,Thiruvannamalai.6.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore.7.The District Collector, Thiruvannamalai.A-2 was charged under Sections 148 and 302 IPC. A-2 to A-5 were charged under Section 302 read with 149 IPC.On trial, A-1 was found guilty under Section 148 IPC.and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment with a direction to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment and he was also convicted under Section 302 IPC.and sentenced to life imprisonment with a further direction to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. A-2 to A-5 were found guilty under Section 147 IPC.and each one of them was sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in dafault, to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment and they were also convicted under Section 323 read with 149 IPC.and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment with a further direction to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment.In respect of the other charges, A-1 to A-5 were acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus:-P-9, was despatched to the Court.The case was taken up for investigation and on inspection of the scene of occurrence, an observation mahazar and a rough sketch were prepared.The material objects were also recovered by the investigating officer.P.W.16, Inspector of Police, took up further investigation in the case.On receipt of the intimation from the hospital that Sekar, who was admitted in the hospital for treatment, died at about 3.15 a.m. on 11.2.2001, the case was converted to one under Section 302 IPC.and the altered first information report, which was marked as Ex.P-11, was despatched to Court and also to the higher officials.P.W.16 went to the hospital and conducted inquest over the dead body of Sekar in the mortuary in the presence of witnesses and Panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P-12, the inquest report.The dead body was subjected to post-mortem by P.W.11, the doctor, who has given the post-mortem certificate, Ex.P-6, wherein he has opined that the deceased died out of the head injury about 6 to 24 hours prior to autopsy.During investigation, all the accused were surrendered before the Court.The investigating officer, on completion of the investigation, filed the final report.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions.Necessary charges were framed and in order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined 18 witnesses and relied on 12 exhibits and marked 9 material objects.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, all the accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.They denied them as false.On the side of the defence, neither a witness was examined nor a document has been marked.After hearing the arguments advanced by both sides and on scrutiny of the materials available, the trial Court found the accused guilty as per the charges and awarded punishment as referred to above, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, inter alia, made the following submissions:-According to the prosecution, the first document, which has come to existence, is the statement given to the doctor, P.W.13, by P.W.1, who took the injured Sekar to the hospital.The said document, viz., the copy of the accident register, has been marked as Ex.P-8, wherein it is found that four persons were mentioned as assailants and weapons used were mentioned as iron road and the back portion of the knife.Thus, the earliest document contained only four persons as assailants and it does not speak about the fifth person or the weapon held by him.b)Added further, learned Counsel, that P.W.2, the wife of the deceased, in her evidence, has stated that police officials came to the hospital and recorded the statement given by her.But P.W.1 informed the police officials that the statement given by P.W.2 need not be taken into account, but he would give another statement and so saying, he left with the police people.On the other hand, P.Ws.3 and 4, in their evidence, have stated that the police came to the spot of occurrence at about 10.00 a.m. and they also recorded a statement from P.W.4 at that time.If it be so, the earliest document, which is the original information, was not placed before the Court.c)At this juncture, the evidence of P.W.8 assumes importance.The learned counsel would submit that the all these witnesses, viz., P.Ws.1 to 4, the so called eye witnesses, came to know that the dead body of Sekar was lying in a place and on coming to know about the same, all of them went there and an information was given by them to the police without even seeing the occurrence or any of the assailants.d)Added further, the learned counsel that, according to P.W.7, who was the owner of the car and who took the injured Sekar along with the witnesses to the hospital, when he came to the place of occurrence at about 8.30 a.m., the villagers were questioning P.Ws.1 to 4 as to how the occurrence took place and they replied that they did not know the way and the manner in which the occurrence has taken place and they did not speak about the assailants also.e)The learned counsel would further submit that according to P.W.8, the Head Constable attached to Outpost Police Station, who recorded the statement of P.W.1, even in the information given by P.W.1, he did not mention as to how the occurrence has taken place and which assailant was holding which weapon and how they were attacked are not mentioned and when further questioned, P.W.8 has answered that even a question was posed to P.W.1, for which, he could not give any answer, since he did not see the occurrence.Under such circumstances, all the above would go to show that these witnesses could not have been present in the place of occurrence at all.f)Added further, the learned counsel, that the medical evidence also did not support the prosecution case, since in the post-mortem certificate issued by P.W.11, the doctor, there is no external injury corresponding to the attack made by A-1 by using an iron rod.Apart from that, he would also submit that in the earliest statement made to P.W.13, the doctor, only four persons were shown as assailants, but in the instant case, five persons were shown as assailants and even the first information report in question did not contain necessary particulars.g)Added further, the learned counsel, that apart from that, the observation mahazar does not refer to any weapons in the place of occurrence, but subsequently, the prosecution came forward with a version that all the weapons, which was placed before the Court, were recovered from the place of occurrence on the next day of occurrence.If it be true, there is no need for making any omission in the observation mahazar, which fact would go to show that all these weapons of occurrence were subsequently introduced.h)The learned counsel would submit that in the instant case, the witnesses, who were examined as eye witnesses had no knowledge about the crime and the original information was suppressed and what was placed before the Court is not the first information and under such circumstances, the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused/appellants and since the lower Court has not considered the above aspects of the matter, they are entitled for acquittal in the hands of this Court.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State on the above contentions.The Court paid its anxious consideration to the submissions made and thoroughly scrutinised the available materials.It is not in controversy that the brother of P.W.1 was attacked by the accused and he died in the hospital.In order to substantiate that the deceased died out of homicidal violence, the prosecution has P.W.11, the doctor, who conducted post-mortem and who issued the post-mortem certificate, Ex.P-6, wherein he has opined that the deceased died out of the head injuries sustained by him.Apart from that, the said fact was not disputed by the accused/appellants either before the trial Court or before this Court and hence, without any difficulty, it could be concluded that the deceased died out of homicidal violence.In order to substantiate the case, the prosecution has relied on the direct evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, who, according to the prosecution, were the eye witnesses.Now at this juncture, it is necessary to point out that since these witnesses are close relatives, the test of careful scrutiny must be applied before accepting their evidence.According to P.W.1, it was he, who gave the information to P.W.8, Head Constable, at the earliest point of time, as a result of which, Ex.P-1 has come into existence.When Ex.P-1 is scrutinised, at the first column, it speaks about the number of accused, who are the five appellants.Though it narrates the incident, it does not reveal actually which accused was holding which weapon and in which manner the occurrence took place.It is to be remembered that P.W.1 was an eye witness.There is all possibility for him to speak about the occurrence.But he has not spoken so.As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, it is highly doubtful, whether Ex.P-1 is the first information, as alleged by the prosecution.According to P.W.2 , at about 1.00 p.m., the police have come to the scene of occurrence and P.W.2 gave a statement to the police, which was also recorded.Afterwards, P.W.1 informed the police that the statement already given by P.W.2 need not be acted upon and he would give another statement and so saying, he went along with the police.It would be quite clear that the earlier information given by P.W.2 as to the occurrence was not placed before the Court.The same seems to have been suppressed.At this juncture, it is to be pointed out that it is highly doubtful, whether P.Ws.1 to 4 could have seen the occurrence.It would be quite clear from the evidence of P.W.7, who was the owner of the car, in which the deceased Sekar along with the witnesses were taken to the Government Hospital at Vellore.P.W.7 has categorically stated that he came to the place of occurrence at 8.30 a.m. and the villagers were asking P.Ws.1 to 4 as to how the occurrence took place, for which, they informed the villagers that they did not know how it had taken place and who were the assailants.This evidence of P.W.7 becomes affirmed by the evidence of P.W.8, the Head Constable attached to the Outpost Police Station at Government Hospital, Vellore.Further, in cross-examination, it has been candidly admitted that P.W.1 did not speak about the manner of occurrence, because he did not know who were all present at the time of occurrence and this evidence of P.W.7 in corroboration of P.W.8 would go to show that P.Ws.1 to 4 had no knowledge about the participation of the assailants or about the occurrence at all.Under such circumstances, the fact that P.Ws.1 to 4 had no knowledge about the occurrence, coupled with the fact that the information given by P.W.2 at the earliest point of time has been suppressed would go to show that what was placed before the trial Court was not the actual occurrence, but it was an occurrence that has been intended by P.W.1 as found in Ex.Apart from that, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, the medical evidence also did not support the ocular testimony and so far as the recovery part is concerned, it is the case of the prosecution that the weapons were recovered by the police from the place of occurrence on the next day of occurrence.Even in the observation mahazar, which came into existence, does not speak about the availability of any one of the material objects in the place of occurrence and that would also reflect the case of the prosecution in the negative.When all the above said facts are put together, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.While the prosecution case suffers with all these infirmities and lacunas, as shown above, it would be quite unsafe to find the accused guilty.The trial Court has not considered the above aspects of the matter and hence the judgment of the lower Court is to be made undone by upsetting the judgment.The criminal appeal is allowed.The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants/accused are set aside.8.The Director General of Police, Madras.9.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.[PRV/8186]
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
119,620,015 |
A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.C. c. as per rules.(P.K. Jaiswal) Judge Pithawe RC Digitally signed by Ramesh Chandra Pithwe Date: 2018.04.22 11:38:31 +05'30'
|
['Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
119,621,790 |
And In the matter of: Sahidul Rahaman Mondal & Ors.- versus -The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Chakdaha Police Station Case No. 373 of 2013 dated 5.6.2013 under sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned Advocate for the State.The Petitioners are the brother-in-law, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the Complainant.2 The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J) 2
|
['Section 438 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.
|
119,630,198 |
The applicant shall not be released if he is suffering from 'Corona Virus disease'.For this purpose appropriate tests will be carried out.If it is found that the applicant is suffering from 'Corona Virus disease', necessary steps will be taken by the concerned authority by placing him in appropriate quarantine facility.This M.Cr.FAHIM ANWAR) JUDGE SKM Digitally signed by SANTOSH MASSEY Date: 27/06/2020 18:07:35Case diary is available with the Panel Lawyer.Heard on this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the applicant in connection with Crime No.326/2019 registered at Police Station Dehat Hoshangabad under Sections 363 and 376 (2) (n) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act.The case of the prosecution is that, in the intervening night of 9th and 10th July, 2019 the prosecutrix, aged about 17 years and 6 months was found disappeared from her residential house situated at Village Gurra, Tehsil Itarasi, Distt.A missing persons report was lodged against some unknown person.On that basis, offence under Section 363 of IPC at Crime No.No.326/2019 has been registered.Her medical examination was conducted.Her statements under Sections 161 and 164 of Criminal Procedure Code have been recorded and the statements of her parents have also been recorded.In view of the aforesaid, prayer has been made to enlarge the applicant on bail.Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the bail application.The statements of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., which have been read out by the learned Panel Lawyer during the course of hearing through Video Conference from which it appears that the prosecutrix was marginally minor on the date of incident.She was forced to leave her house by her family members for which remained in the company of applicant and went to Bhopal and other various places.Therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, application of the present applicant seems to be acceptable.It is directed that applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) with one surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the committal/trial Court to appear before the court on the dates given by the concerned Court.It is directed that applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 437(3)I n view of the outbreak of 'Corona Virus disease (COVID-19)' the applicant shall also comply the rules and norms of social distancing.Further, in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in suo moto W.P.No.1/2020, it would be appropriate to issue the following direction to Digitally signed by SANTOSH MASSEY Date: 27/06/2020 18:07:35 3 MCRC-13623-2020 the jail authority :-The Jail Authority shall ensure the medical examination of the applicant by the jail doctor before his release.
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
119,649,859 |
He submitted that the prosecutrix had willfully joined the bonfire party where admittedly the petitioner was present.He submitted that the petitioner even did not touch the prosecutrix and the entire story against the petitioner is false and baseless.He submitted that the petitioner was in close company of his fiance Ms.He submitted that the prosecutrix, a student, along with her friend had gone to Hauz Khas Village at about 10:30 PM on 11th January, 2017 where she met a person, who had introduced himself as Saleem (@ Tawab Ahmad) to her.Saleem offered and suggested them to join him at a bonfire party at his friend's flat at Green Park where many boys and girls were present and she would feel comfortable.The complainant and her friend enjoyed the bonfire party and after sometime, the co-accused Saleem (@ Tawab Ahmad) went to drop the complainant and her friend at JNU Campus.The petitioner seeks his release on bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.PC') in a case registered against him and Tawab Ahmad @ Saleem vide FIR No.0012/2017 dated 12.01.2017, Police Station Safdarjung Enclave, South District, Delhi, under Sections 376/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') on the complaint of prosecutrix "M".Bail Application No. 1380/2017 Page 1 of 14Poorvi Singh from previous night till 8:30 AM on 12th January, 2017 and therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioner of raping or even attempting to rape the prosecutrix.He submitted that the allegation of the prosecutrix that on 12th January, 2017 when she woke up early in the morning she found that the petitioner and co-accused Tawab Ahmad @ Saleem had raped her cannot be believed.He submitted that prosecutrix had refused her internal medical examination and as per MLC no injuries were found on her person.He submitted that the IO has not recorded the statement of eye-witness Ms.Poorvi Singh, who is fiance of the petitioner, and was present at the spot throughout.He submitted that simply because the petitioner is a foreigner, being a citizen of Afghanistan, and staying in India under proper refugee visa for Bail Application No. 1380/2017 Page 2 of 14 last 10 years, he cannot be denied bail.He submitted that the allegations had been levelled against the petitioner to settle some ulterior motive/object or extortion.He submitted that the petitioner, having accepted the invitation of his friend Sahil, joined his company along with his fiance Ms.Poorvi Singh at 11:00 PM on 11th January, 2017 at K-36, Second Floor, Green Park, New Delhi.When the petitioner, Ms.Poorvi Singh and Sahil were enjoying the bonfire, the co- accused Tawab Ahmad @ Saleem with two girls including prosecutrix "M" and one Ms.Saraswati Ingle came there in the midnight (i.e. at 12:00 AM).After some time accused Tawab Ahmad @ Saleem along with prosecutrix "M" and Ms.He submitted that at about 2:40 AM on 12th January, 2017, the petitioner and his fiance Ms.Poorvi Singh requested the prosecutrix to leave the place as it was too late but the prosecutrix, while flashing her uncontrolled behavior under the influence of liquor, did not allow them to leave.After dropping her friend, on several requests of the co-Bail Application No. 1380/2017 Page 5 of 14accused Saleem @ Tawab Ahmad, the complainant came back with him at the same place to continue to join the bonfire party where three boys namely the petitioner, Mr.Sahil and Mr.Sidhhant and fiance of petitioner namely Ms.Poorvi Singh were found present.They remained in the party till 3:00 AM.The prosecutrix had also taken liquor in the party with all of them and then she went to sleep in a separate bed-room at the premises.When she woke up at about 6:00 AM and was in a semi-conscious condition, she found Saleem @ Tawab Ahmad had raped her forcibly and without her consent.After he left, the petitioner came inside the room and raped her again forcibly and she pushed him away.The prosecutrix was crying and shouting at the top of her voice.Mr.Sidhhant, who was present there, dropped her in the hostel of JNU and she narrated the entire episode to her friends Ms.Geeta who brought her to the Police Station.He submitted that the prosecutrix was taken to Safdarjung Hospital where she was medically examined.Learned APP for the State pointed out that semen was found on her undergarment.He pointed out the copy of the MLC where there is a mention of slight vaginal bleeding.He further submitted that vital witnesses including Sidhhant and Sahil, who were at the spot, are yet to be examined and Sidhhant had seen the petitioner and his co- accused entering into the bedroom of the prosecutrix where she was sleeping alone.He had also relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madan Lal v. State of J&K, AIR 1998 SC 386, wherein on chemical analysis semen was found on the salwar of the prosecutrix and the Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding the appeal has held that even if it has not been established to be the semen of the accused, the statement of the mother of the prosecutrix to the effect that prosecutrix narrated the entire episode immediately when she arrived at home can also be held Bail Application No. 1380/2017 Page 7 of 14 to be a corroborative piece of evidence which the learned Sessions Judge excluded from consideration erroneously and the appeal of the convict was dismissed.Bail Application No. 1380/2017 Page 7 of 14He has relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in an appeal being State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewakhand Jain, AIR 1990 SC 658, wherein the semen of the prosecutrix Bail Application No. 1380/2017 Page 8 of 14 was found dissimilar with that of the accused and the Apex Court held that it cannot cast doubts on the creditworthiness of the prosecutrix.Bail Application No. 1380/2017 Page 8 of 14I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
119,660,498 |
These Appeals assail the common Judgment and Orderdated 31st August 2012 delivered by the Special Judge, MCOC Act,Gr.Mumbai in MCOC Special Case No.7 of 2008 and otherconnected matters, whereby the said Court convicted -(a) Arun Gulab Gawali (A-1), Sandip @ Sandy BaliramGangan (A-9), Shrikrishna @ Babu Tukaram Gurav (A-10), PratapTukaram Godse (A-12), Ajit Chandrakant Rane (A-13), SureshRaghunath Patil (A-15) and Sunil Sadashiv Ghate (A-20) for theofences punishable under Section 3(4) of the MCOC Act, 1999 andsentenced each of them to sufer rigorous imprisonment for tenyears and to pay a fne of Rs.5.00 Lac.each, & in default of fne,sentenced them to sufer rigorous imprisonment for three years.(b) Arun Gawali (A-1), Sandip Gangan (A-9), ShrikrishnaGurav (A-10), Pratap Godse (A-12), Ajit Rane (A-13), Suresh Patil(A-15) and Sunil Ghate (A-20) for the ofences punishable underSection 3(1)(ii) of the MCOC Act, 1999 and sentenced to suferrigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fne of Rs.5.00Lacs each, and in default thereof, to sufer rigorous imprisonmentfor three years.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::9 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.doc(f) Arun Gawali (A-1), Sahebrao Bhintade (A-6), Sandeep ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 ::: 10 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docGangan (A-9), Shrikrishna Gurav (A-10), Pratap Godse (A-12), AjitRane (A-13) and Suresh Patil (A-15) for the ofence punishableunder Section 3(2) of the MCOC Act, 1999 and sentencing tosufer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fne of Rs.7.00Lacs each, in default to sufer rigorous imprisonment for threeyears.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::(g) Arun Gawali (A-1), Sahebrao Bhintade (A-6), SandeepGangan (A-9), Shrikrishna Gurav (A-10), Pratap Godse (A-12), AjitRane (A-13) and Suresh Patil (A-15) for the ofence punishableunder Section 3(1) (i) of the MCOC Act, 1999 and sentenced tosufer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fne of Rs.1.00Lac each, and in default thereof, to sufer rigorous imprisonmentfor three years.(h) Vijay Giri (A-2) for the ofence punishable underSection 3 read with 25(1-B) of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentencedhim to sufer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay afne of Rs.5000/-, & in default, to sufer rigorous imprisonment forsix months.(a) The sitting Corporator namely Kamlakar Jamsandekarwas shot dead in his house by two unidentifed persons on 2 ndMarch 2007 at about 16.45 hours who were hired by associates ofArun Gawali who was the then sitting MLA of Akhil Bhartiya Sena(ABS hereafter) and head of an organized crime syndicate ie ABS.It is the specifc case of the prosecution that Accused Nos. 1, 9, 10,12, 13, 15 and 20 were members of organized crime syndicateheaded by Arun Gawali (A-1).Accused Nos. 1 to 7 and 10, 12 and13 hatched a conspiracy to kill Kamlakar Jamsandekar who wassitting Corporator of Shivsena party.Kamlakar Jamsandekar wasshot dead by Vijaykumar Giri (A-2) with a country made hand gun.Accused Nos. 2 to 4 accepted an amount of Rs.30.00 Lakh fromAccused Nos. 6 and 7 through Pratap (A-12) and Ajit Rane (A-13)who accepted a supari i.e. a contract to eliminate KamlakarJamsandekar due to political rivalry.Accused No.1 assuredAccused No.6 and Accused No.7 to get the work done.(b) Said Kamlakar Jamsandekar was declared as elected ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 ::: 12 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docCorporator & Ajit Rane (A-13) who contested that election heldon 1st February,2007 was the nominee of Akhil Bhartiya Sena(ABS) lost it.Ajit Rane (A-13) with a grudge in mind, gave acontract of killing Kamlakar Jamsandekar to Accused Nos. 6Sahebrao Bhintade and 7 Bala Surve.The prosecution claimsthat, Accused Nos.6 and 7 went to Arun Gawali (A-1) and gavehim 'supari'.Accused Nos.2 to 5 were then engaged asassailants by Accused Nos.12 and 13 through accused 10 Babu@ Shrikrishana.Accused Nos.12 and 13 along with AccusedNo.6 arranged gun and cartridges from the native place ofSurendra Panchal (A-8), and used for killing KamlakarJamsandekar.The said gun was recovered from Accused Nos.2to 5 from Kalbadevi area while attempting to commit dacoityon 26.4.2008 in the jurisdiction of LT Marg Police Station.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::(c) Deceased Kamlakar Jamsandekar resided at RumaniManzil, Chawl No.1, Room No.7, Asalfa Village, Mohili Pipe Line,Ghatkopar, Mumbai with his wife Komal, daughter, son andniece Manali Keshav Hire (Complainant).On 2 nd March 2007, atabout 16.45 hours, the complainant PW-7 Manali was in thekitchen.Kamlakar Jamsandekar was watching TV in theadjacent room.The wife of deceased Kamlakar Jamsandekar ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 ::: 13 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docnamely Komal (PW-1) had already left the house at about 4.00p.m.The complainant's cousin Sayali was packing her schoolbag near her father Kamlakar.PW-7 Manali heard noise likethat of fre crackers from the adjacent room.She rushed to thatroom and noticed two unknown persons leaving the said room.Kamlakar Jamsandekar was in the pool of blood and hadreceived the head injury.Manali (PW-7) rushed outsidescreening to save her uncle.Somebody contacted the policewho arrived at the place of incident immediately.KamlakarJamsandekar was admitted to Rajawadi Hospital where he wasdeclared dead.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::Saki Naka Police registered theofence on the basis of the said complaint vide Crime No.82/2007 under Sections 120-B, 452, 302 read with 34 of theIndian Penal Code read with Sections 3, 25 and 27 of the ArmsAct and under Sections 37(1) and 135 of Bombay Police Act.The police from Saki Naka police station visited the spot andrecorded the spot panchanama (Exh.165).The photographs ofthe place of incident were snapped vide Exh.163 collectively.PW-21 P. I. Motiram Kasar conducted the investigation and ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 ::: 14 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docfound a scarbutt (Article-1) lying near the body of thedeceased which was detached from the gun used by theassailants.Police arrested Pratap Godse (A-12) and Ajit Rane(A-13) along with Prakash @ Pappu Sawla (A-14), SubhashUpadhyay (A-16), Pankaj Kothari (A-17), Mohd. Saif MohiddinFaruqui (A-18) and Badrealam Badruddin Faruqhi (A-19).::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::(e) The dead body of deceased Kamlakar was sent forautopsy.The said report reveals that wad ofthe fred ammunition was found embedded in the brain matterof the deceased as well as the pellets (Article-7 colly.) wererecovered from the head of the deceased KamlakarJamsandekar indicating that weapon used was 12 bore countrymade handgun.(f) During the course of investigation statements ofwitnesses were recorded.(g) On 26th April, 2008 the secret information wasreceived by Police Inspector Sandbhor to the efect that somepersons were likely to commit dacoity in a jewelry shop atKalbadevi.The trap was laid and Vijaykumar (A-2), Ashokkumar(A-3), Narendra (A-4) and Anil Giri (A-5) came to be arrestedon 26th April, 2008 near Hotel Govindram at about 3.15 p.m.During their personal search, a country made handgun withouta scarbutt along with one live cartridge was found inpossession of Vijaykumar Giri (A-2) along with Nokia Mobilephone, some currency and driving license.Ashokkumar (A-3)was found in possession of 12 inch knife and some currency,Narendra Giri (A-4) was found in possession of 12 inch knifeand some currency and Anil Giri (A-5) was also found inpossession of one knife of 11 inch, one mobile and somecurrency as well as small pouch containing chilly powder.(i) Accused Nos. 2 to 5 were also found to be involvedin Crime No. 82 of 2007 registered with Sakinaka PoliceStation.Dinesh Narkar (A-11) along with Shrikrishna Gurav (During the course of interrogation of Accused Nos.2 to 5 it revealed that the country made handgun which wasseized from them was used for committing murder of KamlakarJamsandekar and thus scarbutt recovered by Sakinaka PoliceStation on the spot had got detached from the said handgun atthat time.Shrikrishna Gurav (A-10) andDinesh Narkar (A-11) arrested by DCB, CID in Crime No. 52 of2008 and were in custody; as per the orders of Special Court, ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 ::: 17 Judg.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::(j) PW-33 Divakar Shelke sent a proposal to the JointCommissioner of Police for obtaining prior approval (Exh.421)under Section 23(1)(a) of MCOC Act and the said approval wasgranted on 20th May 2008, to register the ofence under MCOCAct.Further investigation was carried out by PW-37 ACPDuraphe.He arrested Arun Gawli (A-1), Sahebrao Bhintade (A-6) and Sadashiv Surve (A-7) under the provisions of MCOC Act.(k) During the course of investigation, AshokkumarJaiswar (A-3), Narendra Giri (A-4), Anil Giri (A-5), SandeepGangan (A-9), Shrikrishna Gurav (A-10) and Dinesh Narkar (A-11) expressed their desire to make confessions andaccordingly, their confessional statements were recorded byPW-17 DCP Vinaykumar Chaube, PW-15 Rajendra Dabhade,PW-23 DCB Vijay Singh N. Jadhav, PW-29 DCP Brijesh Singh andPW-18 DCP Dilip Sawant respectively.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docExecutive Ofcer Mr. Dattaram Kambli (PW-24) on 20 th June2008 at Mumbai Central Prison.PW-7 Manali Hire and PW-12 Motilal Chaudhary are two material witnesses who identifedthe accused actually giving efect to the crime.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::(l) The Call Detail Records were collected by PW-37ACP Duraphe in respect of mobile phones of some of theaccused.Similarly PW-34 Prashant Gawde also produced CallDetail Records vide Exhs. 426 and 427 (colly.), refectingcommunication between Accused Nos. 2, 5, 8, 10, 12 and 13.PW-35 Shekhar Palande, who is a Nodal Ofcer of Tata Servicesexplained the contents of CDR (Exh.436).Supplementary ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 ::: 19 Judg.(o) During the course of investigation, it was revealedthat deceased Kamlakar and Sadashiv Surve (A-7) were not ingood terms over some landed property.Sadashiv Surve (A-7)hatched conspiracy with Sahebrao Bhintade (A-6).6 and 7 approached Pratap Godse (A-12) and Ajit Rane (A-13), who in turn gave contract to Arun Gawali (A-1) toeliminate Kamlakar Jamsandekar.A meeting was fxed byPratap Godse (A-12) particularly Sahebrao Bhintade (A-6)with Arun Gawali (A-1).Pratap Godse (A-12) and Ajit Rane(A-13) took Sahebrao Bhintade (A-6) and Sadahiv Surve (A-7)to the ofce of Akhil Bhartiya Sena, a political party of whichArun Gawali (A-1) was sitting MLA on the ground foor of GeetaiCo-op.Society Ltd., Dagadi Chawl, Byculla, Mumbai.(p) They met Sandeep @ Sandy (A-9) who is alsoassociate of Arun Gawali (A-1).They informed Sandeep (A-9)about bringing contract money, on which Sandeep (A-9) calledSuresh Patil (A-15) on his mobile phone by using the mobilephone of Pratap Godse (A-12).Suresh Patil (A-15) and Sandeep ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 ::: 20 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.doc(A-9) took Sahebrao Bhintade (A-6), Sadashiv Surve (A-7),Pratap Godse (A-12) and Ajit Rane (A-13) to the ofce of ArunGawali (A-1) on second foor of the building.Sahebrao Bhintade(A-6), Sadashiv Surve (A-7) handed over the amount ofRs.30.00 Lacs to Arun Gawali (A-1) as a contract money to killKamlakar Jamsandekar.Arun Gawali (A-1) instructed PratapGodse (A-12) and Ajit Rane (A-13) to hire new killers in orderto avoid involvement of his gang.Pratap (A-12) therefore askedShrikrishana Gurav (A-10) to fnd out new shooters to killKamlakar Jamsandekar upon which Shrikrishna (A-10)contacted Vijaykumar Giri (A-2) and Narendra Giri (A-4) anddiscussed with them about the said contract.Vijaykumar Giri (A-2) fredat deceased Kamlakar from his country made handgun.Resultantly Kamlakar Jamsandekar died on the spot.Theaccused persons then fed away.Pratap (A-12) then paid Rs.30,000/ out of contract money to the killers.He is an accomplice who has procured the licensed gun.It is submitted that this witness does not connect gunwith accused No.1 and also does not show that when gun wasbeing procured, conspiracy to kill Kamlakar Jamsandekar wasalready hatched.No specimen writing was obtainedfrom him and entries in diaries in his handwriting are not shown tohim.12 and 13 points out that they have been arraigned onlybecause of their participation in elections.Theseaccused persons therefore, had no reason to kill Kamlakar before1.2.2007 and it rules out any conspiracy at their behest.Investigation conducted by PW-21 who happens to beIO of Saki Naka Police Station is relied upon to argue that thisofcer Shri Kasar did not fnd any other evidence against accusednos.The story developed after obtaining MCOCAapproval is inconsistent with his investigation.PW-21considers all angles.The motive as alleged is not in consonance withthis story.The role played by accused nos. 12 and 13 and actionof accused nos. 2 to 5 are independent and have no bearing onaccused no. 1 or his alleged organization.Learned senior counsel submits that there is noevidence to show that room in Dagadi chawl belongs to accusedno.As per law, the MCOCA wasthen used and crime at Sakinaka Police Station was made over toDCB CID.He has invited our attention to letters dated 28/4/2008and dated 29/4/2008 when investigation was taken over by DCBCID.Accused persons were already in custody in one or the othermatter and as such there was no urgency to arrest anybody.93. PW-11 has established that accused No.10 is activemember of Akhil Bhartiya Sena and he was taken to accusedNos.12 and 13 in the ofce of Akhil Bhartiya Sena by accusedNo.10 only.There he was given mobile numbers to remain incontact.PW-11 then promised to help accused persons andaccordingly started making inquiries which lead him to accusedNo.8 Learned counsel submits that PW-11 remembers importantdates and he was given amount of Rs. 25,000/- by accusedpersons with threats to keep silence.He wasthreatened and amount was paid 8-10 days before he receivedsummons from the Court.It is submitted that the physics department with FSLre-assembled the handgun and scarbutt and PW-14 experttherefore has pointed out that said scarbutt ftted exactly andmatched with the handgun.Shri Phadtare has also enteredthe witness box & proved that the procedure was properlyfollowed.Accused 10 Shrikrishna @ Babu was plying an auto-rickshaw to earn livelihood.He knows accd.13 Ajit Rane & wasattending his ofce at Sakinaka Pipe Line, Parera Wadi.Ajit Raneis Kurla Taluka Vice President of Akhil Bhartiya Sena.Ajit sent himto Mahendra Bagwe in Byculla Dagdi Chawl & he became branchpresident of Akhil Bhartiya Sena (ABS).He has acquaintance withAccd.12 Pratap Godse, Accd.11 Dinesh Narkar, PW. 5 Pradeep ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 ::: 118 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docShinde & Mohd. Arif @ Guddu.He also points out extortionbetween July 2005 to October 2005 from builders like Sagartek atSakinaka, Sadguru Developers at Ghatkoper (west), Tunga villagedevelopers at Sakinaka & Runwala Group.Builders werepressurized & told that they have come from Dagadi Chawl.Part ofmoney so extorted was paid to accd.1 Arun Gawali through AjitRane, Pratap Godse, accd.15 Suresh Patil and accd.9 Sandy @Sandip Gangan.His auto-rickshaw was driven by accd.2 Narendra@ Kandi Giri.Through Narendra, he came to know Narendra'smaternal uncle accd.4 Vijay Giri.Narendra & Vijay used to plyauto-rickshaws & ofences were already registered against them.They had absconded as Rabale Police Station was after them.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::In May 2006, Ajit & Pratap expressed need of a Gun tothreaten the builders.Accordingly he brought his maternal cousinPW-11 Dhaktya @ Ramchandra Gurav r/o Kharepatan, Distr.Sindhudurga to ofce of Ajit & Pratap.Dhaktya disclosed that Gunwould be arranged from Rajapur.Babu & Pratap gave their mobilenumbers 9819251750 & 9223202133 respectively to Dhaktya.After 4 or 5 days, Dhaktya telephoned to inform that Gun could bearranged.He, accd.11 Dinesh, accd.12 Pratap & driver RajaMulekar went to village in Tata Sumo vehicle.Next day, they went ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 ::: 119 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docto village Vilaye in Rajapur with Dhaktya where introduced to accd.8 Surendra Panchal.There Acc.12 Pratap drew sketch of gun asrequired and accd.8 Surendra demanded Rs. 6000/ for it.Nextday they could not meet accd.They met at 7pm at Kharepatan wherePratap paid Rs. 3000/ as advance to Surendra.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::In August,2006, accd. 8 informed that gun was ready.Asdirected by accd.12 & 13 & with Rs. 5000/ given by them, Accd.10 Shrijrishna @ Babu & accd.11 Dinesh then went to village bytrain.On same day, with PW-11 Dhaktya in auto-rickshaw, allwent to village of accd.8 Surendra, paid him balance Rs. 3000/ &took gun in possession.10,11 & Surendra in auto-rickshawcame to Kharepatan where accd.8 Surendra brought 5cartridges,red in colour and he paid Rs. 300 / to accd.8 Surendrafor it.Then they returned to house of Dhaktya at KharepatanGuruwadi where accd.8 Surendra fred one cartridge todemonstrate that gun was working.Next day was a festival of Dahikala ie Krishnajanmashtami & hence, accd.1o/11 returned by train to Mumbaiwith gun & remaining 4 rounds.10 got down at Sion, went toaccd.12 Pratap & gave him the gun & cartridges.In 2006, at ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 ::: 120 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docDurgadevi festival ie Navratri celebrations in Dagadi chawl, AjitRane gave him a card inviting accd.7 Bala Surve (deceased) for it.He went to Jangleshwar Mandir, Sakinaka but Bala Surve was notpresent.He then left the card in ofce of Bala.He learnt thattaking advantage of said festival, accd.In that ofce,Anita Ghaywat treated as sister of Ajit, also used to sit.Later number wassome times used by Anita Ghaywat.In January,2007 as Ajit Rane was to contest from wardno.152, he, Dinesh Narkar, Pratap Godse, Addu, Pradeep Shinde,Raja Mulekar, Mohd. Arif @ Guddu, Pintu RamkrishnaDhaykar,Abhijit Satam etc, started canvassing.In said election inFebruary, 2007 Ajit got 379 votes & was displeased as Shivsenacandidate Shri Jamsandekar won with huge margin.In February,2007, when he had gone to Travel's ofce of Ajit Rane, PratapGodse was present there.Pratap Godse, in presence of Ajit Rane asked himwhether two boys could be arranged for eliminating somebody.Healso that amount of Rs. 2.50 Lak would be paid to those boys.10 Shrikrishna promised to inquire & inform.On same day, hecalled Vijay Giri & informed him about the need.He asked Vijay tocontact him at Sakinaka near HP Petrol pump at 10.00 am.Onnext day, he met Viajay Giri & Narendra Giri at Sakinaka junction.After sometime one person introduced as Ashokarrived.Shrikrishna then called Pratap Godse using his mobile.Then they had tea together & went near HP pump.Pratap & Ajit ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 ::: 122 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docarrived on motorcycle.He took Vijay to one side & introduced himto them.That time it was agreed between Pratap & Vijay thatPratap would give gun, knives & Rs. 2.5 Lak & Vijay would withthe help of three, kill the person shown by Pratap.Pratap thenasked Shrikrishna to show ofce of Amit Travels to Vijay, Narendra,Ashok & then left with Ajit.Shrikrishna then has shown ofce ofAmit Travels at Chandiwali to those three & asked them to comethere at 10.00'o clock.Next day he came to the said ofce onDiscovery motorcyle.As ofce was closed, he called Pratap onphone who told him to fetch key from house of Ajit Rane & to openthe ofce.Accordingly, he brought key & opened the ofce.He,Vijay & Narendra sat there.Shrikrishna then saw Ashok standingoutside with one colleague.Vijay told that colleague was Anil Giri.Ajit Rane & Pratap Godse arrived there shortly.As directed by Pratap he took out a bag from a drawerin ofce & shown the Gun, Two cartridges, & Three knives to Vijay& Narendra.Pratap then informed that 3 cartridges were fredthrough said gun.Vijay & Narendra went out & brought Ashok &Anil in the ofce who also has a look at the articles.Pratap thenasked these 4 persons to go out & wait.Pratap then gave Rs.10,000/ to Shrikrishna & instructed him to give it to Vijay with ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 ::: 123 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docmessage to come on next day to collect the bag containing thearticles ie weapons.At that time, Ashok saved mobile number ofaccd.Pratap thereforeexpressed that group of 4 would not be able to do the work &abused Shrikrishna.He expressed that he would engage someother group.Shrikrishna then states that no other group washowever shown to him.On 2.3.2007 at 5 pm in the evening Vijay phonedShrikrshna that game of Kamalakar Jamsandekar was done &motorcycle was left near a timber mart near masjid at NarayanNagar, Ghatkoper.On 3rd March 2007, Anita Ghaywat, sister of Ajit Ranecalled Shrikrishna to the residence & told that phone calls werebeing made for the balance amount by Vijay & Kandi.She handedover the amount in a plastic cover and asked him to give it tothem.He called Vijay who then asked him to come near BorivaliNational Park Gate.He went there & handed over that plasticcover.He was not then aware of the quantum of the amount.This person hasattempted to retract it before the CMM.Eforts made by him &others on same line are being considered separately.He states in second part that since 4 months he wasstaying with his uncle Vijay & both were plying auto-rickshaw onrent in Tunga village of Sakinaka.InFebruary,2007, Vijay told him that he had a phone call from Babuwho wanted them to do work of a man (which means to kill aman).Babu was ready to pay Rs. 2.5 Lak for it.Both of them ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 ::: 127 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docdecided to take help of his school friend Ashok Jaiswar & nephewof Vijay by name Anil.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::Next day Vijay took him to Sakinaka junction.They metBabu Gurav there.Shortly, Ashok Jaiswar also reached there.Vijayintroduced Ashok to Babu.Babu then informed on phone aboutthem to somebody.All then went to a Hotel, had tea & then cameto a petrol pump in the neighbourhood.Two persons arrived thereon motorcycle.Babu Gurav told their names to Ajit Rane & PratapGodse.Babu then took three to ofce of Amit Travels at Chandivaliand told them to come to that ofce on next day at 10.00 am.Next day they went to that ofce.Babu Gurav opened the ofce & showed to them a bagcontaining a gun, 2 rounds & knives.He asked them to come onnext day to collect it.Next day at 9.30 am.they reached AmitTravels.In ofce, Babu took out the bag from a table drawer &gave it to him with Rs. 10,000/. Babu asked them to come in theevening to take the bike ie motorcycle.They then returned home.In the evening, Narendra returned & took Discover motorcycleM.S. 03 AE 2476 in his custody.On next day as asked by Vijay, onbike he & Anil went to ofce.Vijay & Ashok also reached there.A ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 ::: 128 Judg.Addu then hadshown them that man.That man had a red tilak on his forehead.Addu told them that said man applied red tilak like that always.That man then proceeded towards his house.On 2.3.2007, all 4went to ofce to collect the bag.Narendra, Ashok & Vijaycollected bag & went to Asalpha village.At 4.30 Ashok alone went inside.He came out aftersome time & stated that man was alone inside.Viajy then took outthe gun from bag & loaded a round in it.He kept other round in hispocket.Narendra & Ashok then took a knife each from that bag &kept it with them.They reached near the house of that man.Narendra & Vijay went to thedoor.That man was sitting in chair with back towards the door.Vijay immediately entered inside taking gun out.Narendra wasstanding outside the door.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docAfter shot was fred, they ran out towards themotorcycle.He started motorcycle.Vijay & Ashok sat pillion.Onnext day from the news paper, he learnt that the man murderedwas Shivsena corporator Kamalakar Jamsandekar.To facilitate the further application of mind, we deem itappropriate to note mutual corroboration between Babu &Narendra.Both were knowing each other since Narendra wasplying auto-rickshaw belonging to Babu Gurav.In February, 2007Vijay had a phone call from Babu who wanted them to eliminate aman.Babu was ready to pay Rs. 2.5 Lak for it.Both of themdecided to take help of his school friend Ashok Jaiswar & nephewof Vijay by name Anil.Next day Vijay took him to Sakinakajunction.Vijay introduced Ashok to Babu.Babu theninformed on phone about them to somebody.All then went toHotel, had tea & then came to a petrol pump in theneighbourhood.Babu then informed that two persons by nameAjit Rane & Pratap Godse arrived.Babu then took three to ofce ofAmit Travels at Chandivali & told them to come in that ofce on ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 ::: 130 Judg.He wasemployed in ofce of said party by Jitendra Dabhokar as a peon.Thereafter he started working as computer operator in that ofce.He was getting Rs.2,500/- p.m. as salary.He has givenNos.23015868 and 23091771 as telephone numbers of ofce.Hedisclosed that ofce bearers and workers of Akhil Bhartiya Senaused to collect information about construction works and otherevents or matters in their region and supply it to Arun Gawali.Thereafter builders and other traders were called in a room knownas "bhajanachi kholi" on ground foor of Gitai Building and ransomwas collected from them.This accused disclosed that he wasknowing that one Pappu Savla, a Matka king used to pay Rs.5Lakhs per month to Arun Gawali.Similarly, for Navratri celebrationor on occasion of a party programme, amount was collected andthat amount was deposited with him and with Suresh Raghunath ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 ::: 132 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docPatil (Accd.15), Vasant Jayram Raut, Jayant Ingawale, VishwanathHinge (PW-25), Babu Dighe, Pandit, Santosh @ Deed and,ultimately, it was sent to Arun Gawali.Anybody who did not remitthe amount to Arun Gawli after collecting it in his name, wasbrought in "Bhajanachi Kholi" and beaten with belt and sticks.PratapGodse was then carrying a brown colour bag of size 1½ ft.x 1 ft.Pratap Godse and Ajit Rane in his presence using mobile contacted& asked Suresh Patil to come down.After short time, Suresh Patilcame there.Ajit Rane stayed in ofce.Sandeep, Suresh Patil,Pratap Godse and those two persons went to second foor of Gitaibuilding in ofce of Arun Gawli.Suresh Patil shut the door of thatofce from inside.Pratap Godse then handed over bag to Arun Gawalimentioning that it was containing Rs.30 lakhs.After signal by ArunGawali, Suresh Patil took bag in his custody.Arun Gawali thenspoke to those two persons and told that work of Jamsandekar ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 ::: 133 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docwould be done and they should not worry.After this assurance, he,Pratap Godse and two persons came to ofce.Pratap thendisclosed that the two persons were Bala Surve (accused No.7-nowno more) and Sahebrao Bhitande (accused No.6) Then Ajit Rane,Pratap Godse and those two persons left.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::At the beginning of January 2007 at about 4.00 clock inthe afternoon Suresh Patil called him (Sandeep) on second foor ofGitai Building and gave him Rs.60,000/- & asked him to hand itover to Pratap Godse standing near tea stall outside the gate.Accordingly, he paid Rs.60,000/- to Pratap Godse.That time PratapGodse disclosed that Nana Bhitande (accd.6) was to pay him Rs.10lakhs for work of Kamlakar Jamsandekar."work of KamalakarJamsandekar" means job to kill Kamalakar Jamsandekar.On 10/1/2007 election of Trade Union of MumbaiMahanagar Telephone Limited was being held and in it candidatesof Akhil Bhartiya Sena contested.At that time, on instructions ofparty head Arun Gawali, Suresh Patil had sent Ajit Rane, PratapGodse and other workers to Trombay Telephone Exchange forcreating disturbance by resorting to gundaism and to bogusvoting.Accordingly, Ajit Rane, Pratap Godse and workers wentthere and created terror.Police then arrested Ajit Rane, Pratap ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 ::: 134 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docGodse and other three persons.It also demonstratesaccused Nos.6 and 7 contacting accused Nos.12 and 13 andcoming to said organization at Dagdi chawl to contact accusedNo.1 and to give him the supari ie work to eliminate KamlakarJamsandekar.It brings on record the room on ground foor calledas Bhajanachi kholi where extortion amount was collected ordisobedients were punished.It also shows ofce of accused No.1on second foor, the activities of Akhil Bhartiya Sena like keepingwatch in the region to ascertain sources for demanding ransom, ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 ::: 135 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docusing festivals etc. to demand and collect it.Spreadingatmosphere of terror by resorting to gundaism is also brought onrecord.Perusal of Part II of confession of accused No.3 Ashok Jaiswarshows that he happens to be a school friend of accused No.4Narendra Giri.Vijay hadmade that call from PCO in Dahisar and told him to meet at ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 ::: 136 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docMangatram Petrol Pump in Bhandup.Accordingly, at 6.30 in theevening he went there.There Vijay told him that a person was tobe killed and for it amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs would be paid.Vijay toldhim that this work was given by Babu.On next day he was calledat 10.00 a.m. at Sakinaka junction.On next day he met Narendraand Vijay, one more person was accompanying them and Vijaytold that his name was Babu.(This Babu is accused 10.) Babu thengave a call on his mobile and informed that Ashok, Narendra andVijay had reached.Then they went to nearby hotel, had tea andcame to H.P. Petrol Pump in the vicinity.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::Two persons arrived on motorcycle there.Babu toldtheir names to be Pratap Godse and Ajit Rane.Babu took Vijaywith him and then those four went to one side and had a talk.Pratap and Ajit left thereafter.Babu took them to Chandivali andshowed them ofce of Amit Travels.They were called in that ofceat 10.00 a.m. on next day.Vijay called him (Ashok) near Rambaugpolice chowky at Pawai at 9.30 a.m. on next day.Vijay accordinglyreported at 9.30 a.m. Vijay, Narendra and Anil Giri were presentthere.Vijay then informed Babu on mobile about their arrival.Then four of them went on foot to ofce of Amit Travels.Ofce wasclosed.Shortly Babu arrived on Discovery Motorcycle.He then ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 ::: 137 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.doccalled Pratap on mobile and then left on foot.He returned shortlywith ofce keys.Babu opened the ofce with the said keys.Vijayand Narendra entered ofce with Babu.He and Anil were standingoutside the ofce on road.They also saw Pratap entering theofce.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::Vijay and Narendra then came out and informed themthat they have seen the goods and Ashok and Anil should also seeit.(Here the context in which word "goods" is used impliesweapons.) All four went into the ofce.A bag was kept on table.Vijay took out gun, two bullets and three knives from that bag.Ashok and Anil then came out.Vijay and Narendra followed them.They were standing outside.After some time Babu came out andhe gave Rs.10,000/- to Vijay.Vijay told Ashok and Narendra tocome on next day to ofce to collect the bag containing weapons.Ashok then saved mobile number of Babu in his mobile.Vijay alsogave mobile numbers of Ashok and Anil to Babu.Then they leftthat place.This confession as recorded therefore shows that it is inconsonance with the story narrated by accused No.10-Babu oraccused No.4-Narendra.Accused No.3-Ashok in his confessionfurther states that on next date at 9.30 a.m., Narendra, Ashok ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 ::: 138 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docreached Amit Travels They found ofce shut.Ashok thereforecalled Babu on mobile and Babu arrived near ofce and wentaway.He returned back with ofce keys and opened the ofce.Hetook out bag containing weapons from drawer of the table andgave it to Narendra and he also gave Rs.10,000/- to Narendra.Ashok then returned home.As directed by Vijay he reached ofce of Amit Travels onnext day.Vijay, Narendra, Amit and Babu were present there.Pratap Godse also arrived and then a boy also came.Pratap toldthem that name of that boy was Addu.He informed them that saidboy would show to them the person to be eliminated and hishouse.On discovery motorcycle, Narendra, Amit and Addu left andreturned after one hour.Narendra and Anil told that Addu hadshown to them subject and his house.Thereafter everybodyreturned to their respective houses.This narration therefore is in consonance with the storynarrated by accused No.4-Narendra.Ashok in confession adds that from 10.00 a.m. till 1.00 ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 ::: 139 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docp.m.on next day and thereafter continuously for 10-15 days, theycontinued to search for subject at Asalpha village Andheri-Ghatkopar link road and subject was not seen.After showing thathouse to accused No.3-Ashok they described to him personality ofsubject and also told that said person was putting tilak of redcolour.These four persons were searching for him separately.Theywere parking their motorcycle infront of a Country Liquor Bar nearbus stop in Asalfa village.They used to pick up the bag (ofweapons) in the morning and used to deposit it back in the ofcein afternoon.During this period they used to take food at Kamalhotel.These eforts were being informed by Vijay to Pratap usingmobile of Ashok and Anil.Pratap used to scold them.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::This therefore shows that confession by accused No.3 isin consonance with the facts disclosed by other accused personsin their confessions.On 2.3.2007 these four persons reached ofce ofPratap.Anil demanded money from Vijay.Vijay refused.Anil gotangry and left the place.Therefore, Ashok, Vijay and Narendracollected bag and reached Asalpha village.As usual they weremoving separately in search of subject person.Vijaycommunicated this to Pratap on telephone.Pratap told them toimmediately go to house of that person.In the afternoon at 3.30they reached his house.That person was sitting with 3-4 men.Hence, they had to wait again.After one hour, Ashok went nearthe said house and found that said person was sitting alone onchair.He came back and told it to Vijay and Narendra.Vijay andNarendra then entered the lane and went into the toilet located onleft hand turn.Vijay took out the gun from bag in hand of Ashokand loaded one bullet in it.He placed other bullet in his pocket.He(Ashok) and Narendra also took a knife each in their custody.He(Ashok) concealed his knife in socks.Ashok stood near window while Vijay and Narendrawent ahead towards door of house.Narendra stood outside thedoor.Vijay took out his revolver and came near room.He fred onebullet on said man.After hearing sound of bullet, running, theycame out.Narendra started motorcycle and other two sat pillion.They escaped and reached one lane in Narayan Nagar, They left ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 ::: 141 Judg.He also states that his uncle Vijay Giri and his maternalnephew Narendra @ Kandi (both accused) ply auto-rikshaw.A police case is registered against Anilat Kurar police station.He supports the story that Vijay made acall and brought everybody together.He received phone call fromVijay on his mobile No.9323709336 and he was told to come at10.00 am at Dindoshi Bus depot next day.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docaccused persons.He thereafter gives his version that initially hehad tried to dissuade Vijay but then Vijay told him that he wouldget Rs.50,000/- and he had to only drive the motor bike.As heneeded money for the marriage of his sister, he agreed.Vijay thentold him to wait near his house at Film City Road, VagheshwariMandir on the but stop.Next day, Vijay and Narendra came bybus.One person came there on motor cycle and Vijayintroduced that person as Babu.Babu went on foot somewhereand came back after short time.He had brought a key and openedthe ofce.Vijay and Narendera went into the ofce with Babu.Heand Ashok were standing outside.Vijay and Narendra came outafter some time and informed that they had a look at the material(weapons) and Anil and Ashok can also have look at it.All fouraccused again went in the ofce.In the ofce, Vijay opened aplastic bag and showed them one gun, two bullets and threeknives.At that time, apart from Babu, two other persons were also ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 ::: 144 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docpresent in the ofce.Afterwards, Anil and Ashok came out andshortly thereafter Vijay and Narendra came out.Babu then camout and paid to Vijay Rs.10,000/-.Vijay gave Anil's mobilenumber 9323709336 and mobile number of Ashok i.e.9224676768 to Babu.Then they returned home.On way, Vijaypaid Rs. 1,000/- to him.On the next day, Vijay called on his mobile andinformed that Narendra would come on bike to pick up Anil andboth of them should reach the ofce.On the next day he andNarendra came to the ofce on bike.Thereafter Vijay and Ashokcame there.One boy came to ofce and the person sitting in theofce introduced that boy as Addu.That person explained thatAddu would show to them the concerned person and place.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docdrew their attention to him.That person had a red colour "tilak"on his forehead and Addu told them that the said person alwaysapplied tilak like that only.That person went towards his house onfoot.All three then returned to ofce and told it to Vijay andAshok.When he watched the television news,he learnt that Kamlakar Jamsandekar, Shivsena Corporater wasmurdered at Asalpha village.On the second day, Vijay invitedhim on telephone at Borivali National Park.He reached there inthe afternoon.Suresh Patil has statedin his confession that he is also known as Mothi Bank.He isresiding since his birth in Byculla, Dagdi chawl.Since 1997 he hasbeen working as watchman on main gate of Dagdi chawl of ArunGawli gang.He used to check people coming to meet Arun Gawliand regulated their entry.A person by name Sada Pavle hadplaced him as mathadi kamgar at Vashi Market with PW-25Vishwanath Ingale.He and Vishwanath were not working at Vashimarket but still getting salary.He was doing private jobs of Sada ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 ::: 147 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docPavle for this obligation.As he did not get any other job, hestarted working for Arun Gawali gang.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::Since 2001, Arun Gawali entrusted him work of lookingafter fnancial afairs.Arun Gawali used to pay him Rs.15,000/-p.m.for it.He was also getting paid for his additional expenses.Hewas popularly known as Mothi Bank.Arun Gawali and members ofhis gang used to collect extortion money from builders and cableoperators.People / victims of extortion were threatened bybringing them to Bhajanachi kholi located on ground foor of Gitaibuilding in Dagdi chawl.Some secret works of Arun Gawligang were transacted from second foor of Gitai building whereofce of Arun Gawli was located.As per instructions of ArunGawali, motor vehicles, motor cycles were purchased in the nameof various persons and those persons were paid monthlyallowances through funds with Arun Gawali.These vehicles wereused for gang work.The members of Arun Gawali Gang and ofce bearers ofAkhil Bhartiya Sena used to furnish information from their regionto Arun Gawali.Motiram Mahadik, resident of Mandar NiketanChawl, Byculla; working for gang used to collect ransom amount ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 ::: 148 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docfrom builders and deposit it with him.Similarly, Sunil Ghate(accused no. 20) and Babu Dige used to collect amount of Rs.1.5lakhs every month from cable operator Arun kumar Singh (PW-6)of Mazgoan and deposited it with him for Gawali gang.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::Pappu Savla and his partners Pankaj Shah, VinodBhagat, who were running Matka business, Jaya Bhagat runningKalyan Matka used to provide fnancial assistance to Arun Gawaligang.Hence their gang had killed Vasant Shah and Manish Shahat the instance of these parties.Because of this Pappu Chawlaused to pay Rs.5 Lakhs every month while Jaya Bhagat used topay Rs.1.5 lakhs every month to the gang.Prabhakar Raut of theirgang residing at Dagdi chawl used to collect money from PappuSavla while Suhas Rege used to collect amount from Jaya Bhagat.Either he (Suresh Patil) or then Vishwanath Hinge(PW-25) used to make entries of these amounts in diaries.Out offunds so accumulated, payments to members of gang andrelatives of deceased gang members, ofce bearers of AkhilBhartiya Sena, salaries of watchman, security and expenses ofdinner, breakfast of visitors were defrayed.Apart from this, entireexpenditure of family of Arun Gawali and their other expenseswere also entered into in small diaries by him.He then pointed out the elections conducted on10/1/2007 in Mumbai Mahanagar Telephone Limited.His narrationis in consonance with narration of accused No.9-Sandeep Ganganand it is therefore not necessary to reproduce it here.Accused No. 15 (Suresh Patil) then disclosed that inMarch 2007 Pratap Godse and Ajit Rane were arrested inconnection with murder of Kamlakar Jamsandekar.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docAfter Arun Gawali was arrested in April 2008, they allstarted keeping away from Dagdi chawl.As directed by accusedno.20 Sunil Ghate, he took in possession diaries in which accountswere mentioned, attendance registers, two mobile phones ofNokia Company of Arun Gawali from ofce on second foor.Heplaced all these articles in a bag and handed over that bag toAnkush Gharkar, resident of frst foor of Gitai Building at Dagdichawl.Thereafter he left Mumbai and went to Pune frst andthereafter to Aurangabad and lastly to his native place.Police arrested him on 26/6/2008 and handed over toCrime Branch , Mumbai.He then took out said bag in presence ofpanch witnesses and gave it to police.He also states that because of terror of Arun Gawali andunder instructions of Advocate, earlier he had stated that he wasnot giving confessional statement.However, later on he startedrepenting for his mistakes and hence voluntarily, he gaveconfessional statement.Confession of accused 11 Dinesh Narkar is recorded byDCP PW- 20 Shri Yadav Dhum.This accused, in his confessionstatement recorded on 5/6/2008 submitted that he was 23 years ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 ::: 152 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docold and residing in Room No.46, 4th foor, Sanjivini Prasad,Khedgalli at Prabhadevi.He has taken education up to 11 thstandard from Elphistan College and then worked in diferentcompanies.Ofences were registered against him at Dadar, Worliand Crime Branch.As he was visiting Dagdi Chawl, he wasknowing workers of Akhil Bhartiya Sena and its ofce bearers asalso some gundas.He got acquainted with Kurla Taluka VicePresident of Akhil Bhartiya Sena Ajit Rane, resident of Sakinakaand its North-East region President Pratap Godse.Thereafter heused to visit ofce of Ajit Rane at Parerawadi, Sakinaka.In thatofce he got acquainted with Babu Gurav and Mohd. Sharif @Guddu.One Sanni Shirodkar in his area introduced him to PradeepShinde.He was aware that crimes were registered against PradeepShinde.In June 2005, he took Pradeep Shinde to ofce of Ajit Raneand introduced him to Pratap Godse, Ajit Rane, Babu Gurav, Pintu,Mohd.In May 2006 he, Pratap Godse, Babu Gurav and RajaGulekar went to Kharepatan in Tata Sumo of Ajit Rane.There theymet Ramchandra @ Dhaktya - a relative of Babu Gurav and wentwith him to village Vilaye in Rajapur.He learnt that Pratap thenhad inquired with a person by name Panchal about manufacturing ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 ::: 153 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.doca gun.On next day Pratap Godse paid Rs.3,000/- as advance tosaid Panchal.Record at Ex. 170Coll.show payment of entertainment duty for years 1993 to 1998but the same are in the name of Sunny Cable Services.There is nomaterial to show that either PW-11 or accused 11 were at any timeassociated with this business.Omissions brought out in paragraph7 of his cross-examination are not fatal.Establishment ofChandrakant Shah is named as "Angel Photo".Mahendra Shah isrelative of Chandrakant Shah and known to Mahesh.He denied that when Gawali is in jail, Sunil Ghatelooked after the gang afairs & he (Vishwanath) was afraid of Sunil.He has been cross-examined and stated that there were7 buildings in Dagdi Chawl.After arrest of Arun, police hadcontinuously summoned him and 30 persons from Dagdi chawl tocrime branch unit III.After 2 months of thecommencement of trial, Shri Dhamankar had asked him to cometo ofce of crime branch with preparation to stay for two days andaccordingly, he stayed there.During that period he was asked notto leave that ofce & a person by name Gharkar was also there.(Ankush Gharkar is PW-10).Portion marked "A" to "D" in his policestatement militate with his denial thereof as noted supra.Hisstatement under S. 164 CrPC at Ex. 308 shows that he wascautioned fully by metropolitan magistrate on lines as adoptedwhile recording confession of the accused u/S/ 18 of MCOCA andthen he was given time till 22.7.2008 to think & make up his mindagain.On next day he was again made aware about theconsequences and to ward of wrong infuence or misconceptions,if any on him.This statement under S. 164 CrPC by him is inconsonance with the story put by Spl.Ex. 308 shows that Sada Pawle was a goonda of ArunGawli who arranged for his employment and employment of ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 ::: 164 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docSuresh Patil (accused 15) with APMC.Monthly wage of Rs. 3500 to4000/ was being received by them without reporting to APMC.Inreturn, both of them used to do household work of Sada Pawle.In1998, Arun Gawali was released from jail and boys in Dagdi Chawlstarted sitting on gate as "watchers" ie as guards.He & SureshPatil learnt that said boys might be getting Rs. 1000/ to 1500/ assalary, hence they also started sitting on gate.However they werenot paid salary for two months.In absence of Arun Gawali, SunilGhate used to look after the gang work.Arun Gawali then gavework of managing fanancial afairs of the gang to Suresh Patil.Asasked for by Suresh Patil, he started helping him.Entry of name ofperson giving money was written in the small diaries Accounts ofincome & expenditure were written.Arun Gawali was residing withfamily on third foor of Gitai building and had his ofce on 4 th & 2ndfoor Ofce of ABS was in ground foor & party afairs or monetarytransactions were carried out in it.There were two rooms in thename of Arun Gawli & Sunil Ghate which were joined together toform a "Bhajanachi Kholi" ie room for singing prayers.Builders,Cable operators & Merchants were threatened to fx the quantumof monthly protection money in that room.Goondas of Arun Gawali by name Motiram Mahadik and ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 ::: 165 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docSudhir Ghorgade used to bring the ransom from builders andperson by name Lallya used to help them.Sunil Ghate & BabuDige used to collect extortion amount from cable operators.PappuSawal & Jaya Bhagat used to assist Gawali gang fnanciallythrough Motiram Mahadik & Suhas Rege.In "navrartri celebration"& "Dahihandi kala", large sums were extorted from traders ascontribution.Out of fund so collected, the goons & families ofthose killed, were given help.Expenditure on festival, salaries ofstaf, watchmen, of ABS branch presidents, purchase of new cars,funds spent on fuel etc. was written in diaries by them.ArunGawali used to inspect those diaries.On 12 th July, 2008, ShriDound of Crime branch, Unit 3 called him & diaries 1 to 12 alreadyseized were shown to him.He then identifed his & Suresh'shandwriting in it.Shri Dound then inquired whether he(Vishwanath) would disclose whatever he told to him in court &Vishwanath agreed.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::PW-9 Amrut is witness on discovery after disclosure byaccused 15 Suresh Patil u/S. 27 of the diaries containing theaccounts from custody of PW-10 Ankush.Accused 15 has inpresence of PW-9 volunteered to handover the bag containing theaccounts & documents of Arun Gawali gang which was left by him ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 ::: 166 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docwith his friend PW-10 Ankush.There were 10to 12 diaries and some loose papers as also two cell phones.Accused stated that he understood it.Recording of this Part-I statement began at 17.15 hourson 27/5/2008 and it was over at 18.40 hours.At the end of thisstatement signature of accused with date below it appear on righthand side.On left hand side signature of Shri Fadtare with hisname and designation appears.He stayed in Goregaon since childhood & studiedupto 10th standard in Mumbai.He was not knowing anything aboutmurder of late shri Kamlakar Jamsandekar, Shivsena corporator.He did not receive Rs. 1000/- from anybody, especially from Vijay.Vijay his uncle was staying in Dahisar.He (Anil) works as assistantto cameraman in Balaji Teliflms.His signatures were taken onpapers already written & he had not given any statement.He was not knowing anything about the murder ofcorporator Jamsandekar.He does not work with Arun Gawali gang,knows nothing about it & was not knowing the ofce bearers ofAkhil Bhartiya Sena.He was falsely implicated in the matter.308. PW-24-Dattaram Kambli is the SEO who conducted TIparade in which witness PW-7-Manali Hire identifed accused 2 &4 and PW-12 Motilal Chaudhary who identifed accused No.2 VijayGiri, accused No.3-Ashok, accused No.4-Narendra Giri andaccused No.5-Anil Giri; PW-25-Vishwanath Hinge is the resident ofDagadi chawl who used to write the account books recoveredunder panchanama (Exhibit 183) from the house of PW-10-AnkushGharkar at the instance of accused No.15-Suresh Patil.He is also ahostile witness.It ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 ::: 211 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docis contended that location of accused 3 Ashok Jaiswar in area oftower no. 1363 is doubtful since each tower is expected to cater toarea within 5 kms.CDR at Ex. 434 is therefore thecorroborative piece.Ex. 435 is the list of tower addresses and itsbelated production has not caused any prejudice to accused.At 14.15.53 hrs., phone no.9223202133 of Pratap Godse gave a call to 9833873756 of Ajit ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 ::: 212 Judg.Again at 16.48.17hrs.a call has been made from phone no. 9224676768 of Ashokto 9223202133 which carries this tower address.Prosecution haspressed total 16 calls made between 11.42.47 to 22.52.20 hrs.todemonstrate tower location of accused 3 Ashok, accused 12Pratap & other accused persons on 2.3.2007 ie the day on whichthe murder took place.There is no dispute about the other 15calls.Accused No.12-Pratap called accused No.3 at17.14.49 hours and Ashok then had gone upto Navapade lane,Kurla (w).Accused No.12-Pratap then called accused No.10-Shrikrushna at 18.12.58 hours.According to defence,that person / source did not give description of the suspects or thename of jeweler's establishment likely to be robbed whileaccording to prosecution he gave relevant details & was alsopresent at the spot.But then the fact that accused 2 to 5 wereapprehended from the spot disclosed by said source is not indispute.PW-31 Ramesh Bhokare attached to DCB, CID, CIUMumbai received the secret information about dacoity plannednear Govinram Lachhiram Vegetarian Snacks & Thali Restaurant.In his cross examination, fact that the secret informer was alsopresent at the spot of trap has come on record.This person hadearlier also given important information & traps laid weresuccessful.He deposes about the secret intelligence & its sharingwith superiors & laying of a trap as per directions of PSI Sandbhor.After the 4 suspects arrived, upon confrmation from the informer,he entered the above restaurant and sat behind them.He heardtheir plan that Pintu should go in Prakash Gold Palace with his"saman" , he, Kandi & Ashok would follow with their "saman" andafter job got over, he would reach motorcycle with Pintu's "saman"and then they would all meet at Dahisar.She has deposed that on2.3.2007 she returned home from college at 1.30 in the afternoon.Sayali daughter of Komal, this witness and Komal wife of deceasedKamalakar were at home.At 4.00 p.m. Komal left house and atthat time deceased Kamlakar was watching TV.He was sitting inchair near the door of room and this witness was in kitchen.Sheheard sound like bursting of a cracker and turned around.231 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docShe rushed towards Kamlakar shouting to help him.Both unknownpersons ran away towards left side of their residence.Neighboursgathered and someone contacted police.According to her one of theunknown persons was with round face, straight nose andsomewhat black complexion.He was about 5.2" in height andabout 25 years old.Other person had a height of about 5.4" withsimilar complexion and medium built & between 25-30 years ofage.She then pointed out test identifcation paradeconducted on 20/6/2008 at Arthur Road jail.Total 14 persons wereexhibited and in frst round she identifed one as a person whofred upon her uncle i.e. accused No.2-Vijay Giri.On thecontrary, her cross examination shows that 7 persons out of 14were having similar features while remaining 7 had similaritiesamongst themselves.She further stated that all 14 persons didnot look similar to each other.It is to be noted that accused No.4 Anil Kumar andaccused Narendra as also accused No.3-Ashok have givenconfessions and later on attempted to resile from it.Evidence of PW-21 Motiram Kasar shows that in March2007, he was PI at Saki Naka Police Station and he hasinvestigated into the murder of Kamlakar.He had gone to scene ofofence and also taken photographs.When he reached the houseof Kamlakar, its entrance door was closed.He pushed it open andentered inside.He found Kamlakar seated in plastic chair withback towards entrance door and head leaning on left.His lefttemporal region had bleeding injury.He arranged to takephotographs and also identifed the same before the court.He alsopointed out a Scarbutt of fre arm lying on the spot.At 6.35 hrs hegot the information that Kamlakar had passed away.PSI Nalawade recorded the statement of Manali Hire atthe hospital and crime came to be registered vide C.R. No. 82 of ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 ::: 238 Judg.The spot panchanama was also drawn and he found oneletter on the stool in front of the chair.He took that latter inpossession.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::After arrival of the snifng dog, the dog was givensmell of Scarbutt and set out on trail.He returned back afterabout 25 minutes.Finger prints were obtained from the cupboardand scarbutt.He wrapped the scarbutt in khaki paper afterputting it in a plastic bag and then attached the labels bearingsignatures of panchas.He identifed the Scarbutt and alsosignatures on paper slip "1A".During the enquiry, he met Nita Shah and MayureshTandel.He recorded Nita's statement on 11.30 pm on the sameday.Mayuresh Tandel informed the control room about theincident and his statement was recorded after midnight.Heforwarded the cloths of the deceased, Scarbutt and bottlecontaining blood sample to FSL.During the investigation, he found that the murder wascommitted since accused no. 12 Ajit Rane lost the municipalelections.ACP arrested Ajit Rane, Pratap Godse and Ganesh Salve.239 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docAccused 1Arun Gawali is its founder & head, & was elected as MLA withbanner of ABS.This organization or syndicate had an ofce withinmantralaya when accused 1 was MLA & also at Dagadi chawl.It had stafor members to collect the information of the prospective sourcesfor extortion & to summon the heads thereof to "Bhajanachi Kholi"to fx the monthly protection money ie extortion amount.Thisroom was formed by merging rooms belonging to accused 1 ArunGawali & accused 20 Sunil Ghate.(c) Vijay Giri (A-2), Ashokkumar Shivakant Jaiswar (A-3),Narendra @ Kandi @ Lalmani Giri (A-4) and Anil Sherbahadur Giri(A-5) for the ofences punishable under Section 3(2) of MCOC Act,1999 sentencing them to sufer rigorous imprisonment for life andto pay a fne of Rs.5.00 Lacs each, and in default thereof, to suferrigorous imprisonment for three years.(d) Vijay Giri (A-2), Ashokkumar Jaiswar (A-3) and NarendraGiri (A-4) for the ofence punishable under Section 452 read withSection 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced each to suferrigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fne ofRs.5000/- each, and in default to sufer rigorous imprisonment forone year.(e) Vijay Giri (A-2), Ashokkumar Jaiswar (A-3), Narendra Giri(A-4) and Anil Giri (A-5) for the ofence under Section 302 readwith Section 34 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Codeand Section 3(1)(i) of the MCOC Act, 1999 and sentencing each tosufer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fne of Rs.1.00Lac each, and in default to sufer rigorous imprisonment for threeyears.There were total 21 accused before it & accused nos.14,16,17 to 19 were discharged while accused 8,11 & 21 have ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 ::: 11 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docbeen acquitted.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::Test Identifcation Parade wasarranged on 31st May, 2007 and 1st June, 2007 with help ofwitnesses Ms. Nita Shah and Mayuresh Tandel vide Exhibits -470 & 471 collectively.After completion of investigationchargesheet was fled by Sakinaka Police Station against sevenaccused persons in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 ::: 15 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docMumbai.Then the case was committed to the Court ofSessions.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::(h) The statements of some witnesses were recorded.Ofence was registered vide Crime No.118 of 2018 at L.T. MargPolice Station under Sections 399 & 402 of the Indian Penal ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 ::: 16 Judg.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::The statements ofwitnesses also came to be recorded.Muddemal articles weresent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Kalina for analysis.TestIdentifcation (T.I.) parade was arranged by PW-37 ACPDuraphe with the help of PW-33 Divakar Shelke and Special ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 ::: 18 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docchargesheets bearing Nos. 16 of 2008 and 3 of 2009 were alsofled in the said Court.All these cases were tried simultaneously asper the directions of the Special Court.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::They bothaccepted the said contract.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::(q) Shrikrishana (A-10) then took them i.e. AccusedNos.They ofered themRs.2.5 Lacs for committing murder of Kamlakar Jamsandekar.Arun Gawali (A-1) asked Suresh Patil (A-15) to pay Rs. 60,000/-to Pratap Godse (A-12) for paying the said amount to the hiredkillers.Accordingly, Suresh Patil (A-15) gave amount ofRs.60,000/- to Sandeep (A-9) to hand over the same to Pratap(A-12) and Ajit Rane (A-13).Pratap Godse (A-12) and Ajit Rane ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 ::: 21 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.doc(A-13) paid Rs.20,000/- as advance amount to Vijaykumar Giri(A-2) and Narendra Giri (A-4).Pratap Godse (A-12) and AjitRane (A-13) also handed over 12 bore country made handgunto them which they had purchased from Surendra Panchal(A-8), who had a license for repairing arms and ammunition.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::(r) As per the case of prosecution, PW-4 Abdul Rehman@ Addu pointed out Kamlakar Jamsandekar to Vijaykumar Giri(A-2), Ashokkumar Jaiswar (A-3), Narendra Giri (A-4) and AnilGiri (A-5).On 2nd March, 2007, at about 15.30 hours or so,Pratap Godse (A-12) informed to Vijaykumar Giri (A-2)telephonically that Kamlakar Jamsandekar was alone in hishouse, accordingly Vijaykumar (A-2) and Narendra (A-4)entered into the house of Kamlakar.The Special Judge framed charges vide Exh.133.Defence of the Accused is of total denial.The learned SpecialJudge after trial convicted the Accused as detailed supra.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::22 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docSince there is noevidence of any organized crime against accused Nos.1 or thenagainst accused Nos.9, 10 and 15 and murder of KamlakarJamsandekar cannot be viewed as organized crime in which theyhave participated, their confessions need to be disregarded.According to him motive alleged by prosecution isaccused No.13-Ajit Rane loosing ward election & deceasedaccused No.7 Shri Surve and accused No.6 Sahebrao having apersonal grudge against deceased.Learned counsel thus submits that in theentire story, there is no role ascribed to accused No.1 who himselfwas an elected MLA.Accused Nos.6 and 7 gave thecontract to kill Kamlakar to accused Nos.12 and 13 and, accused ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 ::: 23 Judg.Submission is thisstory is highly improbable and does not inspire confdence.He submits thatas per prosecution case new boys(strangers) were engaged asassailants by accused Nos.12 and 13 for this job.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::He has pointed out that evidence of PW-1-Komal, PW-7-Manali, PW-6, PW-10 and PW-11 is relied upon by prosecution.Similarly, PW-19 to PW-21 and PW-29, PW-33 and PW-37 are thepolice ofcers who participated in investigation and detection.None of these witnesses were aware of any act or role of accusedNo.1 in the matter.Our attention is invited to evidence of PW-7-Manali andit is submitted that she could not have, in a fraction of second,seen any accused person or described him or identifed him in testidentifcation parade.The fact that she did not doubt accused ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 ::: 24 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docNos.6 and 7 in the matter of murder of her uncle (Kamalakar) isalso highlighted.It is submitted that though she describedaccused Nos.2 and 4, in test identifcation parade, she has notidentifed correctly concerned accused according to theirdescription given earlier, thus there is material variance betweenher description of accused Nos.2 & 4 and persons identifed assaid accused persons in test identifcation parade.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::Our attention is also drawn to evidence of PW-6 ArunKumar who is cable operator.It is pointed out that he speaks of aphone call allegedly coming from "Dagadi chawl" to "Daddy".According to him the demand was communicated by accusedNo.20 Sunil and this witness also identifed accused No.20 inCourt.Omissions during his deposition are pressed into servicewith submission that this call was made way back in 1998 and assuch his deposition does not inspire confdence.By pointing out the evidence on record, it is submittedthat this witness was not concerned with Ashish Vision Cable andbusiness was being managed by one Reshimbai.There is no reference to SunnyCable in his statement under section 164 of Cr.P.C. and he has ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 ::: 25 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docaccepted that Reshimbai was owner of Ashish Vision Cable.Hecould not remember any building by name Gitai building.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::Learned Senior advocate Gupte submits that pressurewas brought upon this witness by giving him impression that hewould be made accused and statement under section 164 ofCr.P.C. came to be procured.We are taken through that statementto show how the atmosphere of fear and tension was created inthe mind of this witness.Inspite of recording his statement,learned JMFC has recorded his confession and as such his evidenceis liable to be discarded.Not only this, PW-6 has complained aboutextortion almost after 10 years and his story therefore isunbelievable.PW-9 Amrut Patil examined as panch on discovery ofdiaries by accused No.15 Suresh under section 27 of the EvidenceAct is also read out to show that he does not support story ofprosecution that accused No.15 was writing entries in said diary.Itis submitted that this witness has also deposed only aboutmaintaining of diaries.Maintaining the diary does not implymaking entries therein.The diaries and papers allegedlydiscovered were not sealed and therefore writing of page numbers ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 ::: 26 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docupon it by Investigating Ofcer does not inspire confdence.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::PW-9 Amrut in cross examination has accepted that hewas made to sign 50-60 papers.In normal circumstances he couldnot have been required to make such large number of signatures.These diaries and papers were allegedly in custody ofPW-10 Ankush.He was declared hostile and his deposition showsthat he does not know accused No.15 Suresh or PW-25Vishwanath.He has signed as directed by police and he also statesthat portions marked "A" and "B" in his statement are incorrect.Hehas denied events recorded in Exhibit 183-A and also denied bag ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 ::: 27 Judg.He has stated that he cannot read and pointed outthreats given to him by police.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::Shri Gupte therefore submits that efort made byprosecution to reach accused No.1 on the basis of evidence of PW-9 and PW-10 cannot succeed.Our attention is invited to evidence of PW-11 Mr.Ramchandra Jayram Gurav.As perstory of prosecution this witness made open enquirers everywhere about availability of illegal gun and in the process reachedaccused No.8-Surendra.He also pointed out advance paid toSurendra at Village Vilaye.However, he identifedthe same almost after 4 years and also identifes its missing butt.His identifcation of article 12 is therefore liable to be discarded.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::28 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docThe gun was procured in May 2006 and at that time theconsiderations like Corporation elections in the year 2007 oroutcome thereof did not exist & could not have been visualized.Conduct of this witness is also assailed by pointing outcomplaint made by him to Kanakavali Police Station almost after15 days of the incident.In that complaint this witness has statedthat he was paid amount of Rs.25,000/- for not disclosing the factsto police.He did not go to police immediately after the threat oracceptance of amount by him.He did not go to police stationwhich was easily accessible but reports the matter at a far ofpolice station.Material omission in his deposition are also pointedout.It is submitted that the police did not at that juncture seizethe cheque for the amount given to him.This witness was himselfdetained by police and enquiries were made with him thrice.Hemet accused in Court after August 2008 and had no contact withaccused No.10 in the meanwhile.He had gone to ofce of AmitTravels on 2.6.2006 and his family had two mobiles.Evidence of PW-5 Pradip is also read out to show howprosecution has tried to introduce a false story through him.This ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 ::: 29 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docwitness claims to be friend of accused Vijay and in 2007 he wasofered allegedly amount of Rs.2 Lakhs and a revolver to killdeceased.According to this witness ofer was given beforeelection and he turned it down as amount of Rs.2 Lakhs wasinadequate.But he submitted that as per his deposition heassisted Bhartiya Kamgar Sena in elections and paid Rs.25,000 forit.Learned Senior advocate submits that evidence of this witnesscould not have been accepted by trial Court.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::Vishwanath-PW-25 explained that accused No.1 ArunGawali also known as "Daddy" had a contact with him.Evidence of PW-28 Ketan is criticized by pointing outomission and by stating that this witness was paying ransomallegedly on behalf of some other person for several years andnever complained about it.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::30 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docIt is submitted that thus evidence available againstaccused No.1 is not sufcient to show his involvement in anyorganized crime.He has then invited our attention to othermaterial with submission that said material is only in the shape ofconfessions recorded allegedly under section 18 of MCOCA.Hepointed out that confession of accused No.10 Shrikrishna isrecorded by DCP-PW-19 and a farce has been made to show thatrequirements of section 18 of MCOCA are satisfed.Certifcatewhich should be placed at the end of such confession, has beenadded later on vide Exhibit 251-B and it is not part of confession.No signature of accused is obtained upon it.Accused was produced before the Court on 17/6/2008and on that day he has withdrawn/ retracted his confession.Evidence of PW-19 Shri Fadtare shows that atmosphereon the day of recording of confession on 27/5/2008 or on28/5/2008 was not neutral.Staf of Mahim police station wasalready present at the ofce of PW-19 as if they were knowing inadvance that accused No.10 was to be brought there, he was to ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 ::: 31 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docagree to make confession and he was to be placed with them.Thereforeonly duration of his custody or time given to him to reconsider,has not been brought on record through documents like stationdiary entries.Medical record which formed part of confessionproceedings recorded on 27/5/2008 should have been produced.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::Learned Senior advocate contends that in order to fallunder section 18, confession has to be of main crime and notpertaining to peripheral afairs.Hence mention of accused No.1by accused No.10 is inconsequential.The alleged confession made by accused No.9 is alsochallenged on identical grounds.The letter dated 29/5/2008prepared for this purpose shows non application of mind andmention of accused No.10 in it is its example.It is furthersubmitted that in letter dated 27/5/2007, the year 2007 recorded ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 ::: 32 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docis wrong.Misleading question was put to him as question No.8since accused No.9 was actually continuing in custody ofinvestigating ofcer.As per this witness, murder has taken placeafter 20 days of election.As per deposition of this witnesselections were over on 10/1/2007 & thus he is not speaking ofKamalakar's murder.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::Accused No.9 has claimed that he paid amount ofRs.60,000/- to family of accused but then this story is far fromfrom truth.If any bag containing Rs.30 lakhs was handed over toaccused No.1, police did not produce it and words put in mouth ofaccused No.1 that work of Jamsandekar would be done as anassurance, are spoken of only by accused No.9 and by nobodyelse.Before 30.1.2007, the alleged assurance was given whenthere was no occasion for the same.Occasion arose on 2.3.2007as per story of prosecution when elections were conducted.Thusprosecution has fabricated a false story.Evidence of PW-29 who recorded confessionalstatement of accused No.9 is also read out with similar argumentsas noted supra while dealing with confession of accused No.10-Shrikrishna.Though accused No.9 was given time to deliberate,said fact is not recorded in the proceedings of confession.Even ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 ::: 33 Judg.It is further submitted that neitherconfession nor verifcation at its end were allowed to be read byany of the accused persons and the certifcate on last page aboutrecording of confession peacefully in neutral atmosphere isincorrect.The confession statement was not read over to accusedand even certifcate was not explained to him.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::After confession was recorded, accused No.9 was sentto Competent Court with duty constable and roznama dated21/5/2018 shows that he had refused to sign vakalatnama.He hadtherefore already retracted the confession and he has deposedabout it when his section 313 Cr.P.C. statement was recorded.Inviting attention to order sheet recorded on 21.5.2008, learnedsenior advocate states that the present accused no. 9, who thenwas accused no. 7, had refused to sign vakalatnama and even inanswer to section 313 Cr.P.C. examination on 04/01/2012,retracted the alleged confession.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::34 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docAccused no. 15 Suresh had also on 15/7/2008 beforeSpecial Judge immediately withdrawn his confession.He statesthat both these accused persons only give hearsay evidence ofthe alleged conversation or the alleged handing over of money.None of them has role in the murder of Kamlakar and they do notin any way connect accused no. 1 with that murder.31. PW-18 has recorded the confession of accused no. 15.But he does not advance the cause of the prosecution.15 also has on 4.1.2012 at the stage of section 313 Cr.P.C.examination submitted a letter to the trial court and retracted theconfession.He has also withdrawn his confession on 26.6.2008 atthe time of frst remand.In this backdrop, learned advocatepointed out that the trial court has not placed any reliance uponthe accounts and diaries allegedly maintained by accused no. 15and hence, so called confession of accused no. 15 is rendereduseless.Evidence of PW-33 Investigating Ofcer Mr. Shelke ispointed out to show that the very same crime at Sakinaka hasbeen later on used by Crime Detection Branch.The Omissions ofwitnesses like PW-10 Ankush Gharkar and PW-25 Vishwanath are ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 ::: 35 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docproved through him.This witness was not sure of applicability ofMCOCA and mechanically proceeded further.Accused no. 1 ArunGavli was arrested on 20.05.2008 and in the order passed onthat day at Exh. 421, he could not have been shown as arrested.Thus there is manipulation as also non-application of mind.Therewas no change in the material from 30.04.2008 till 16.05.2008 andstill MCOCA has been invoked.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::Only source isaccused with their confessions and as such accused are entitledto the beneft of this error.The source of information has beendeliberately suppressed with an oblique motive.PW-35 Hasan Gafoor who granted sanction at Exh. 439on 17.7.2008 only mentions about the chargesheets fled in court ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 ::: 36 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docbut does not mention whether cognizance thereof was taken ornot.The nature of crime in those chargesheets is therefore, notrelevant & the sanction order therefore is also vitiated.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::These accused persons have not given anywillingness till 20.05.2008 for giving their confession and PW-37has given wrong date about it.The fact that accused no. 11 Narkar has withdrawn hisconfession before Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 5.6.2008 ishighlighted by him.Learned senior counsel argues that the trialcourt has acquitted this accused no. 11 as there is no evidence ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 ::: 37 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docagainst him except that of retracted confession and twoconfessions of co-accused.He pointed out that PW-37 wasnot aware of retraction before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::He submits that PW-33Shelke and PW-37 Duraphe who have investigated into thematter, did not act fairly and impartially.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::He submits that the alleged grudge against thedeceased entertained by the defeated corporater (Accused No. 13Ajit Rane), land dispute of deceased accused no. 7 with Kamlakarand dispute with accused no. 6 Sahebrao Bhintade are thereasons given by the prosecution.Accused no. 6 was onceregarded as a political guru of Kamlakar.He states that as perprosecution, accused no. 7 and 6 together approached accusednos.She has deposedabout the previous elections and position of rival parties.She did notdisclose to the court or to the police, the fles with her husbandthough she took period of 10 minutes to answer question ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 ::: 40 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docpertaining to it.She has expressed no doubt on anybody andaccepted that accused no. 6 did canvass for her in the electionheld to fll in seat which became vacant due to death ofKamalakar.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::Accused no.7 (deceased) Bala Survewas raising unauthorized structures.Deceased had expressedthreats & insecurity perceived by him.He has deposed about two incidents which according to thiswitness show fear in the mind of Kamlakar but then he did notbring those incidents to the notice of PW-1 Komal.In relation to the deposition of PW-7 Manali, Shri Patilpoints out that except the alleged whispering of general public atfuneral about the role of accused nos. 6 and 7 in the murder ofKamlakar Jamsandekar, no other evidence exists.He took us ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 ::: 41 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docthrough relevant portions contained in the alleged confessions ofaccused no. 10 Shrikrishna @ Bali, accused no. 9 Sandeep @Sandi, the confession of accused no. 15 Suresh Patil to argue thatexcept in confession of accused no. 9, there is no reference toaccused no. 6 anywhere in those confessions.He contends thatthe evidence of PW-7 Manali and these retracted confessions aretherefore, insufcient to support conviction of accused no. 6Sahebrao Bhintade.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::421 dated 20.05.2008, accused no.6 is projected as part ofsyndicate of accused no. 1 in preamble itself.This mention runscounter to the motive pleaded by the prosecution.He has invited ourattention to sanction order and pointed out that it presumes thatthe conspiracy was hatched and accused no. 6 had aided andabetted in it.This observation is perverse.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::42 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docThe chargesheetExh.275 in relation to murder of Kamlakar was fled on 7.6.2007and thereafter no permission was obtained from JMFC toinvestigate further into the matter.He states that after MCOC ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 ::: 43 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docinvestigation, some accused named in Saki Naka chargesheethave been discharged and others continued in MCOCchargesheet.This IO had not arrested accused no. 6 or accusedno.The investigation papers were sent toDCB CID Unit III in April, 2008 and were also received back at thattime.DCB CID Unit III was investigating the Crime No. 66 of 2008dated 26.4.2008 in which it had arrested accused nos. 2 to 5 onthe same day on the charge of attempted dacoity.Theprosecution claims that on 26.4.2008, gun without scarbutt wasfound in that crime.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::If the photographs taken on that spot showexistence of scarbutt, such photographs should have beenproduced before the trial court and there was no need to suppressthe same.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::44 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docThis witness PW-21-Motiram Kasar recorded statementsof relatives and personal assistant of deceased to gather motivebehind the murder of Kamlakar Jamsandekar.PW-1 widow and PW-2 associate of the deceased did not give any useful information inrelation to Saki Naka crime.He points out that the sketch ofaccused persons drawn with the help of Nita Shah and MayureshTandel was not shown to PW-1 Komal or PW-7 Manali.Nita Shahand Mayuresh Tandel are not witnesses in the MCOC trial.Three teams were formed with defned duty-limits which investigated into the murder of KamlakarJamsandekar and then chargesheet was fled.Learned counselrelies upon paragraph 38 of cross examination of this witness tourge that Kamlakar was using a gun for hunting animals and thescarbutt if found on the spot, could have been of the gun ofKamlakar only.PW-32 Arun Kirtavade has deposed that furtherinvestigation was carried out by PW-21 Kasar and statement ofPW-7 Manali was recorded in hospital.Exhibit 276 is pressed intoservice to show that three unknown persons assailed the deceased ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 ::: 45 Judg.Learned counsel argues that there might have beenproperty dispute amongst family members of Kamlakar and thisangle is not investigated into.Nita Shah though eye witness, hasnot been examined with oblique motive.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::The deposition of PW-7 Manali is again read out tosubmit that it does not inspire confdence and she has in testidentifcation parade identifed accused with other description.Thus description & role of respective accused given by her doesnot apply to the concerned accused & proves confusion in hermind.It is urged that PW-33 IO Shelke was instrumental ininvoking MCOCA.Vide Exh. 416,permission under section 173(8) Cr.P.C. came to be granted byInvestigating Ofcer himself and a new crime vide CR No. 69 of2008 was registered.This was therefore, second FIR for the samecrime.About 17 days after its registration, accused no. 10 wasarrested.Trial court was never approached with a request as ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 ::: 46 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docrequired under section 173(8) Cr.P.C. The judgment reported at2013 (5) SCC 762- Vinay Tyagi vs. Irshad Ali is pressed intoservice by learned counsel.Similarly police authorities at Saki Naka andat DCB CID Unit III have carried out investigation which prejudicesthe case of other agency.Saki Naka Police did not hold any testidentifcation parade to enable PW-7 Manali to identify accusedpersons.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::Learned counsel Taraq Sayed submits that theprosecution has to explain relations between accused no. 12 and13 on one hand and accused no. 10 Shrikrishna Gurav as alsoaccused no. 8 on the other hand.He states that as per prosecution, PW-4 Abdul wasused by the accused 2 to 5 to reach house of deceased Kamlakarand he could identify accused no. 4, accused Anil and accused no.10 Shrikrishna.He accepted that there were hoardings depicting ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 ::: 47 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docKamlakar in the area and Kamlakar was a known fgure.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::PW-11 Ramchandra Gurav does not deserve anycredence.It was not necessary for accused no. 12 Pratap to givephone number of accused no. 10 Balu to PW-11 Ramchandra.PW-11 Ramchandra and accused no. 10 Balu are relatives of eachother.Commenting upon the conduct of PW-11, Adv.TaraqSayed submits that PW-11 was enquiring openly for gun and metseveral persons, still he did not remember any name.The entireconduct of PW-11 is unnatural.His statement shows that he wasaware of the place where the gun was concealed and that gunwas left at the hidden place itself.It was not carried either byDinesh Narvekar or accused no. 10 Babu further to Mumbai.Thatgun was not with accused 2 to 5 for the purpose of the murder ofKamalakar.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::48 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docAccording to learned counsel, accused no. 13 had nocase in the year 2007 and there was no efort made to trace outthe cartridges.He states that the cartridges left in the gun afterthe bullet is fred.He further argues that there is no evidence toconnect gun recovered on 26/4/2008 from accused nos. 2 to 5with the gun procured from accused no. 8 Surendra.Learned counsel states that there, he has referred tocountry made revolver while weapon in the present crime is ahandmade gun.Thus the same weapon was not shownto this witness Ramesh in Court.The date on label found in sealedpacket noted in the court proves tampering and planting of theScarbutt in the present crime.He submits that the deposition ofPW-27 Ajay Joshi who claims that the weapon was sealed on26/4/2008 is unbelievable as that seal has to be seal of CID.Hisdeposition shows systematic procedure followed while receivingthe weapon and bullets for examination.He has mentioned that ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 ::: 49 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docExh.196 was a12 bore shotgun.The weapon was sealed by CIDand still he does not mention the seal by CID.He accepted thesamples as the seal of forwarding authorities and specimen sealmatched.However, there was no sample sent on 3/6/2008 andthere was no seal of CID.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::Learned counsel states that as per PW-13 6yamsunderMunj handgun seized on 26/4/2008 and scarbutts recovered on2.3.2007 were sent together.This witness has accepted that"empty" remains in the frearm.There has been no investigationto trace out the cartridges left in the gun on 2.3.2007 after thebullet was fred on Kamlakar.This witness accepts that the countrymade guns do not leave any mark for investigation onpallets/bullets.Scarbutt therefore was not associated with anyweapon.He has read out the evidence of this witness to urge thatthe handgun could not have been and has not been connectedwith the murder of Kamlakar at all.Lastly he points out that there are no confessionsagainst accused nos. 12 and 13 and hence, accused nos. 12 and13 deserve to be acquitted.He draws support from the judgmentreported at AIR 1964 SC 1184 Haricharan Kurmi vs. State ofBihar to state that confession is strictly not an evidence & ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 ::: 50 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docconfession of co-accused can not be relied upon unless there isother incriminating evidence against the accused.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::Learned counsel Adv.E.A.Sasi appearing for accusedno.10 in appeal no. 1093 OF 2012 points out that accused no. 10has been acquitted under the Arms Act and only charge againsthim is of conspiracy and of being member of a syndicate.Accused no.10 was arrested on 18/4/2008 in Crime No. 52 of 2008 by DCB CIDUnit III.Accused no. 10 or PW-11 could have no ideawhy gun was required and PW-11 was not member of anysyndicate.He has given a false story.Paragraph 12 of hisdeposition is relied upon for this purpose.It is submitted that healso came up with a false story of threat to him and of payment ofRs.25,000/-.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::51 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docEvidence ofPW-19 Dnyaneshwar Phadtare who recorded that confession isalso read out for this purpose and with a contention that nodocuments to show compliance with the procedure are producedon record.Advocate Pasbola for accused no.9 Sandeep andaccused no. 15 Suresh has submitted that only evidence againstaccused no. 9 is his own confession and two other confessions.Accused no. 9 has not admitted any guilt and as such hisstatement cannot be read as confession.He has not beenconvicted under section 302 or section 120B IPC and is notinvolved in any organized crime.He reads out charges as framed.The ffth charge distinguishedaccused no. 9 from the others.Confession of accused no. 15 Suresh Patil is also not ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 ::: 52 Judg.He draws support from judgmentreported at (1999) 5 SCC 253--State vs. Nalini.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::He points out that all confessions allegedly recordedare after the unexplained and sudden change of heart that too atthe fag end of period of police custody.These confessions aredoubtful.All accused persons were making applications to retracttheir confessions and one of them even was not permitted toobtain legal advice.There is no CDR of anycall made by accused no. 1 to any other accused and vice versa.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::53 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docThe alleged diary maintained by accused no. 15Suresh or PW-25 Vishwanath are inconsequential.PW-10 Ankushdoes not support recovery thereof and there is no handwritingexpert to associate accused no. 10 with it.Advocate V. Sharda appearing for accused nos. 2 to 5has submitted that the story of obtaining intelligence aboutattempted dacoity on 26/4/2008 is unbelievable.The persongiving secret information did not furnish description of any offve suspects, name of the jewelry shop to be robbed and in thatsituation, contention of prosecution that it trapped accused nos. 2to 5 at 3.30 pm is unbelievable.Story of fnding of handgun withcartridges and knives with them and its recovery is unacceptable.Even station diary entry Exh. 316 is vague.Shepoints out that PW-26 Pancha on recovery is a pet witness and hedid not remember any details.His story about the sealing on spotcannot be accepted as there is no material and station diary entryto show that seals were removed from police station to the spot.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::54 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docShe claims that this weapon was described by Ramesh Bhokarein his deposition in Sessions Case No. 482 of 2008 as a revolver.She has taken us through the deposition of PW-26 toshow that he does not even identify the accused persons fromwhom respective material was seized.According to him,panchanama of seizure drawn on 26.4.2008 is not at all proved bythe prosecution.She points out that surprisingly the motor cycleallegedly used in attempted dacoity was made over onsupratnama to its true owner.Evidence of API PW-No. 27 is also attacked by urgingthat he contradicts PW-31 Bhokare.PW-27 states that the CrimeNo. 118 of 2008 was registered at LT Marg Police Station whileCrime No. 66 of 2008 was recorded at DCB CID ofce.Evidence ofPW-17, PW-21 does not inspire confdence as their 161 Cr.P.C.statements are recorded belatedly.Advocate Sharda submits that the seizure panchanamaExh.311 was drawn between 15.40 hrs to 17.45 hrs on 26.4.2008 ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 ::: 55 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docwhile station diary entry of Sakinaka Police Station shows thatthe papers were sent by Saki Naka Police Station to District CrimeBureau at 16.40 hrs.This shows a plan & tampering with adesign to falsely implicate accused nos. 2 to 5 since FIR itself hasbeen recorded at 19.15 hrs.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::In this backdrop, she has taken us through evidence ofPW-14 and she argues that Saki Naka police had correctlycompleted the investigation and arrested diferent persons asassailants.She relies upon the test identifcation parade bySakinaka Police Station on 31.5.2007 and on 10.06.2007 and itsoutcome.She further states that in test identifcation paradeconducted on 20.6.2018, witnesses like Nita and Mayuresh werenot invited.She has then pointed out how accused nos.3, 4 and 5have retracted their confessions immediately.She submits thatthere is no sign of any accused person at the end of the statutorycertifcate which is required to be given by police ofcer recordingsuch confession.Eforts made by accused persons even at ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 ::: 56 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docsection 313 stage, torture pointed out by accused no. 2 Vijay arepressed into service by her.She states that accused no. 3 Ashokwas in fact arrested on 25.4.2008 and he has also pointed out historture.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::She points out that Exh. 435 wasproduced by this witness for the frst time in court though suchproduction was objected to by the accused.Learned counsel states that though serious objection wasraised, the trial court has ignored it and Exh. 435 has been lookedinto.This witness has not placed his seal or sign on CDR and hasno personal knowledge.His evidence also shows that there wereseveral towers within the range of 5 kms and Exh. 435 can not beused to show tower relating to accused no. 3 to be tower no.1363. ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::57 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docAdvocate Mundergi appearing for accused no. 20 hassubmitted that the evidence of PW-6 Arun does not inspireconfdence.He adopts the arguments of Advocate Shirish Gupteand other counsel for this purpose.He further states that PW-6'sevidence appears to be hearsay and cannot be used to convictaccused no. 20 at all.His deposition that money was taken foraccused no. 1 is an improvement.This improvement has beenmade only to rope in accused no. 20 as a member of the organizedcrime syndicate.20 or then it was used for the purposes of extortion by accusedno.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::58 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docWe have heard reply arguments of SPP (Special PublicProsecutor) Shri Chimalkar & his team as also APP Shri J. P. Yagnik.PP at the outset pointed out that all accused before trial Courtare convicts indulging in "continuing unlawful activities" andmurder on 2.3.2008 is only its manifestation.Local police atSakinaka Police Station conducted investigation and fled charge-sheet against 7 persons on 7/6/2007 i.e. within stipulated period.Eye-witnesses Manali and Komal were then not fully interrogatedand scar-butt recovered from room of Kamlakar was not accountedfor or associated with handgun.Neeta Shah and Mayuresh Tandelwho then identifed the assailants in TIP, had not seen actualassault or the assailants.Thus, investigation then was notcomplete.After 26/4/2008 when attempt of dacoity was foiled, themissing gun was found and involvement of those dacoits inmurder of Kamlakar came to light.On ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 ::: 59 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.doc29/4/2008 prior permission to invoke MCOCA in Crime No.52/2008was granted.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::Thus, investigation which left incomplete by Sakinakapolice was completed by DCB CID in MCOC matter.In the above backdrop learned Special PP submits thatcontention about absence of permission under section 173(8) ofCr.P.C. is erroneous as in MCOCA ofence's law does not envisagesuch permission from Court which is not authorized to takecognizance of MCOCA cases.The contention that there could not ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 ::: 60 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.dochave been conviction for continuing unlawful activities is alsochallenged by submitting that since the existence andinvolvement of organized crime syndicate is established, everymember thereof is liable to be punished.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::Our attention is drawn to evidence of PW-33 Shelke whoinvestigated the MCOCA ofence.It is pointed out that scar-buttwas not sent on 26/4/2008 by Sakinaka police to DCB CID.It wasdemanded on 8/5/2008 vide Exhibit 418 and received vide Exhibit419 in sealed condition.That seal was by FSL only.Handgun wassealed separately and said handgun and already sealed scar-buttwere then sent to FSL again.Earlier deposition of Ramesh Bhokre in sessions trialcase No.482/2008 is explained by pointing out that weapon issame and its loose description as revolver or handgun does notmake any diference.It is pointed out that accused persons 2 to 5who indulged in attempted dacoity on 26/4/2008 have been foundguilty and punished in Sessions Case No.482/2008 in that regard.He submits that with the assistance of PW-11-Ramchandra Gurav; accused No.10, accused No.12 and 13approached accused No.8 Surendra.The sketch of gun drawn by ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 ::: 61 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docaccused no. 12 was made over to accused no.8 who thenmanufactured gun accordingly.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::He then fled complaint against persongiving threat vide Exhibit 188 at Kanakavli Police Station.It issubmitted that this evidence therefore shows systematic efortsmade by Akhil Bhartiya Sena of accused No.1 through its ofcebearers towards procurement of unlicensed handmade gun.Thisprocurement is itself an ofence under Indian Arms Act.Evidence of PW-6-Arun Singh is relied upon to show thathe paid extortion money as proprietor of Cable business Ashish ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 ::: 62 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docVison Cable.He pointed out that Sunny Cabel also paid ransom toArun Gawli.Thediaries recovered at the instance of accused No.15 shows this.Thefact that accounts of business of this witness are in the name ofwife does not help accused persons at all.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::Evidence of PW-28 is also pressed into service to showthat he used to pay Rs.2 Lak per month and its receipt is alsorefected in above mentioned diaries & there is no materialomission in his deposition.Heabsconded and was arrested on 26/6/20087 at Kosegaon, Sangli.Arrest panchanama Exhibit 443 is relied upon for this purpose.Documents seized from him are mentioned therein.Thesedocuments include entry pass to Mantralaya.Though accused persons and witnesses are denyingany association with Akhil Bhartiya Sena, in letter written byaccused No.1, names of PW-10, PW-25 and accused No.15 are ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 ::: 63 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docmentioned.Handwriting in this letter is of accused No.1 only.PW-10 and PW-25 therefore are deposing falsely that they do not knoweach other.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::Evidence of Investigating Ofcer PW-37 is relied upon toshow arrest of accused No.15 and recovery vide Exhibit 461 of 12diaries at his instance.PW-9-Amrut Patil is a panch on recovery ofthese diaries and under section 27, the diaries were seized frompossession of PW-10-Ankush.Though PW-10-Ankush has avoidedto cooperate with prosecution, he has signed recoverypanchanama.At that time two cell phones were also seized.PP points out Exhibit 183A to show11 pocket diaries and loose pages of running expenditure.In thisbackdrop, evidence of PW-10 is strongly relied upon.It issubmitted that evidence of PW-25-Vishwanath is on same linesand claim that he did not work for accused No.1 or then diaries ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 ::: 64 Judg.Section 164statement at Exhibit 308 is relied upon and it is claimed that thosediaries, sign and handwriting was identifed by PW-25 therein.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::It is submitted that precautions taken before recordingsection 164 Cr.P. C. statement by learned J.M.F.C. show that PW-25was given full understanding and was therefore not under anypressure or delusion when Exhibit 308 was recorded.PW-1 Komal Jamsandekar has pointed out the unfriendlyrelation of Kamlakar Jamsandekar with accused Nos.6 and 7 andshe has also disclosed some names in this respect.She haspointed out that her husband Kamlakar was againstencroachments and unauthorized erection of huts.She has givennames of few such unfriendly persons.PW-2- Bane was a closeassociate of deceased Kamlakar.Accused No.6 Bhintade agreedto purchase an ambulance which he never purchased.Because ofterror of Shri Bhintade deceased Kamlakar had developed bloodpressure.Learned Special PP contends that alleged omissionsduring her deposition are not material.He further states that ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 ::: 65 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docaccused No.7 deceased Bala was also enemy of Kamlakar.Sakinaka Police looked into motive with Ajit Rane only.It is submitted that after26/4/2008, role of accused Nos.12 and 13 and 6 and 7 togetheremerged & though they may have diferent motives, their objectwas same.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::Evidence of PW-5 Pradeep Shinde is also read out toshow that accused persons had attempted to hire him forcommitting murder of Kamlakar but, Pradeep had refused as hefound the amount ofered inadequate.P.I. Dond had called forpapers from Sakinaka which were given on 26/4/2008 as perstation diary entry taken at 16.40 hours.He explains that thisentry is not about scarrbutt.PW-33 has registered crime in DCB CID Unit-3 in thatrespect and papers were then sent back and received by Sakinakapolice at 15.45 hours.At 16.10 hours papers were summoned bypolice ofcer again for the purposes of MCOCA case.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::66 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docLearned Special Public Prosecutor submits that thematerial supports the confessions recorded under MCOCA.Accused no. 10 Shrikrishna @ Babu and accused no. ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::67 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.doc9 Sandy stood by their confession and there is no retraction bythem.Accused no. 3 Ashokkumar Jaiswar has attempted todisown the confession and tried to retract it but then this efort iswithout any merit.Similarly accused no. 5 Anil Giri, accused no. 15Suresh Patil, accused no. 11 Dinesh Narvekar and accused no. 4Narendra @ Kandi have also before the Metropolitan Magistratetried to show that their confession was not voluntary but havefailed in it.Each confession is read out to us to show how carefullyaccused was given every opportunity to reconsider his decision toconfess.Questions were put to them to fnd out any pressure orundue infuence or then any promises made by any authority topersuade them to give such confession.To dissuade him fromgiving it, he was pointed out that such confession may be usedagainst him and he could be punished on its strength.Afterexplaining all this, when he still wanted to record the confession,he was given time of 24 hours or more to deliberate again on hisdecision and on second occasion, after re-verifcation, he waspermitted to make the statement.Thus even on the secondoccasion, he could have resiled and refused to give the confession.During the period of 24 hours or more given to him to reconsider ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 ::: 68 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.dochis decision, he was kept in neutral custody i.e. away from theinfuence of Investigating Ofcer.Learned Special PP submits thatthese confessions are supported/corroborated by other materialon record and also support each other., The confessions therefore,have been rightly relied upon by the trial court.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::The evidence of eye witness PW-7 Manali and evidenceof PW-12 Motilal Chaudhari is relied upon to show that thiswitness had seen the accused persons and identifed them in courtand also in test identifcation parade.There is no challenge to thefact that the scarbutt was found on spot i.e. in the house ofKamlakar.PW- 3 Ramesh Patil has identifed the scarbutt.It is submittedthat the panchanama Exh. 165 is also proved on record.PW-21 Motiram Kasar, Investigating Ofcer of Sakinakapolice station reached the spot when body of Kamlakar ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 ::: 69 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docJamsandekar was there.He saw the body as also the scarbuttlying on the spot.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::PW-13 Shamsundar Munj of Forensic State Laboratoryhas explained the procedure followed after samples were receivedfor analysis.He pointed out how and at what stage the ballisticnumber is put on property received for test/analysis.SPP states that Kamlakar Jamsandekar was fred atfrom very close range.Special PP submits that the crime dated 26/4/2008 wasregistered with LT Marg Police Station but the investigationcontinued with CIU.CIU sent the handgun to DCB(CID) which inturn collected scarbutt from Sakinaka police station.The handgunand scarbutt were then forwarded by DCB to the FSL.Thescarbutt with Sakinana police was already having seal put by FSLwhile handgun was sealed by CIU.The emptys after fring remained inthe gun only.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::70 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docTo facilitate consideration, Special PP produced a chartof all confessions with the material showing corroboration andexplained how actual assault is described by accused no.3 AshokJaiswal.According to him, confessions of accused nos. 15, 10 and3 bring on record the complete chain.The two charts at Exh. 426 and 427 are explained toshow how CDR supports disclosure in the confession and alsocorroborate the presence of concerned accused persons at therelevant site.PW-35 Shekhar Palande is read out for this purpose.There were total 9 calls between accused no. 8 and 12.The last call is on 15/08/2006 i.e. the day on which accused nos.10 and 11 collected the handgun.The call showing the presenceof accused no.10 at Dagadi chawl with accused no. 6 and 7 whenhe paid Rs. 30 lacs is also pointed out with a submission thatthis position is also explained in his confession by accused no. 15Suresh Patil.The location of accused no. 12 Datta when hevisited Dagadi chawl in January, 2007 to collect Rs. 60,000/- isalso shown with the CDR.Learned Special PP submits that all thisdata has been explained to the trial court and trial court hasmentioned it in its judgment elaborately.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::71 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docThe charts have also been submitted to that Court tofacilitate explaining the CDR.It is stated that this CDR has beencollected in 2009 and it validates the fact or information whichhas surfaced in the respective confessions.State of Maharashtra, 2014 ALL MR Crime 2011, 2013 (1)Crimes 254 and AIR 1999 SC 1744--Syed Hakkim vs. State arerelied upon additionally for this purpose.Some miscellaneous interim applications are stillpending.However, our attention has not been drawn to any of it& no arguments have been advanced about any such interimprayer.Consideration of arguments on further investigation canbegin with the evaluation of rival contentions on need of an orderunder S. 173(8) CrPC or otherwise, after event of attempteddacoity dated 26.4.2008 as Sakinaka police had alreadycompleted the investigation into the murder dated 2.3.2007 & alsofled charge-sheet.Ex. 416 is permission dated 29.4.2008 by the ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 ::: 72 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docDy.Police Commissioner for further investigation & it is not by theinvestigating ofcer of crime dtaed 2.3.2007 at Sakinaka policeStation.Investigation after Ex.416 is not by this investigatingofcer.We have to revert back this little later.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::Investigation Agency & ors.is the judgment of learned SingleJudge of this Court which deals with Section 25 of MaharashtraControl of Organised Crimes Act, 1999, Section 173(8) & S.309 ofCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973 & Section 6(1), 6(5) of NationalInvestigation Agency Act, 2008 .Issue regarding furtherinvestigation arose in said matter after transfer of Malegaon Blastinvestigation to NIA.Ofences under MCOC Act were initially investigatedby ATS and charge-sheet came to be fled.Subsequently NIA tookover investigation after a FIR was registered.Application fled u/s21(7) of MCOC Act by NIA for interrogation of the petitioners wasallowed & their police custody was permitted for 8 days.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::The application fordischarge fled by the accused persons on the strength of theclosure report fled by CBI was rejected by the trial court on13-2-2009 on the ground that it had to examine the entire recordincluding the report fled by Delhi Police under Section 173(2) ofthe Code.The High Court, however, took the contrary view that itwas only the closure report fled by CBI which could be taken intoconsideration, and then the matter would proceed in accordancewith law.The High Court had relied upon the judgment of thisCourt in K. Chandrasekhar v. State of Kerala to say that once ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 ::: 75 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docinvestigation was transferred to CBI, it only had to proceed withthe investigation and not the Special Cell of Delhi Police.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::It appears, the trial court may have three options: frstly, it may accept the application of the accused for discharge; secondly, it may direct that the trial may proceed further in accordance with law; and thirdly, if it is ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 ::: 76 Judg.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::Moreover, the competent IO has investigated & it leadto exoneration of persons earlier charged as assailants due to theiridentifcation by Mrs. Shah & Mayur in TIP.In that TIP PW-1 widowKomal, PW-7 Manali & hotel owner PW-12 had not participated.Mrs. Shah & Mayur had only seen those persons in the vicinity ¬ while committing ofence.Murder dated ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 ::: 80 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.doc2.3.2007 does not remain an ofence under S. 302 IPC only but itbecomes an organized crime under MCOCA, as is being discussedlittle later in the body of this judgment.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::The State of Jharkhand andOrs.Appeals were fled against judgment of High Courtdismissing Writ Petition under Section 482 of CrPC fled byAppellant.Questions raised were - (1) Whether in a case where anAccused had been bailed out in a criminal case, in which case,subsequently new ofences were added, was it necessary that bailearlier granted should be cancelled for taking accused in custody?(2) Whether re-registration of F.I.R. was a second F.I.R. and was notpermissible there being already a FIR registered arising out ofsame incident? (3) Whether N.I.A. could conduct any furtherinvestigation in matter, when investigation in the P.S. Case havingalready been completed and charge sheet submitted of whichcognizance had already been taken by Chief Judicial Magistrate?(4) Whether order passed by Judicial Commissioner-cum-SpecialJudge, NIA, Ranchi remanding Appellant to judicial custody was in ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 ::: 81 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docaccordance with law? and (5) Whether power under Section 167 ofCrPC could have been exercised in case, where cognizance wasalready taken by Chief Judicial Magistrate on 11th March, 2016 oraccused could have been remanded only under Section 309(2)?::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::Facts there reveal that FIR was lodged for ofencesunder Sections 414, 384, 386, 387, 120-B Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) read with Sections 25 (1-B)(a), 26, 35 of the Arms Act andSection 17(1) and (2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act whereinapart from appellant there were 11 other accused.The allegationsmade against the accused were that, petitioner by showing fear ofextremist TPC Group recovered levy from the contractors,transporters and coal businessman.On information received froma co-accused, a search was conducted in his house and anamount of Rs. 57,57,510/ was recovered from the bag alongwithfour mobiles.No satisfactory explanation was given by theappellant.Thereafter, on the prayer made by the investigatingofcer, ofences (scheduled ofences) under Sections 16, 17, 20and 23 of the Act, 1967 were added against the accused.CentralGovernment issued an order in exercise of power conferred underSub-section 5 of Section 6 read with Section 8 of the NationalInvestigation Agency Act, 2008 suo-moto directing the National ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 ::: 82 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docInvestigation Agency to take up investigation of said F.I.R. in whichSections 16, 17, 20 and 23 of Act, 1967 were added.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::A Writ Petition was fled by the appellant praying forquashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection withSpecial NIA Case including the First Information Report with furtherprayer for quashing the order remanding the appellant to thejudicial custody by the Judicial Commissioner-cum-Special Judge,NIA.The High Court by the impugned judgment dismissed both theWrit Petitions & aggrieved, against said judgment, appeals werefled by the appellant.While dismissing the appeals, the Hon.Apex Courtholds that in facts before it, the investigating agency itself hadnot taken into custody the appellant after addition of new ofencesrather accused was produced in the Court in pursuance ofproduction warrant obtained & it was not necessary for the SpecialJudge to pass an order cancelling the bail granted to the appellantbefore permitting the accused appellant to be produced before itor remanding him to the judicial custody.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::83 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docReiterating the settled proposition that, second FIRwith regard to same ofences is barred, Apex Court fnds that FIRdated 16th February, 2018 registered by NIA, can not be said to besecond FIR.NIA Act, 2008 was enacted to constitute aninvestigation agency at the national level to investigate andprosecute ofences afecting the sovereignty, security andintegrity of India, security of State, other international matters asspecifed and for matters connected therewith or incidentalthereto.Incase before the Hon.Apex Court, charges were framed on 19thSeptember, 2016, ofences under Act, 1967 were added for thefrst time on 09.04.2017; thus, there was no occasion forinvestigation of ofences under Act, 1967 prior to April, 2017.When the Central Government directed the NIA to investigate thescheduled ofences, NIA was fully competent to investigate thoseofences and submit a supplementary report.It was not a casewhere charge/s for ofences punishable under the Unlawful ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 ::: 84 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docActivities (Prevention) Act, 1967 were available prior to April,2017.When order was issued by Central Government on 13thFebruary, 2018, it was not competent for the State Police toproceed with the investigation.FIR re-registered by NIA on 16thFebruary, 2018 was not a second FIR for the ofences, rather it wasre-registration of the FIR to give efect to the provisions of the NIAAct, re-registration being only a procedural step to initiate theinvestigation and the trial under the NIA Act. Such re-registrationof the FIR, thus, was neither barred nor could it be held to be asecond FIR.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::Discoveries may be made by the police authorities at a subsequent stage.Discovery about a larger conspiracy can also surface in another proceeding, as for example, in a case of this nature.If the police authorities did not make a fair investigation and left out conspiracy aspect of the matter from the purview of its investigation, in our opinion, as and when the same surfaced, it was open to the State and/or the High Court to direct investigation in respect of an ofence which is distinct and separate from the one for which the FIR had already been lodged."::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 :::MCOCA also has a similar scheme as considered inPradeep Ram Vs.S. 24 prescribes a punishment of either description up to 3years and fne for a public servant who helps or supports theorganized crime or fails to discharge his duties in relation to anorganized crime.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docdacoity dated 26.4.2008 or exercise undertaken thereafter.Theofence of murder which took place on 2.3.2007 could never haveconstituted an organized crime had the investigation in attempteddacoity on 26.4.2008 not progressed.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docMCOCA.There was no dispute that the very frst charge-sheet in Parbhanias against A-1 was fled on 7-9-2006 before the Chief JudicialMagistrate.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::However it denied the same to A-7 observingthat by virtue of Section 21(4) of MCOCA, he was not entitled forthe grant of bail and he did not fall within the excepted categorystipulated in clause (a) or (b) of the said sub-section (4) of Section::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::In paragraph 90, the Hon.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::The ofencealleged to be the organized crime here is on 2.3.2007 while earliercharge-sheets are not in dispute.PW-33-Shri Shelke is theinvestigating ofcer of Crime Branch prior to invocation of MCOCA.He has stated that till 8/5/2008 he did not reach to the conclusionabout any organized crime committed by the members of ArunGawali's gang.PW-33 has ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 ::: 105 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docbeen cross-examined at length but no material to discard histestimony could be brought on record.Theseofcers entered the witness box & have been cross-examined.Vagueattempt to assail order dated 20.5.2008 therefore can notsucceed.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::It will be appropriate to refer to other judgments citedbefore us.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::3(6) - The confession recorded under sub-rule (5) shall, if it is in writing, be signed by the person who has made such confession and by the Police Officer, who has recorded the said confession.Such::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 ::: 109 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.doc Police Officer shall, under his own hand, also make a memorandum at the end of the confession to the following effect :-::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.doc in connection with which, or relating to which, such confession has been made, for the purpose of investigation."::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::Similarly Cr.Appeal 410/11-- Manoj GawadeThe appellants have only placedcopy of this judgment on record without pointing out its relevance.AIR 1952 SC 159- Kashmira Singh v. State of MP,pointing out when & to what extent the confession of a co-accusedcan be used need not be gone into in present matter where wehave the recent judgments directly under the MCOCA.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docThe learned single Judge, therefore, held as corollary that the act of the Special Judge allowing the eyewitness of a murder case to be examined in MCOC Act trial, without there being a joint trial of both the ofences, will have to be quashed and that the said witness shall not be further examined in MCOC Act case, and that the case should be tried as if the said witness was never examined at MCOC Act trial.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::Had the term "continuing unlawful activity" been synonymous with "organised crime", it would not have been necessary for the Legislature to include two defnitions.It would have been sufcient to provide for only one defnition of continuing unlawful activity and make that activity punishable.116 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docThe question whether said murderconstitutes an organized crime also can be convenientlyconsidered along with it.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::117 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docWe intend to consider the merits of the narration inthese confessions frst to ascertain whether the same nail anyaccused.Thereafter, the contentions on procedure followed whilerecording it or retraction thereof will be examined.Confessions need evaluation in the backdrop of lawconsidered supra & keeping in mind the fact that circumstancesdisclosed therein throw light on CULA & murder.We fnd it appropriate to begin with Part II statement ofaccd.10 Shrikrishna @ Babu Gurav.PW-19 Dnyaneshwar Phadtarehas recorded it at Ex. 251 and this accused has admitted thisconfessional statement before the learned CMM when he wasproduced before him immediately.Ajit & Pratap extortedhuge ransum from builders or traders and part of it was sent toaccd.1 Arun Gawali through accd.9 Sandip & accd.15 SureshPatil.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::After few days, when accd.10 Babu went to ofce atHotel Milan Complex, Building no. 6/5, Ajit Rane & Pratap Godseshowed him said gun & two cartridges stating that they had fred around each.Shrikrishna @ Babu also states that through thisofce, the afairs & working of ABS were managed.In October, 2006 trial of one Solanki who had attackedaccused 12 Pratap started in Shiwadi court.He, accd.Pratap, PW-5Pradeep, accd.11 Dinesh & Mohd. Arif @ Addu carried out groundwork (felding) and attended that court on 2 to 3 occasions to ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 ::: 121 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docattack Solanki.Their plan could not succeed as Solanki did notturn up & did not attend the court on those dates.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::10 Shrikrishna.Vijay then gave 9224676768 & 9323709336as his mobile numbers to accd.10 Shrikrishna.When Shrikrishnainquired, Pratap for the frst time disclosed to accd.10Shrikrishna that he had a contract to kill Shivsena corporatorKamalakar Jamsandekar.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::On next day Vijay telephoned Shrikrishna in themorning to inform that the ofce was closed.Shrikrishna thenobtained key from house of Ajit Rane.He then handed over thebag with articles & Rs. 10,000/ to Vijay.He told them to come inthe evening to collect motorcycle.Narendra alone came & asdirected by Pratap, Shrikrishna handed over the Discoverymotorcycle to him.He called Viajay & his colleagues again nextday morning in the ofce as per Pratap's instructions.All 4 then came to ofce on next day in the morning &shortly, Pratap & Ajit also arrived.PW-4 Addu also came asdirected by Pratap.Pratap told them that Addu would show tothem the man & his residence.Anil, Narendra & Addu then left onmotorcycle.At that time Pratap told Vijay to collect bag witharticles everyday in the morning & then deliver it back in the ofce ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 ::: 124 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docin evening, if the work could not be done.Narendra & Anilreturned shortly & then they all left.From next day, every morninghe used to fetch key from house of Ajit Rane, open ofce,handover the weapon bag to Vijay.Vijay & others used to return inthe afternoon to return the weapons & used to go back to theirhouses.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::Accordingly, for 15 days Vijay, Anil, Narendra & Ashokwere looking for Kamalakar Jamsandekar with a view to kill himand return back as he was not being found.Shrikrishna informed this to Pratap who askedShrikrishna not to collect the motorcycle for few days.Accordingly,Shrikrishna did not go to collect the motorcycle.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::125 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.doc178. 8 to 10 days after the incident, police arrested Ajit Rane& Pratap Godse for the murder.Anita Ghaywat then called him &told him to throw his mobile in gutter.He broke the mobile & threwit in Nallah on Powai road.Vijay Giri & Narendra used to contacthim to demand the balance amount.However he started avoidingthem as Ajit & Pratap were arrested.In July,2007 on say of Dinesh Narkar (accd. 11), hehimself, Dinesh Narkar, Pintu & Guddu forced entry in the ofce ofone builder at Dadar.Dinesh Narkar damaged the ofce & beatone employee therein with hands.He aimed revolver with him atthe head & threatened to kill.He gave message to builder NanduNaik to come to Dagadi Chawl.In October,2007 Ajit Rane & inOctober,2007, Pratap Rane came out on bail in crime of murder of ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 ::: 126 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docKamlakar Jamsandekar.They started sitting in ofce of AmitTravels at shop no. 4, Crystal Court, Rambag, Powai.Shrikrishnawent to meet them & then, Pratap told him that after coming out,he gradually collected Rs. 10,000/ and had paid it to Vijay.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docboy shortly arrived in that ofce.Pratap introduced him as Addu &told that Addu would show the man & his residence.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::On say of Vijay, he (Narendra), Anil & Addu went onbike of Babu Gurav to Asalpha Village, Ghatkoper.Anil then demanded money fromVijay.Vijay refused & angered, Anil left.Vijay fred the bullet in the head of thatman.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::They met Babu Gurav there.Shortly, Ashok Jaiswar alsoreached there.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docnext day at 10.00 am.Next day Babu Gurav opened the ofce &showed to them a bag containing a gun, 2 rounds & knives.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::Next day at 9.30 am.they reached Amit Travels.Inofce, Babu took out the bag from a table drawer & gave it to himwith Rs. 10,000/. Babu asked them to come in the evening to takethe bike ie motorcycle.They then returned home.In the evening,Narendra returned & took Discover motorcycle M.S. 03 AE 2476 inhis custody.On next day as asked by Vijay, he took Anil on bike &they went to ofce.Vijay & Ashok also reached there.PW-4 Addushortly arrived in that ofce.On say of Vijay, he (Narendra), Anil &Addu went on bike of Babu Gurav Asalpha Village, Ghatkoper.Addu then had shown them that man.We have mentioned supra the two confessions and alsothe mutual corroboration therein.In the light of this application ofmind it will be proper to look into other confessions.Perusal of confessional statement of accused No.9Sandeep Gangan shows that he is resident of Dagdi chawl sincehis birth.He pointed out connection between accused No.1-ArunGawali and accused No.12-Pratap Godse and accused 11 Ajit Rane.His statement does not contain any reference to accused Nos.2 to ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 ::: 131 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.doc5 who actually gave efect to crime ie murder of Kamalakar.However, he has not resiled from his confession before the CMM.We therefore fnd it appropriate to note his confessional statementat this stage.PW-29 DCP Brijesh Singh has proved it before theTrial Court.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::He has stated that in 1997 Jitendra Dabholkar and ArunGawali formed a party by name Akhil Bhartiya Sena (ABS).Wemay note here that "Bhajan" means the prayers in praise of god &"kholi" means in room.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::In the middle of December 2006, Ajit Rane and PratapGodse of Akhil Bhartiya Sena (ABS) came to ofce of AkhilBhartiya Sena at about 2.45 p.m. with two elderly persons.They were produced in the Courton next day and were taken out on bail.Expenditure for this bailand fees of advocate was incurred by Arun Gawali through SureshPatil.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::After about 20 days he learnt about murder of ShivsenaCorporator Kamlakar Jamsandekar in Sakinaka area through papernews.Then he learnt that police caught hold of Pratap Godse andAjit Rane.When Pratap and Ajit were behind bar, mother of PratapGodse had come in the Dagdi chawl to meet Suresh Patil to getmoney for expenses.He then states that he was arrested on15/5/2008 by Crime Branch at Sion.This confessional statement shows an organization byname ABS with accused No.1 at its head.Those participating in acts of gundaism were harboured ieassisted fnancially and their families were also looked after.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::This statement shows acceptance of amount of Rs.30lakhs to eliminate Corporator Kamlakar Jamsandekar by accusedNo.1 and his assurance to accused Nos.6 and 7 for that purpose.Italso shows distribution of money to other persons in organizationfor getting that work done.It supports the facts disclosed byaccused 10 Babu Gurav.Nonmention of fact of grant of time toreconsider decision to confess given to him & wrong mention ofyear "2007" in his confessional statement, are therefore not thefatal defects.In the evening, Vijay gave a phone calland informed Ashok that Babu had given discovery motor cycle tothem.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::In the afternoon,Pratap called Vijay on mobile of Ashok and told him that said ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 ::: 140 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docperson was to go to Bhatwadi funeral ground.At the same timeone funeral procession started in the area.They followed it toBhatwadi funeral ground but said person was not found.Thereafter on foot, theyreached near house of deceased.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docthe motor cycle there.Vijay called Pratap on mobile phone andinformed him that work was done.They also informed him thatmotorcycle was left infront of Masjid at Narayan Nagar.For makingthis phone call, mobile of Ashok was used.On foot they came tothe toilet.There Vijay put gun and one round back into the bagwith accused Ashok.He and Narendra also kept the knifes in thebag.Vijay entrusted that bag to Ashok and asked him to go to hishouse.Accordingly, accused No.3 Ashok returned to his house.Onnext day, after reading newspaper, he learnt that personmurdered was Kamlakar Jamsandekar.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::Two days after this Vijay phoned him and asked him toreach to Borivali National Park with bag.He accordingly went thereand handed over bag to Vijay.Vijay then gave him Rs.4,000/- andpromised to pay balance amount.Ashok then left that place.Vijay then called him and informed that police hadarrested Ajit & Pratap, and hence there was no chance to receivebalance amount.In December 2007, when Pratap and Ajit werereleased on bail, Pratap and Ajit refused to pay balance amount.Pratap and Ajit demanded the bag back.Vijay told them that afterthe money was received, bag and articles would be returned.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::142 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docAshok also told that he was arrested on 26/4/2008 with Vijay andNarendra and weapons at Girgaon, Mumbai.Needless to mentionthat none of the Counsel have even attempted to demonstrateany inconsistency between the facts narrated in the confessions.Part II statement of accusedAnilkumar Giri also supports the facts disclosed by other accusedpersons.Heknew accused 3 Ashok also.On the next day, therehe met Vijay and Narendra.Vijay told him that they had to kill oneperson and accused Babu Gurav was to pay them Rs.2.5 lacs.Healso told them that the friend of Narendra by name Ashok waswith them.Thus he supports the story as narrated by other ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 ::: 143 Judg.He also boarded same bus and they got down at RambaugPolice Chowki, Pawai.Ashok also came there shortly and all ofthem, on foot, came to ofce of Amit Travels at 10.00 am.Thisnarration therefore, again supports the story as narrated by theothers.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::Thus this narration also corroborates theversion of other accused persons.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::Then he (Anil), Narendera and Addu left on same bikeand went to Asalpha village, Ghatkopar.They left their bike atAndheri- Ghatkopar link road and followed Addu on feet in Asalphavillage.Addu showed to them one house and told that the saidperson was residing in it and that he was not at home.All of them,then returned on foot to the place where the bike was parked.Half an hour thereafter, a person got down from auto and Addu ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 ::: 145 Judg.Then for the frst time Vijay told him that the names ofother two persons sitting in the ofce were Pratap Godse (accusedno.12) and Ajit Rane (accused no. 13).Thus this version also is inaccordance with the story narrated by accused Ashok or Narendra.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::Anil states that for the next about 15 days, four ofthem were searching for that person and he was not to be found.Whenever Vijay used to contact Pratap or Babu on mobile, PratapGodse used to scold them on delay.During this search, theyalways parked their bike at Andheri-Ghatkopar Link Road, Asalphavillage, in front of a country liquor bar.This again is in accordancewith the story narrated by the others.On 02/03/2007, when these four persons reached theofce to collect the weapons, Anil demanded Rs.200/- from Vijayand Vijay refused.There was quarrel between Vijay and Anil andAnil left for his home.This is again in corroboration of statementof others.In the evening, Vijay informed him on telephone atabout 5.30 pm to 6.00 pm that the work was done and Anil should ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 ::: 146 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docnot move out of his house.Vijay paid him Rs. 1,000/- and told him that thebalance amount would be paid latter on.Anill then returned backto his home.This version therefore, again appearsto be in consonance with the narration of facts by the otheraccused persons.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::Arun Gawali used ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 ::: 149 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docto inspect those entries.When Arun Gawali was in jail, accused no.20 Sunil Ghate managed the afairs.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::At the beginning of December 2006 Arun Gawaliinstructed him that supari (contract) to kill Shivsena CorporatorKamlakar Jamsandekar of Sakinaka was received by Pratap Godse& Ajit Rane from accused No.6 Sahebrao Bhitande and deceasedaccused No.7- Bala Surve and they were coming to Dagdi chawl.Accordingly, in second week or third week in the afternoon AjitRane and Pratap Godse came to ofce of Akhil Bhartiya Sena inGitai building.He was given a phone call to come to that ofce.Accordingly, from second foor he went to that ofce.That timecomputer operator accused No.9-Sandeep Gangan was present.Except Ajit Rane, other 5 persons came to second foor.At thattime Pratap Godse was carrying a brown colour bag.After comingto ofce at second foor, he closed door from inside.This narrationin confession statement by Suresh Patil supports disclosure byaccused No.9-Sandeep Gangan.Pratap Godse disclosed that said bag contained Rs.30Lakhs and that he was making it over bag to Arun Gawali, ArunGawali signaled him to receive it.Accordingly, he (Suresh Patil)took that bag.At that time Arun Gawali told Sahebrao and Bala ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 ::: 150 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docSurve that work of Jamsandekar would be done and they shouldnot worry.After this promise Pratap Godse, Sandeep Gangan wentdown with Bala Surve.This narration also supports disclosure bySandeep Gangan.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::Accused No.15 then disclosed that he kept said bag inan almirah in room.Arun Gawali told him to give money, ifdemanded by Pratap Godse and Ajit Rane for expenditure.InJanuary'2007 in frst week, upon instructions from Arun Gawali hepaid Rs.60,000/- to Pratap Godse through Sandeep Gangan.Againthis disclosure supports narration of accused No.9 SandeepGangan.Thereafter asdirected by Arun Gawali, he paid Rs.20,000/- to mother of PratapGodse.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::151 Judg.Sharif @ Guddu etc.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::They returned back to Mumbai.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::In August 2006, on say of Pratap Godse he and BabuGurav again went to Kharepatan and with Dhaktya to Vilaye andcontacted Panchal.Along with gun prepared by Panchal they cameto Kharepatan.He learnt that Panchal then gave some cartridgesto Babu and also a trial by fring of one round.As next dayhappened to be "dahikala" - a festival, he and Babu returned toMumbai on same day.At that time gun and cartridges were givento Babu by wrapping it in Alu leaves (a leafy vegetable with largeleaves).Dinesh says that he was aware that said gun andcartridges were then given by Babu to Pratap in Mumbai.In January 2007, Pratap Godse and Ajit Rane hadinquired with him about killing Kamlakar Jamsandekar but herefused.Thereafter Pradeep Shinde told him that Pratap Godsehad made similar inquiries with him.Dinesh advised Pradeep torefuse and accordingly Pradeep communicated his refusal toPratap.In election of Municipal Corporation in February 2007,Ajit Rane contested on ticket of Akhil Bhartiya Sena but lost and ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 ::: 154 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docKamlakar Jamsandekar won from that ward with huge majority.InMarch 2007, he learnt about murder of shivsena corporatorKamlakar Jamsandekar by fring bullet.He learnt that Sakinakapolice arrested Pratap Godse, Ajit Rane and others.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::This witness therefore brings on record the importantposts held by accused Pratap Godse & Ajit Rane in theorganization ABS of which accused 1 Arun Gawali was the founder& head.It also points out the ofce of accused Ajit Rane & visits ofaccused 10 Babu @ Shrikrishna to that ofce.Facts leading tosearch & procurement by Ajit & Pratap of a handgun manufacturedillegally, also supports the criminal activities of the ABS.However,the prosecution could not establish his status as a member of ABSor as a criminal assisting or facilitating the CULA of ABS.He is notprivy to murder of Kamlakar Jamsandekar.PW-5-Pradeep Shinde is the important witness whosupports the confessional disclosure by accused 10 Shrikrishna @Babu.Pradeep turned down the ofer of Rs.2 Lakhs and a revolvergiven by accused No.12-Pratap Godse for eliminating Kamlakar ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 ::: 155 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docJamsandekar.He, in consultation with accused No.11-DineshNarkar refused it as the consideration ofered was inadequate.Healso supports the eforts to attack Shri Solanki ( a rival) in Sewreecourt and cause of its failure narrated by Shrikrishna.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::238. PW-6 Arun Kumar deposes and points out payment ofransum of Rs. 1.5 lak to the members of gang of Arun Gawali.Hesupports the confessions already referred to supra.He shows roleof accd.20 Sunil Ghate & Babu Dige in this extortion.In themonth of June 1998, frst he went to the ground-foor of thebuilding in Dagadi Chawl.One person came and took him to theground foor room of 'Geetai Building'.That person introducedhimself as Sunil Ghate (A-20).Sunil Ghate (A-20) made a demandof Rs. 5.00 Lacs per month as an extortion money as PW-6Arunkumar was doing business in that area.Sunil Ghate (A-20)told him that Daddy had asked him to make such demand.He alsothreatened PW-6 Arunkumar with dire consequences, if thedemand was not fulflled.Though he has disclosed the factsbelatedly ie after several years, that by itself can not be used todisbelieve him.Receipts of the entertainment tax, for the periodfrom 1993 to 1998 (Exh. 170 Colly.) & registration certifcate ofAshish Vision Cables for the period from 2003 to 2010 vide Ex. 172 ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 ::: 156 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.doclend credence to his narration.No doubt his statement under S.164 has been recorded after giving him requisite understandingabout the possible consequences, that does not mean that undercoercion, he was made to depose on stipulated lines pressurizinghim.On the contrary, it shows that he was given a fair chance toevaluate & deliberate.Payments made by himare supported by entries in diaries recovered under S. 27 ofEvidence Act from accused 15 Suresh Patil.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::PW-28 Mahesh Shah has been examined to proveextortion by Bhartiya Kamgar Sena.Mahesh is the owner of photostudio by name "Hetal Photo Studio" and he has pointed outregular payments to crime syndicate of accused No.1-Arun Gawaliover a long period.As per his deposition, he was purchasinggoods/material from one Chandrakant Shah, Secretary of All India ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 ::: 157 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docPhotographic Trade and Industries Association.Mahendrasometimes stayed in America.In 2005, Chandrakant informedMahesh that Mahendra was receiving calls demanding money inthe name of accused No.1-Arun Gawali .Mahendra thereforewanted to pay Rs.2 Lakhs per month to accused No.1-Arun Gawali.Chandrakant told Mahesh that amount of Rs.2 Lakhs would bekept in photo studio of Mahesh for being paid to Arun Gawali.Accordingly, Chandrakant was keeping amount of Rs. 2 Lakhsevery month with Mahesh and person of gang of Arun Gawali usedto collect it on 4th or 5th day of every month through person namedPrabhakar.Prabhakar used to tell Mahesh that entry of paymentwould be made in diary.Mahesh went to Crime Branch in July 2008and then learnt that amount was being shown as paid by "Hetal".We need not dwell more on this witness.Though trial Court hasdiscarded his evidence in toto, the fact that payment from "Hetal"is refected in diaries seized at the instance of accused No.15-Suresh Patil is not in dispute.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::Appreciation of deposition of PW-25 Vishwanath, PW-10Ankush & PW-9 Amrut is equally helpful here.This exercise needs ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 ::: 158 Judg.Prosecution relies upon it to urge that PW-25Viswanath, PW- 10 Ankush Gharkar & accd.15 Suresh Patil workedtogether & are knowing each other.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::PW-37 ACP Ashok Duraphe has proved the letter dated20.2.2009 with annextures as Ex. 461,colly.This letter is writtenby chief Secretary, Maharashtra Legislative Secretariat and thiswitness is informed that accused 1 Arun Gawali has on 28.1.2008sent a letter on his letterhead to permit entry of the staf of ABS tovisit the party ofce in Secretariat ie Mantralaya premises.ShriGawali requested the Chief Secretary to take back the old identitycards & to issue new ones to the persons named in it with theirdesignation.Accordingly the entry passes valid till 31.12.2008were issued to Suhas Vilankar- Assistant, Vishwanth Hinge- clerk(PW-25), Nilesh Ingawale- typist, Vasant Raut- Typist, AnkushGharkar- peon(PW-10), Suresh Patil- Clerk (accused 15), RajendraSandwilkar- assistant.This deposition & the documents are not ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 ::: 159 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docchallenged by way of cross-examination by any of the accusedpersons.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::It is in this backdrop that we have to appreciate theevidence of PW-10 Ankush Gharkar & PW-25 Vishwanth Hinge.Thereafter its impact on the confessions given by accused 9Sandip @ Sandy, accused 10 Shrikrishna @ Babu & accused 15Suresh Patil can be looked into.PW-25 Vishwanath Hinge, age 39 years has beenresiding in "I" building of Dagadi Chawl since his childhood.Heknows accused 1 Arun Gawali @ Daddy as one of the prominentpersonalities residing in said chawl.He also knows accused 20Sunil Ghate for the same reason.Arun Gawali resides on third foorof Geetai building while he has ofce on frst foor.Sunil Ghateresides in "F" building.This witness does not know whether SunilGhate has any other room in Dagadi Chawl.PW-25 identifed accused 1 & accused 20 in Court butstated that he did not know the other accused present in Court.He was not aware of the business of Arun Gawli or why he was putbehind the bar.He states that he does not know the other visitorsof Dagadi Chawl.He was paid for canvassing for Arun Gawali in ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 ::: 160 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docelection.He denied that he was not paid for it.He has also deniedthat he did any writing work for the accused Arun Gawali.He wasasked to peruse the handwriting on each page in 12 diaries inwhich the accounts were mentioned and were recovered at theinstance of accused 15 Suresh under S. 27 of the Evidence Act. Hestated that none of the entries or pages were in his handwriting.He also deposed that there was no pressure on him while givingthe evidence in Court.However, he voluntarily stated that afterarrest of Daddy, he was summoned by police continuously for 3months in police station & was also thrashed.5 to 6 months afterthat arrest, police had taken him to the Magistrate twice forrecording his statement.Before the magistrate, because of threatsby the police, he gave the statement as directed by police.Onsecond occasion, the Judge & he were the only persons present &the judge did ask him to state whatever he wished & he was notadministered any oath.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::The trial court then declared him hostile & permittedSpecial PP Shri Thakre to cross-examine him.Sealed covercontaining his statement recorded u/S 164 CrPC by themetropolitan magistrate was then opened.Vishwanth stated thathe and the magistrate were the only persons present when his ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 ::: 161 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docstatement was recorded, the magistrate put him questions whichhe answered & the answers were recorded & then he signed it.(After he identifed his signature, this statement was given theexhibit number 308.) He was then produced before the samemagistrate on 22.7.2008 when same procedure was followed.Heaccepted that when the magistrate inquired, he told him that hewas not having any fear in the mind.Vishwanth volunteered thatpolice who had told him that they would come to knowimmediately, were then just outside the court of the Magistrate &hence, he did not complain to the magistrate.He signed eachpage of his recorded statement & initialed the corrections in Ex.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::2008 till that date to anybodyagainst the police.He stated that he was not knowing any Sada Pawle orSuresh Patil.He did not identify Sursesh Patil in Court when shown.He stated that portion mark A in his statementdated 12.7.2008 was not stated by him to police.He also statedthat he did not tell police that Suresh Patil was maintaining theaccounts of income of Arun Gawali & he was assisting Suresh insaid work.He denied to have made statement at portion "B & C".::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::162 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docHe denied to have known Motiram Mahadik, Sudhir Ghorpade andBabu Dige.He was not aware that Arun Gawali provided fnancialassistance to the families of those who were killed in policeencounter or gangwar.He denied the statement as recorded atportion "D".He could not explain why these portions "A to D"appeared in his police statement.He denied that the diaries at Art.3 were in his handwriting.He denied that police had obtained hisspecimen handwriting.According to him only signatures wereobtained.He did not complain to superior police ofcers at anytime about the treatment or threats by police .He was on cordial terms with his neighbours in DagadiChawl & subject of arrest of Arun Gawali becomes talk of DagadiChawl.He denied that Arun Gawali is dreaded gangster & peopleare afraid of him He denied that because of said fear, he was notgiving evidence.He was beaten up & asked to give thestatement against Arun Gawali.He was taken to the Metropolitan ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 ::: 163 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docMagistrate against his will & he gave statement there due to fearof police and also did not complain.P.P. Shri Thakre to him duringhis cross-examination.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::Diaries were numbered serially as also the loose papers.Pages ofdiaries were also counted.The other formalities were done & thepanchanam was signed by PW-9 as also PW-10 Ankush.PW-9identifed all articles shown to him.PW-9 identifed accused 15Suresh & proved seizure panchanama Ex. 183A. Trial Court markedthe cell phones, 11 small diaries and other documents.We fndthat cross examination of PW-9 Amrut does not in any wayderogate from his oath & on the contrary proves his visit to theGitai building and putting various signatures as a part of exerciseof seizure, in Giatai building only.He does not state that he wasforced to sign on some other date or at some other place.Thismaterial therefore supports the confessional statement of accused15 Suresh.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::Deposition of PW-10 Ankush Gharkar reveals that since8 years he was residing at room no. 11 & worked as security guard ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 ::: 167 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docfor 18 years.He has turned hostile & deposed on same lines asthat of PW-25 Vishwanath.He claims that he was not knowing anyneighbour and though he knew accused 1 Arun Gawali as M.L.A.,relations with accused 1 were not like neighbour.However he alsostates that whenever he needed some favour like schooladmission of a child, he met Arun Gawali, he assisted him inelection work and not in domestic work.He did not identifyaccused 15 Suresh but knew accused 20 Sunil Ghate as ex-corporator but was not aware who managed afairs of accused 1when he was in jail.He stated that police had asked to sign himon bunch of papers.This witness however accepted hissignature on recovery panchanama Ex. 183A relating to discoveryof the diaries and explained that police threatened & forced him tosign without reading it.But then the material looked into by usshows falsehood in his allegation of police forcing him to sign.expose PW-25, PW-10 Ankush & accused 15 Suresh.It proves that they allknow each other & worked together.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::In C.B.I. vs. V. C. Shukla, (1998) 3 SCC 410, at ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 ::: 168 Judg.The order of the High Court wasunder challenge in appeals at the instance of the CBI.Inparagraph 17, the Hon.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::This precedent shows that the diaries must be shown tobe books of account & regularly maintained in the course ofbusiness.In said precedent, the issue has been addressed at thestage of framing of charge while here the issue has beenanswered after recording the evidence on merits.Though there isno separate entry about Ashish cable, entries showingconnsolidated payments by accd.20 Sunil Ghate appear in these ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 ::: 170 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docdiaries.We fnd that the diaries can be relied upon to record afnding on CULA.Entries about afairs of ABS headed by accused no. 1 are seen inthese diaries discovered under S. 27 at the instance of accused 15Suresh & he had kept the same with PW-10 Ankush Gharkar.Thismaterial therefore proves beyond reasonable doubt the activitiesof ABS & accused no. 1 Arun Gawali.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::PW-4Addu @ Abdul Raheman Ashiq Ali Khan reveals that he knewPratap Godse (A-12), travel business by name 'Amit Travels' atChandivali Studio where he cleaned the vehicles.Pratap Godse(A-12) & Ajit Rane (A-13) were the partners in the said business.PW-4 Abdul Raheman knew that deceased Kamlakar Jamsandekar ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 ::: 171 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docof Shivsena was Corporator of their area.Ajit Rane (A-13)contested the election of 2007 against the deceased Kamlakar asa candidate of Akhil Bhartiya Sena.PW-4 Abdul Raheman was alsoknowing Babu Gurav (A-10) as he was the election ofcer of AjitRane (A-13).After the 2007 election, Pratap Godse (A-12) askedPW-4 Abdul Raheman whether he would do a work for him.PW-4Abdul Raheman enquired him about the nature of work and hetold him to point out Kamlakar and his residence to the personsshown by Pratap Godse (A-12).Ajit Rane (A-13) was presentduring the said talk.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::Accordingly, PW-4 Abdul Raheman went there on nextday.At that time Pratap Godse (A-12), Ajit Rane (A-13), BabuGurav (A-10) and four other persons were present.One of the fourpersons was known as 'Kandi' i.e. Narendra Giri (A-4).PratapGodse (A-12) asked him to take those four persons with him andpoint out Kamlakar and his residence to them.Accused BabuGurav (A-10) gave key of the motorcycle to one of those fourpersons.Thereafter, he, Kandi @ Narendra Giri (A-4) and Anil Giri(A-5) went to Asalpha on the motorcycle.They stopped at onepan-stall on Link Road.Then they went towards the chawl & PW-4Abdul Raheman pointed out that chawl to them.At that time ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 ::: 172 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docKamlakar was not at his residence.Then they returned to themotor bike.After some time, Kamlakar got down from autorickshaw and PW-4 Abdul Raheman pointed him out to Kandi @Narendra Giri (A-4) and Anil.PW-4 Abdul Raheman also explainedthat Kamlakar always applied "Lal tikka" ie red tilak on hisforehead.They all then returned back to the ofce of Amit Travelswhere PW-4 Abdul Raheman informed Pratap that he had shownKamlakar and his residence to Kandi (A-4) and other person.After10-15 days, PW-4 Abdul Raheman learnt that Kamlakar had beenmurdered.PW-4 identifed Kandi @ Narendra Giri (A-4) & AnilGiri (A-5).::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::During his exhaustive cross-examination, this witness &testimony has not been shaken.PW-4 Abdul Raheman was notasked to attend the TI Parade but he had ample opportunity towatch Kandi @ Narendra Giri (A-4) and Anil Giri (A-5) & hence,there was no scope for any mistaken identity.He also identifed Shrikrishna @Babu Gurav (A-10).Though he was prosecuted for an ofence ofrape, he clarifed that it was a false charge and for it, he was in jailfor 35 days.Even assuming that to be so, it does not falsify his ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 ::: 173 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docevidence.This deposition supports the position emerging fromconfessional statements which we have already appreciated.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:41 :::It has been argued that pictures of KamalkarJamsandekar were available and on display in hoardings forcanvassing, in the ward as he had contested the election.Moreover, they were also to be shown his residence.The procurement of a country made handgun fromvillage Vilaye through accused 10 Shrikrishna @ Babu fromaccused 8 Surendra Panchal by accused no. 12 Pratap, accused 13Ajit need not detain us since it is not an essential part of the"organized crime" under consideration.Deposition of PW-11Ramchandra Gurav & PW-8- Narendra Panchal sufcientlycorroborate the confessions under S. 18 MCOCA in this respect.Arguments that PW-11 deposed falsely that he was paid Rs.25,000/ not to depose or then delay in making complaint at Ex.188 about it or complaining to a far of police station at Kanakavaliare not material here.Next question Involved is whether there is retraction? ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::174 Judg.Accused rely upon material on record to urge that tillthen accused persons were unwilling to give any confession andafter 20/5/2008, suddenly within a period of next four weeksmaterial confession statements have been recorded.Thisaccording to them militates with its voluntary nature.They havealso urged that when after recording Part-II confession statements,they were produced before the Court, at the earliest possibleopportunity they have withdrawn the so-called confessions.They ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 ::: 175 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.dochave then complained of highhandedness and pressure.This facthas been overlooked by the Special Court.It is further submittedthat the recording authority has at the end of confession, certifedthe steps or procedure & voluntary nature of the statement andbelow such certifcate also, it should have obtained the signatureof the accused whose confession it purports to be.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::176 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docTo avoid confusion, we fnd it proper to considerdocumentation in this respect in case of accused No.10Shrikrishna @ Babu Tukaram Gurav.The Chief MetropolitanMagistrate has on 29/5/2008 addressed a communication toSpecial Judge under M.C.O.C, Act pointing out that accused No.1-Babu Gurav was produced before him by Mahim Police Station.Hehas stated that PSI of Mahim Police Station also produced letteraddressed to Chief Metropolitan Magistrate along with one sealedenvelope stating that it contained confessional statement made byaccused in Part-I and II in compliance with section 18 of MCOC Actrecorded by Shri D. N. Fadtare, Deputy Commissioner of Police,Zone V, Mumbai.Part-I of the statement is recorded on 27/5/2008 by ShriFadtare in Marathi.Name of that accused is Shrikrishna @ Babu ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 ::: 177 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docTukaram Gurav & Joint Police Commissioner (Crime) BrihanMumbai had by letter dated 26/5/2008 instructed to record hisconfession.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::Ofcer who recorded confession ie Shri Fadtare, haswritten that PSI Naik and his team were sent out of his ofce.He,accused Shrikrishna were the only persons in his ofce.He thencalled police constable Ganesh Chabukswar and told him to closethe door and instructed him not to send anybody in unless heexpressly directed.He then decided to converse in Marathi withaccused.He disclosed his name, post and designation and alsoinformed accused that he was not connected in any way with theofence allegedly committed by him.He inquired from accusedwhether he had understood it.Accused accepted to haveunderstood it.He then explained to him that he was not in custodyof police force which had arrested him and inquired whetheraccused understood it.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::178 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docThen this ofcer proceeded to ask name andeducation of accused and then inquiry was made with accusedwhy he was being produced before the ofcer.Babu had answeredthat he was aware that since he had expressed desire to giveconfession, he was brought before said ofcer for recording it.Hewas then asked whether he was giving the statement.He statedthat in 2007 Shivsena Corporator Kamlakar Jamsandekar fromSakinaka was murdered and he was giving confession in relationto that murder.He also answered the question disclosing that hewas not threatened and was not put under any fear to give suchconfession.He was then asked whether any assurance or promisewas given to him by any police or any other person for giving suchconfession.He has answered it in negative.A specifc questionwas asked whether police or such other person had assured ofmaking him a prosecution witnesses by discharging from crime ifhe gave confession and he again answered it in negative.Nextquestion put to him pointed out that confession being made byhim could be used as evidence against him in trial and he could bepunished on its basis; whether he was aware of this and he hasanswered that he was aware of this position.He was theninformed by ofcer recording statement that if he did not giveconfession, he would not be sent to ofcer arresting him and ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 ::: 179 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docInvestigating Ofcer.Similarly it was not obligatory for him to giveconfession.He was asked whether these facts communicated tohim were understood and he has answered that he understood it.He was then put a question whether after gathering all this, hewas still willing to give confessional statement.He has alsoanswered this question in afrmative.He was asked whether hewanted his advocate or any other person to remain present whenhis confession would be recorded and he has answered thatquestion in negative.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::Last question informs him that he was being given timeof 24 hours before actually recording his confession.During thatperiod he would be in custody at Mahim Police station under saidofcer.He was asked to think over again peacefully whether togive confession or not.He agreed to it.Shri Fadtare, ofcer after completing this preliminaryexercise for recording confession then has mentioned that allquestions were put to accused in Marathi and answers werewritten as per reply given by him.It was read over to him and thentime of 24 hours i.e. till 28/5/2008 was given to accused to thinkover and to make up mind.After informing this to him, he wastaken in custody by Shri Fadtare from the Crime Detection Unit, ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 ::: 180 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docSection-3 and he was informed that he was to be kept in hiscustody.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::He has also put date below hissignature.In between these two signatures, round seal of ofce ofDeputy Commissioner of Police appears.After this seal, Shri Fadtare has again certifed thatquestions and answers recorded above were read out to accusedand explained to him.He was explained that it was not obligatoryfor him to give any confession.Answers are recorded as perreplies given by accused to questions.He was intimated that timeof 24 hours was given to him for thinking.He was informed that hewas in custody of Dy.Commissioner of Police, Circle 5 and wasbeing placed in custody at Mahim Police Station.No Police ofceror Investigating Ofcer was to be allowed to meet him at MahimPolice Station and orders were accordingly issued to all concerned.Direction was given that he be produced before Shri Fadtare on28/5/2008 at 19.30 hours.After mentioning this it is reiterated that ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 ::: 181 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docrecording commenced on 17.15 hours and was over on 18.40hours.Again there is a round seal and on its left, DeputyCommissioner of Police has placed his signature, date and seal.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::Part-II statement has been recorded on 28/5/2008 byShri Fadtare only.Shri Fadtare (PW-19) after mentioning inpreamble, the events till production of accused before him ,proceeded to record Part-II statement.Shri Fadtare asked policeofcer and Investigating Ofcer to go out.He ensured that in hischamber/ofce he and accused Shrikrishna @ Babu were onlypresent and nobody could have seen them or overheard them.Heagain ascertained that accused was not under any pressure.Hethen started asking questions in Marathi and answers given byhim were again recorded as it is.By frst question he was asked whether time of 24hours given to him for deliberation was sufcient and he answeredin afrmative.He was then asked whether he needed more time tothink whether to give confession.He answered this question innegative.He was then asked whether he was still willing to giveconfession and he answered in afrmative.Question whether anypolice ofcer or investigating ofcer had come to contact himwhen he was in custody of Deputy Commissioner of Police was put ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 ::: 182 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docand he answered that question in negative.He was again pointedout that no law mandated and forced him to give such confessionand whether he was aware of it.He did answer the question inafrmative.He was then asked whether any allurement or promisewas extended to him or any threat was given to him for givingconfession and he answered in negative.He was asked whetherpolice assured him to make him a prosecution witness and todischarge him from the ofence if he gave such a statement.Hisanswer to this question is in negative.He was then informed thatif he gave confession, it would be reduced into writing and wouldbe used as evidence in Court and he could be punished on itsbasis.He answered that he was aware of this position.Thequestion whether he needed any relative or advocate to remainpresent while the statement was being recorded, and again heanswered it in negative.He was asked why he wanted to giveconfessional statement.He answered that as he was repentinghe wanted to give confession statement.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::After these questions-answers, DeputyCommissioner of Police Shri Fadtare has recorded his satisfactionthat after hearing answers given by accused to his questions andafter watching accused, he felt assured and satisfed that accused ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 ::: 183 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docwas giving confession statement voluntarily without any pressurefrom anybody.Therefore he decided to record his confession andexplained to accused whatever accused would disclose would betaken down in writing and then Shri Fadtare has mentioned that hestarted recording the confession statement.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::Thereafter, DCP PW-19 Shri Phadatare has recorded theconfession statement in Part -II.At the end of such confessionstatement it is recorded that said statement was read by accusedand he found that it was correctly recorded.Hence, he has placedhis signature upon it.Recording of this confession statementcommenced at 19.40 hours on 28/5/2008 and continued upto22.30 hours.On lefthand side, Shri Phadtare has signed with date and designation andin between these two signatures there is round seal of Ofce ofDeputy Commissioner of Police.At the end after these signatures there is certifcatewhich mentions that it is as per section 18 of MCOC Act. In thiscertifcate proved as Ex. 251-B, fact that accused was a suspectunder MCOC ofence and was produced for recording confessionon 28/5/2008 fnds mention.Certifcate then records the move of ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 ::: 184 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docrecording authority to explain the position to accused pointing outthat it was not mandatory for him to give such confession.The factthat said confession would be used as evidence against him waspointed out to accused.Satisfaction that the confession wasvoluntarily given is also recorded.It is mentioned that whilerecording confession statement except accused No.10 Babunobody else was present with Deputy Commissioner of Police.It isalso recorded that confession was recorded in handwriting ofDeputy Commissioner of police as per say of accused.It was givento accused for reading, who read it.As it was recorded as per hissay and it was correct and true, accused also told accordingly andthen placed his signature.On right hand side of this certifcate there issignature, name and designation of Shri Phadtare.On left handside of this signature there is round seal of ofce of DeputyCommissioner of Police.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::Thisofcer recorded part -I statement on 28.5.2008 and at its end , ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 ::: 185 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docthere is similar certifcate.Shri Choube has however on 29.5.2008also after this certifcate mentioned that he then drafted a letter tothe Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai informing him about it& forwarded the accused & confession in sealed envelop withBandra police to that Court.The accused was to be taken in veil &it appears that on 28.5.2008, he instructed that police to escortthe accused & to produce him in veil only.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::Procedure followed by PW-29 D.C.P. Brijesh Sinh, Zone -1, Mumbai is same as that of Shri Phadtare.The date at the top ofEx. 324 & 324-A mentioned as "27/05/2007" is an obvious errorsince other dates & developments mentioned below are of year2008 & accused Sandip was arrested on 15.5.2008 only.Accused Sandipwas produced before the CMM on 29.5.2008 where his confessionwas read out to him & he has accepted the same to be correct.278. PW-23 Vijay Singh Jadhav, D.C.P. (HQ-1) has recordedthe confession of accused no. 5 Anil Giri & it appears that accusedwas produced before him in veil only.Shri Jadhav hasfollowed the same procedure as that of Shri Fadtare.However he ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 ::: 186 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docrecords that the accused was sent in veil to enable him to ponderin next 24 hours over the decision to give the confession.Hisstatement is recorded on computer and for that purpose computeroperator Smt. Patil was the only third person present during therecording.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::Suresh thus got time of 45 hours to deliberate & heaccepted the same to be enough.DCP Shri Y.P. Dhum, Port Zone, Mumbai-PW-20, hasrecorded the confession of accused no. 11 Dinesh Narkar on4.6.2008 & 5.6.2008 on computer.Procedure followed by him issame.PW-15 DCP Shri Rajendra Dabhade of LA-2Bruhnmumbai has recorded the confession of accused Narendra @Kandi on 4.6.2008 & 5.6.2008 on computer.This ofcer has ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 ::: 187 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docadopted the same procedure & certifcate issued by him is onsame lines.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::It is important to note what these 7 accused have donewhen they were produced before the Chief MetropolitanMagistrate, Esplanade,Mumbai.They are all produced before thesame learned CMM.On 29.5.2008, Babu @ Shrikrishna Gurav has stated atEx. 259 that he gave his statement before Shri Fadtare after fullythinking & told him whatever was known to him.All details weredisclosed by him & in court, he did not want to add anything more.He was married & has two sons who were staying with him, Hewas working as auto-driver.He was repenting about whateverhappened & wanted to free himself from wrong done.Hence, hedisclosed everything.He has thus stood by the confessionalstatement.On 29.5.2008 itself, as per Ex. 325 accused SandipGangan was also produced before the CMM & he also accepted thestatement read out to him to be correct.He disclosed that he iseducated upto 12th standard & Marathi is his mother tongue.He ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 ::: 188 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docdid not wish to say anything more.This accused therefore hasaccepted his confession.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::As per Ex. 231 on 30.5.208 before the CMM theconfession was read out to Accused Ashok Jaiswar who thenstated that he was visiting Mulund & Bhandup area with Narendra.Narendra had given to him Rs. 4000/ as loan.He was a carpenternot knowing anything about the murder.As his parents were to goto Gorakhpur, he had borrowed that money & he was to return it.His statement was recorded in presence of Shri Choubey &whatever was read out to him, was incorrect.He did not give anysuch statement to Shri Choubey.His signature only was obtainedon said statement.He knew Narendra since childhood.He wasarrested from his home at Bhandup & he was not aware of any"SAMAN".Accused Dinesh @ Dinya Narkar was produced with hisconfession on 5.6.2008 before the CMM.Ex. 271 shows that hehas stated that he has no relation with the ofence & did not knowanything about it.He did not tell anything before DCP & only hissignatures were obtained on papers already written.He did not ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 ::: 189 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docstate anything on lines read out to him as part I & II.He did notcommit any ofence.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::He didnot know anything about the crime & he did not commit anyofence.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::190 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docHe stated that he wasresiding in Dagadi Chawl with his parents since birth.His elderbrother is a taxi-driver while younger brother worked in ICICI bank.His father worked in Kahtau mills & mother is a house wife.A 10 ft.X 12 ft.Room belonged to them.He himself is a mathadi workerearning Rs. 2500/ to Rs. 3000/ pm.He then states that whateverwas read out & told to him about the ofence, he was not knowinganything.Henever had any fnancial dealing with Arun Gawali gang.He neverworked with Sunil Ghate & he never entrusted him the work ofwriting the accounts.He has no concern with the ofence & he wasinnocent.These separate reports of CMM therefore show thataccused 10 Shrikrishna & accused 9 Sandip Gangan did not retractfrom their confessional statements but stood by it.5 others,though have retracted; they do not point out any pressure ortorture or allurement or other promise made to induce them to go ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 ::: 191 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docto the ofce of DCP.Accused Suresh, Dinesh, Narendra, Ashok orAnil do not state at the earliest possible opportunity that undersome threat or coercion, they were forced to state lies.They donot point out the specifc or particular threat or coercion None ofthem explains why they signed on papers already written and didnot protest.They do not say that part I & part II of their respectivestatements were recorded on same day ie they were not producedon second occasion before the concerned DCP.None of themalso states that they were not placed in neutral or safe custodywhen time of 24 hours or more was given to them to re-think overtheir decision to give confession & to make up their mind.Theyalso do not point out any attempt by the investigating ofcer tocontact them while they were placed in the neutral custody.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::Contention that fact of their actual placement in thecustody of some body other than the investigating ofcer is notproved by producing the supporting documents like station diariesdoes not appeal to us here.The accused could have made thatgrievance before the CMM & they have not even whispered a thingon these lines.The respective DCPs who are the responsible highlyplaced ofcers have vouched for it.Similarly the argument thatrespective DCPs should have obtained the signature of confessing ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 ::: 192 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docaccused at the end of certifcate appended after part-II statementsalso, is misconceived.The contents of this certifcate are alreadymentioned by us supra.No legal provision has been shown to us tosupport this argument.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::It has also come out in the said confessional statement (of Accused 5) that out of the two pistols one was not in order and so the same was returned to Accused 1 and that on 5-3-1999 Accused 5 called Accused 1 who informed him that he (Accused 1) has spoken to Chhota Shakeel over the phone and informed him about the incident on the previous day."Accused 5 has also stated in his confessional statement that Accused 1 informed him that Chhota Shakeel had asked Accused 1 to pay Accused 5 some money.Thereupon, Accused 1 paid Rs.20,000 to Accused 5 at Vakola ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 ::: 194 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.doc and Accused 5 and 6 together informed Accused 1 that they were going to Kolkata."::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::The High Court disbelieved the aforesaid confessional statements of Accused 5 and 6 on the ground that the said confessional statements were inadmissible in evidence thereby it reversed the fndings of the trial court.The High Court came to the aforesaid conclusion on the basis that there is no evidence to show that any preliminary warning was given prior to the recording of the confessional statements and that in the absence of proof of the fact that a warning was given prior to the recording of the confessional statements, the same were inadmissible in evidence.We, therefore, hold Accused 1 guilty of all the charges which were already found to be proved and established by the trial court and afrmed by the High Court.So far as the sentence is concerned we, however, uphold and confrm the sentence passed by the High Court and also restore the punishment awarded by the trial court under Section 212 read with Section 52-A read with Section 120-B IPC."::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::None of the learned Counsel for accused have evenurged any inconsistency inter-se between these confessions.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docvoluntarily made did shift to accused Suresh, Dinesh, Narendra,Anil & Ashok.They have failed to discharge it.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::203 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docTo us, it is equally important to note that though theMCOCA trial here is for organized crime dated 2.3.2007, the othercharges are also there.The confessions not relating to murder, butabout CULA are also admissible here.We may add that the prosecution has examined in all37 witnesses.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docaccused No.11-Dinesh Narkar refused the ofer as theconsideration ofered was inadequate), PW-6-Arun Kumar Singh isthe cable operator and a victim of extortion by members of theorganized crime syndicate headed by accused No.1-Arun Gawali @Daddy operating from Dagadi chawl, Byculla.PW-7-Manali Chavan/Hire is the complainant and eye witness whoidentifed the assailants viz. accused No.2-Vijay Giri and accusedNo.4-Narendra Giri in test identifcation parade held by PW-24-SEO Dattaram Kambli as well as in the Court.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::PW-8- Narendra Panchal is the brother of accused No.8-Surendra Panchal who talks about accused No.8 SurendraPanchal's business of repairing and dealing in arms; PW-9-AmrutPatil is panch witness on recovery of diaries containing theaccounts details of organized crime syndicate of Arun Gawalirecovered under section 27 of the Evidence Act at the instance ofaccused No.15-Suresh Patil from the house of PW-10-AnkushGharkar; PW-10-Ankush Gharkar is a resident of Dagadi chawl fromwhose house the diaries of the accounts of organized crimesyndicate were recovered at the instance of accused No.15-Suresh ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 ::: 205 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docPatil.He is a hostile witness.It is proved by prosecution that hehad entry pass to Mantralaya.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::PW-7 Manali did not become available to him for TIP andsketch of accused persons drawn by him was not shown to PW-7 orSmt.Shah or Mayuresh Tandel; PW-11-Ramchandra @ DhaktyaGurav is a relative of accused No.10-Shrikrushna @ Babu Guravwho arranged for the weapon used in the crime (Article 5) fromaccused No.8-Surendra Panchal at Rajapur at the instance ofaccused No.12-Pratap Godse and is the witness who identifesaccused No.12-Pratap Godse, accused No.13-Ajit Rane, accusedNo.8-Surendra Panchal, accused No.10-Babu Gurav and accusedNo.11-Dinesh Narkar in the Court; PW-12-Motilal Chaudhary is theowner of Kamla Aahar Gruh at Asalfa Village near the residence ofdeceased Kamlakar Jamsandekar who identifes accused No.2-VijayKumar Giri, accused No.3-Ashok Kumar Jaiswar, accused No.4-Narendra Giri and accused No.5-Anil Giri as the persons who usedto come to his hotel during February 2007 till murder ofKamalakar Jamsandekar on 2.3.2007; PW-13-Shridhar Munj is thewitness who proved CA report regarding handgun ie weapon usedin the commission of murder as also scarbutt (Article 1) to be part ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 ::: 206 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docof said handgun (article 5).PW-14-Anjali Badade is the witnesswho examined and opined that the scarbutt (Article 1) matchesand fts exactly with the Handgun (Article 5), PW-15-RajendraDabhade is the DCP who recorded voluntary confession statementof accused No.4-Narendra Giri (Exhibit 214); PW-16- SadanandRasam is the witness who fled the previous two charge-sheetsagainst accused No.1-Arun Gawali in the year 2004( Exhibits 218and 219) which are considered as previous chargesheets forinvocation of MCOCA; PW-17-Vinoy Kumar Choubey is the DCP whorecorded voluntary confessional statement of accused No.3-AshokJaiswar (Exhibit 227); PW-18-Dilip Sawant is the DCP who recordedvoluntary confessional statement of accused No.15-Suresh Patil(Exhibit 241); PW-19-Dyaneshwar Phadtare is the DCP whorecorded voluntary confessional statement of accused No.10-BabuGurav (Exhibit 251); PW-20-Yadav Dhum is the DCP who recordedvoluntarily confessional statement of accused No.11- DineshNarkar (Exhibit 264); PW-21-Motiram Kasar is the investigatingofcer of Sakinaka Police station who drew the panchanama ofscene of ofence (Exhibit 165) recovered scarbutt (article 1) andobtained the photographs (Exhibit 163 colly.) of the scene ofofence and fled the initial chargesheet against seven accusedpersons; PW-22-Dr.Bansude is the medical ofcer who performed ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 ::: 207 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docthe post mortem on the dead body of Kamlakar Jamsandekar andwho simultaneously took the photographs (Exhibit 282 colly.); PW-23-Vijay Jadhav is the DCP who recorded voluntary confessionalstatement of accused No.5-Anil Giri (Exhibit 289) and alsoaccorded sanction under the Arms Act (Exhibit 297).::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::PW-26-Asnish Shukla is a panch witness to therecovery of handgun without scarbutt (article 5) and other articlesfrom the possession of accused No.2-Vijay Giri, accused No.3-Ashok Jaiswar and accused No.4-Narendra Giri and accused No.5-Anil Giri under panchanama (Exhibit 311); PW-27-Ajay Joshi is theofcer who arrested accused No.2-Vijay Giri, accused No.3-AshokJaiswar, accused No.4-Narendra Giri and accused No.5-Anil Giri anddrew said panchanama in which handgun without scarbutt (article ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 ::: 208 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.doc::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::5) was recovered from possession of accused No.2-Vijay Giri; PW-28-Mahesh Shah is the owner of Hetal Photo Studio who used topay ransom amount to the members of organized crime syndicateheaded by accused No.1-Arun Gawali operating from Dagadichawl, Byculla, from whom the ransom was being regularlycollected by members of gang of Arun Gawali; PW-29-Brijesh Singhis the DCP who recorded voluntary confessional statement ofaccused No.9 Sandip Gangan (Exhibit 324); PW-30-Charls Daniel isthe nodal ofcer of Vodafone who produced the original customerapplication forms of mobile No.9819251750 in the name ofaccused No.10-Shrikrushna Gurav (Exhibit 408 colly.); PW-31-Ramesh Bhokare is the constable who was the member of raidingparty arresting accused No.2 to accused No.5, in which raid,handgun without scarbutt (article 5) was recovered from theperson of accused No.2-Vijaykumar Giri.This witness gave his FIR(Exhibit 314) and made station diary entry (Exhibit 316 colly.).PW-32-Arun Kirtawade is the ofcer attached toSakinaka Police Station at relevant time who recorded FIR of PW-7Manali Hire (Exhibit 177); PW-33-Diwakar Shelke is the initialinvestigating ofcer of Crime Branch before applying MCOCA.He isthe witness who sent a proposal and obtained prior approval ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 ::: 209 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.doc(Exhibit 421); PW-34-Prashant Gorde is the witness from TataTeleservices (Maharashtra) Ltd. who produced CDR which refectscommunication between accused No.2-Ashok Jaiswar, accusedNo.5-Anil Giri, accused No.8-Surendra Panchal, accused No.10-Babu Gurav, accused No.12-Pratap Godase and accused No.13-AjitRane as also their tower location at relevant time.PW-35-ShekharPalande is the nodal ofcer of Tata Teleservices who producedcompact disk (CD) containing electronic data of cell site ID addressof respective Cell ID numbers (mobile tower locations) of TataTeleservices Customers (Exhibit 436) and original customerApplication forms of accused No.12-Pratap Godase, accused No.3-Ashok and in respect of mobile No.9224770420 used by accusedNo.8-Surendra Panchal, (Exhibits 432 to 434 colly.); PW-36-HasanGafur is the Commissioner of police who accorded sanctionsunder section 23(2) of MCOCA (Exhibits 439 to 441) and PW-37-Ashok Duraphe is the main investigating ofcer.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::Though not necessary in the light of above fndings onthe acceptance of confessions & corroboration, CDR is theadditional material which can be looked into to verify the truth.We are concerned with the following mobile numbers whileconsidering the call data records.These calls give credence to the ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 ::: 210 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docnarration in confessional statements about the same being madeand also to the presence of the accused at the spot/place relevantfor this crime.These mobile numbers are--::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::(i) Phone no. 9223202133 is of Pratap Godse.(A-12)(ii) Phone no. 9833873756 is of Ajit Rane.(A-13)(iii) Phone no. 9819251750 is of Babu Gurav.(A-10)(iv) Phone no. 9224770420 is of Surendra Panchal (A-8).(v) Phone no. 9323709336 is of Anil Giri.(Used by A-2/5) The data of call records with tower location attempts tothrow light on respective calls made by the accused persons inrelation to procurement of the handgun & also on theirmovements prior to 02.03.2007 & thereafter.These CDR arebrought on record by PW-30 Charles Daniel of Vodafone, PW-34Prashant Gawade & PW-35 Shekhar Palande of Tata Teleservices,referred to as Tata hereafter.Most of the learned advocates for theaccused persons have not advanced any arguments to doubt theauthenticity of the entries in the CDR.Learned Counsel foraccused 2 to 5 has urged that the data relating to tower locationat Ex. 435 is produced for the frst time during the trial & its lateproduction was objected to.radius & when one tower is fully engaged, thecall automatically shifts to other available tower in said periphery.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::There isnothing to show that the data at Ex. 434 extracted from mainserver & used in trial had been or could have been interpolated inany manner.Mere possibility of accused 3 Ashok being at otherplace within said area of 5 kms.does not cast a shadow of doubtsince, the confessions mentioned supra nail him down to Asalphavillage and relevant site.We therefore fnd this objection without any merit.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::The CDR indicating location of accused No.3-AshokJaiswar and accused No.12-Pratap Godse brings on recordmovement of other accused persons also on that day.As perprosecution story Kamlakar was shot at about 16.45 hours.CallNo.11 at 16.48.17 hours from mobile No.9224676768 is made bymobile of accused No.3-Ashok Jaiswar to No.9223202133 which isof accused No.12-Pratap and it lasted for about 74 seconds.Thiscall shows the location of accused No.2-Vijay, accused No.3-Ashokand accused No.4-Narendra at Tilak Road, Ghatkopar (E).Inconfession, these persons have stated that they ran away by usingNarayan Galli, Ghatkopar and the tower location supports it.Thus,this call at Serial No.11 is made immediately after murder.Afterreceipt of that call accused No.12-Pratap at 16.50.08 hours talked ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 ::: 213 Judg.Shrikrushna had called Pratap at22.22.20 hours.These movements therefore show the truth inconfession about the route, mode and manner in which aftercommitting murder, accused persons escaped.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::In order to consider issue of continuing unlawfulactivity & organised crime, a look into CDR Ex. 427 in which ninecalls on 27.7.2006, 7.8.2006, 7.8.2006, 14.8.2006, 14.08.2006,15.8.2006 & 15.8.2006 between accused 12 Pratap & accused 8Surendra Panchal appear, becomes essential.These calls & CDRare for the period during which the handgun was procured fromPW-8 Surendra at Vilaye and Kharepatan.However when two calls are made by PW-8 Surendra to accused12 Pratap, Pratap's tower location is 19441 ie at the junction of ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 ::: 214 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docGhatkoper & Andheri road.We need not dwell more on this aspectsince nobody has objected to this CDR.It supports the traveldetails in confessional statement of accused 10 Babu Gurav andaccused 9 Sandip Gangan which have not been retracted.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::18.26 on 15.12.2006support this position.No efort is madeby accused no. 13 Ajit Rane to come with any defence witness orto summon the CDR showing his presence elsewhere.On thecontrary, this supports confession of the accused No.9-SandeepGangan wherein he states that Ajit Rane did not accompanyaccused 12,6 & 7 to the ofce of accused 1 Arun Gawali butstayed back.Sandip Gangan has stood by his confession.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::215 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docMoreover, this CDR also supports the disclosure by accused 15Suresh Patil which is almost on same lines.One chart prepared from Ex. 427 by learned Spl.PPshows presence of accused 12 Pratap at Dagadi Chawl on8.1.2007 when he received Rs. 60,000/ from accused 1 ArunGawali as confessed by accused 9 Sandip & accused 15 SureshPatil.Two calls made by him to accused 10 Babu also fgure in it.This amount was given to him by accused 15 Suresh uponinstructions from Arun Gawali & is paid by accused 9 SandipGangan personally to accused 12 Pratap.The tower location of accused 3 Ashok Jaiswarregarding his presence nearabout Asalfa village where deceasedKamalakar resided when he & other 3 accused were keeping aneye on Kamalakar & waiting for a chance to kill him is collectedfrom Ex. 426 & 427 respectively.There are total 50 calls reliedupon by the prosecution for this exercise.This data supports thecase of prosecution that during period from 15.2.2007 till ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 ::: 216 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.doc1.3.2007, accused 3 Ashok & his colleagues were moving in oraround Kamalakar in Asalpha village.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::It supports story ofpresence of Ashok, Narendra & Vijay at Asalpha on that day.17 hrs.can be seen in Ex. 426 as alsoEx.This CDR supports the confession of accused 3 AshokJaiswar.6 calls made from number of accused 5 Anil toaccused 3 Ashok on 3.3.2007 also support their confessions.Chart prepared from Ex. 426 containing the same is madeavailable by the learned Special PP.These calla show the travelundertaken by Ashok from Vikroli to Borivali(East) where he wasinvited by Vijay.Since the facts emerging from the CDRs & ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 ::: 217 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.doccorroboration therefrom to the respective confessional statementshas not been made the bone of contention (except to the verylimited extent noted supra), we need not delve more into theCDRs.As we have found the confessions voluntarilymade, consistent with each other & sufcient corroboration(though not necessary) in support from other material on record,the same can be used to the detriment of all participatingaccused.But then none of the confessions bring on recordknowledge with accused 2 to 5 or information to them that theywere hired by an organized crime syndicate by name AkhilBhartiya Sena or by accused no. 1 Arun Gawali or that thepayment was being made by ABS.On the contrary, the accused 2to 5 appear to be under impression that accused 10 Babu ieShrikrishna is paying them.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::There the Hon.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::It is clear that fact of payment of Rs.30.00/ Lacs bySahebrao Bhintade (A-6) and Bala Surve (A-7) to Arun Gawali (A-1)who accepted supari to kill Kamlakar Jamsandekar standsestablished.The steps taken by accused 12 & 13 as also accused ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 ::: 220 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.doc10 to hire accused 2 to 5 to give efect to that design have alsobeen established.Use of ofce of Amit Travels for keepingweapons, as a meeting point, steps taken by them to achieve theirgoal & the help extended by them to accused 2 to 5 to eliminateKamlakar & payment in part therefor has also been proved.Actualexecution of said design & killing of Kamlakar has also beenproved beyond reasonable doubt.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::It is not indispute that they were arrested on 26.4.2008 ie more than 13months & 24 days after the murder of Shri Jamsandekar.CIU ieCrime Investigation Unit (CIU) asserts that on 26.4.2008 at 1.30Pm., through an intelligence source, it learnt that 5 persons arelikely to gather to give efect to a dacoity.These accused persons have not come up with any otherplace from which or date on which they were taken in custody.It ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 ::: 221 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docis not in dispute that the competent court has convicted them forsaid ofence of attempted dacoity.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::One of the 5 personscame out & proceeded towards Praksh Gold Palace.Other 4 alsocame out of restaurant but somehow they sensed the presence ofpolice & started separating.PI Sandbhor gave signal & these 4were trapped.While taking search of accused 2 Vijay ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 ::: 222 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docGiri, the raiding party found a gun with wooden handle concealednear waist.It was loaded with live red coloured cartridge having"special 65 mm Agnisham Factory, Khadki" inscribed upon it.Word"KF 12" was embossed on its metal cap.Driving license, a badge,Nokia mobile handset cash of Rs. 70/ was also found with him.12inch knife with 7 inch blade with compass on handle & cash of Rs.40/ was found with accused 3 Ashok.A 12 inch knife with 3 inchmetal strip at the end of its handle, yellow wallet, pan cardbearing name of one Satyendralal B. Srivastav, a telephone diary,a pink attendance card, a key of motor bike and cash of Rs. 30/was found with accused 4 Narendra Giri.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::Motor bike MH-03-AL 8044 on which the two accusedhad arrived & its key with accused 4 Narendra were also taken inpossession.Indacoity trial, PW-31 describing the handgun as a revolver in ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 ::: 223 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docdeposition Ex. 327 there, does not improve the situation foraccused 2 to 5 in MCOC trial.In later trial, PW-31 Bhokare hasdescribed the same article as a home made gun.Accused couldhave invited his attention to this variance (if any) & then couldhave pressed it by pointing out the that weapon in dacoity trialwas diferent.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::Efort has been made to create confusion by pointingout that scarbutt was sent even before this trap on 26.4.2008 bySakinaka police by pointing out that the label on scar but is foundin the sealed packet containing the handgun received from theFSL.By said date, the Sakinaka police hadalready sent the scarbut to FSL.CIU requisitioned it from Sakinakapolice on 8.5.2008 & it was received on 10.5.2008 vide Ex. 419from the FSL in sealed condition.It appear that the handgunrecovered on 26.4.2008 was already sealed by the DCB CIU & afterreceipt of the scarbut, DCB forwarded the gun & the sealedscarbut to FSL.Thus label put by FSL while returning the scarbuttto Sakinaka police on scarbut remained as it is.FSL then carried ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 ::: 224 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docout test through PW-14 Anjali Badade to match & ft the scarbut onthe hand gun.Thus fnding of a label with date 2.3.2007 shows thatthe scarbut was recovered by the Sakinaka police on the date ofmurder of Kamalakar Jamsandekar & it strengthens theprosecution case.It implies that DCB did not open the sealedscarbutt at all.This position does not help the accused in any way.Photographs taken on spot on 2.3.2007 which show scarbutt lyingin room of Kamalakar Jamsandekar are also admitted by accusedon 18.10.2010 vide Ex.163(colly.)::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::This also proves that investigation into crime 82/2007by Sakinaka police was incomplete.There is no material to showthat Sakinaka police sent scarbut to DCB CIU on 26.4.2008 &arguments on these lines advanced by Adv.V. Sharda areunsustainable.Case 702/2008 at Shivaji Nagar, Pune was renumberedas 52 of 2008 by DCB CIU.Ex. 415 is the letter sent by DCB about Sakinaka crime ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 ::: 225 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.doc82 of 2007 on 28.4.2008 pointing out that the accused arrestedby it in crime 52/2008 are involved in it.Ex. 418 is the letter dated8.5.2008 pointing out the orders of Deputy Police Commissioner(Detection) dated 29.4.2008 Ex. 416 (year wrongly typed thereinas 2007) & re-registering Sakinaka ofence as 69/2008 andrequesting the scarbut for forensic analysis.In reply thereto, theSakinaka police has vide Ex. 419 dated 12.5.2008 sent the scarbutas sealed by FSL.Vide Ex.420 dated 19.5.2008, it also requisitionedhandgun seized in crime no. 66/2008 dated 26.4.2008 from CIU.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::Accused 2 to 5 urge that the Sakinaka papers werecalled for by DCB CIU even before the FIR in relation to allegedattempted dacoity was registered.They rely upon Station diaryentry 18 recorded at 16.40 hrs.by Sakinaka police which showsthat papers in relation to crime 82/2007 were taken to DCB CIUwhere the same were retained.30 hrs on sameday to DCB ofce.Entry no. 26 at 15.45 hrs on 29.4.2008 recordsthat those papers were brought back to Sakinaka police.Nextentry at sr.no. 27 at 16.10 hrs reveals that the papers were madeover to DCB for further investigation.4,2008 itself.These entries ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 ::: 226 Judg.They have not urgedthat no such case was registered against Ajit Rane at Dound policestation.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::On the contrary earlier deposition of Ramesh Bhokarein Sessions Trial 482 of 2008, particularly paragraph 11 showsthat the wrapper/label of scarbutt with date 2.3.2007 was found insealed wrapper sent by FSL This wrapper containing the handgunwas opened in Court & the other sealed wrapper ie of scarbutt wasfound in that wrapper.This other wrapper carried a paperslip withdate 2.3.2007 indicating that paperslip was of the scarbutt.Thisother wrapper was marked Art. 5A. This other wrapper can not beused to create any confusion as the scarbut was not anindependent property in ST 482 /2008 but used to connect thehandgun with murder of Kamalakar and as such was afxed on thehandgun itself as its integral part.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::227 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docAccused 10 Shrikrishna @ Babu was already in custodyof police in crime 118/ 08 and on 29.4.2008, prior approval toinvoke MCOCA was obtained.Trial in 118/2008 is still pending.After interrogation of accd.10, accused 6 Sahebrao & accd.On 5.5. 2008, accused8 Surendra was arrested.Exhibit 218(C.R. 77/2004) Exhibit 219 (C.R. No.189/2004), Exhibit 464(CRNo.164/2004) and Exhibit 465 (CR No.159/2005) are the fourchargesheets relevant for this purpose.The submission that onlytwo charge-sheets are exhibited or are admissible, is thereforeunsustainable.The paper label with date 2.3.2007therefore does not afect anybody prejudicially.It proves that thescarbut as received in sealed condition by Sakinaka police was, infact, forwarded as it is in MCOCA investigation to FSL.PW-26 Ashish Shukla, a passer by agreed to act aspancha on 26.4.2008 at the request of police.He is the witness /pancha on recoveries from these accused 2 to 5 at the placeopposite Vitthalwadi Mandir in at Kalbadevi Road where they wereapprehended.He has pointed out that the persons overpowered ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 ::: 228 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docwere searched & from them weapons, cellphones & money wasseized.Weapon is the gun 1 foot in length & one bullet.He alsopoints out that the seized articles were sealed.Contention that the alleged intelligence as alsostation diary entry at Ex. 316 is vague and the accused werenot sent to LT marg police station in crime 118 of 2008 does nottherefore advance the case of the accused.Cross examination ofPW-31 does not dilute the stand of the prosecution at all.Fact thatthe accused were produced for the frst time in front of DCP alsodoes not mean that the prosecution has fabricated any story.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::This PW-26 Ashish Shukla, in Court has proved thatpanchanama & articles seized by the police from the 4 accusedpersons including the foot long gun with barrel recovered fromaccused 2 Vijay.Though he could not name that accused, hementioned that it was from waist of that person.He identifed thearticles seized & sealed and also signatures on paper labels.He ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 ::: 229 Judg.In Court, he could not identify these 4accused persons.PW-26's cross examination does not bring on recordany material omission or fact so as to discredit him.Fact thatearlier he had been to Crime Branch Ofce or LT Marg policestation does not disqualify him from acting as a witness.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::We are here not concerned with attempted dacoity.Thehandgun seized from accused 2 Vijay is the material piece ofevidence here.The station diary entry Ex. 316 has been made at13.45 hrs.The non mentionin Ex. 316 of carrying seals to the spot does not in any way vitiatethis recovery of handgun from accused 2 Vijay.State did examine PW-27 Ajay Joshi (API) who was partof raiding team.He caught hold of accused 5 Anil & also dictatedthe text of panchanama Ex. 311 & he also identifed Art. 5 -thegun.Sakinaka police had already charge-sheeted 7 ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 ::: 230 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docpersons as accused in connection with the murder of Kamlakar &CIU was not concerned with it & had no reason to fabricate anyevidence or to add the accused to Sakinaka charge-sheet.Eventhe attempted dacoity was not perceived as an organized crimeby it.The missing scar but of Art. 5 could not then be co-relatedwith the Sakinaka crime immediately.Accused caught on spotwere not then even suspected of association in murder of ShriJamsandekar.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::PW-7- Mrs. Manali Chavan is the eye witness to incidentof murder.She got married on 15/5/2010 and at the time ofincident her maiden name was Manali Keshav Hire.She wasresiding with Komal Jamsandekar, wife of deceased as shehappened to be her maternal aunt.Twounknown persons were present near the door of room and neck ofKamlakar had leaned to one side, blood was oozing from left ear.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::Police took Kamlakar toRajawadi hospital.Police recorded her statement and she learnt atspot that Kamlakar passed away.In second roundagain 14 persons were pareded and she identifed accused No.4Narendra Giri.Her cross-examination shows that during funeralprocession of Kamlakar, the people were whispering that accusedNo.6 and accused No.7 might have committed the murder.Thiswitness then has referred to accused No.6 as uncle Bhintade.Shehas further stated that after police recorded her statement, sherealized that she forgot to state some facts to police.She stated ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 ::: 232 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docthat Sayali and she herself were the only persons present in houseat the time of incident.She has stated that on either side of theirroom and infront of their room there are rooms of other persons.On the right side, there is pipe line Road while on left, there is linkroad.Three rooms separated their room and pipe line road whileonly one room existed between their room and link Road.Left sidelane is narrow and only one or two persons can pass at a time.She accepted that the lane takes a turn and its width is about 3 to4 feet.She accepted that person entering the lane can not beseen from entrance of their room.She stated that when she wascleaning utensils she heard atom bomb (a fre cracker) like soundand she turned and saw two persons running away.She statedthat her statement was read over by police before she signed it.She stated that she did not tell police that when she turnedaround, she saw two unknown persons by the side of uncle.Shedenied that she did not go towards her uncle.She accepted thatshe did not tell police that one of the two had a fre arm in hishand.She accepted that while she gave description of these twopersons, she did not describe clothes worn by them.She statedthat police arrested some persons on doubt but nobody asked herto go to police station for identifcation.She denied that Sakinakapolice called her for identifcation but she did not respond. ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::233 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docManali has denied that frst Sayali raised cry to help herfather and then she came out.She has further stated thatSudhakar, brother of Kamlakar resides at a distance of 100 ft.Shestated that in her statement recorded after holding TIP, she did notinform police that the accused frst identifed by her had fred onKamlakar.Witness clarifed that she told police that said suspectwas armed with fre arm.She further stated that she did notinform SEO that suspect identifed by her had fred shot.She thenpointed out letter received asking her to report at Crime BranchUnit-III for test identifcation parade.Her cross then is about proceedings of TI parade andnothing material to discredit her has come on record.She has stated that when she wasalone before second round of test identifcation parade in a room,nobody had visited that room.In later test identifcation parade,she realized that 7 persons out of 14 had a diferent look.Duringtest identifcation parade contents of her complaint were at the ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 ::: 234 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docback of her mind.First suspect identifed by her in testidentifcation parade was shorter but slim while the other was ofmedium built.It appears that both accused persons i.e. accusedNo.4 Narendra Giri and accused No.2 Vijay Giri were then made tostand side by side and Trial Court noticed as also witnessaccepted that accused No.4 Narendra was taller than Vijay.Witness could not say why Vijay appeared to be 5.6 ft.in heightand she denied that he was not having a square face.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::Though some arguments have been advanced on thisdiferences in height, we fnd that a slim person might haveappeared to be of more height to said witness as he was closer toher and the chair of deceased.She had a look at him and otherperson for short time and the slim body built in that situation mayhave caused that impression.This witness has not, in her policestatement initially recorded, stated that she could identify theaccused persons but nothing turns upon it.FIR initially registered and chargesheet fled bySakinaka police thereafter shows that PW-7 had lodged complaintand in fnal report accused No.13-Ajit Rane, accused No.12-PratapGodase, accused No.21-Ganesh Salvi, accused No.16-SubhashUpadhyay, accused No.18-Mohd.Saif Mohiddin Faruqi @ Bobby ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 ::: 235 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docand accused No.19- Badrealam Badruddin Faruqui were shown asaccused.Two more persons viz., Santosh @ Bablu Singh andShivprakash @ Babu Upadhyay were also accused in that charge-sheet.These two persons were not arraigned as accused inMCOCA charge-sheet and accused No.16-Subhash was discharged.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::After this charge-sheet Exhibit 275, the matter hadgone to the Trial Court having jurisdiction in relation to IPCofences.However, Manalipointed out accused persons seen by her in the house (room) ofher uncle deceased Kamlakar.Test identifcation parade dated2/6/2008 is conducted by PW-24 and nothing fruitful has been ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 ::: 236 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docbrought out in his cross examination to disbelieve either him orthe proceedings of the test identifcation parade.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::He ishotelier by profession and the room of deceased Kamlakar issituated at 5-7 minutes walk from his hotel.He has deposed thatfour unknown persons, not his regular customers used to come tohis hotel in morning for about 20 days prior to murder of deceasedKamlakar.They stopped visiting his hotel from the nextday after murder of Kamlakar.He then pointed out proceedings oftest identifcation and how he identifed initially two out of thesefour persons and then in second test identifcation parade,remaining two accused persons.Later on healso identifed other three accused persons.His cross examinationshows that he took a walk down the memory lane and afterrecollecting the facts, decided to tell it to police.He has alsodescribed accused persons in cross examination and it is not the ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 ::: 237 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.doccase of any accused before us that this identifcation by him ordescription given by him is incorrect.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::This witness also proved their arrest forms.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::After some information, four persons namelySubhashchandra Upadhyay, Mohd. Saif Mohiddin Faruqee @Boddy, Badre Alam Badruddin Shaikh and Santosh Rajendra Singhcame to be arrested.Certain telephone numbers were kept underobservation.Print outs of CDR were obtained.The phonenumbers of accused no. 6 Sahebrao Bhintade, accused no. 7Bala Surve, accused no. 10 Shrikrishna Gurav and several otherpersons were kept under observation.Specifc question was put tohim whether during the investigation he got any materialsufcient to arrest any of the persons and the witnesses statedthat he did not get sufcient material against other accusedpersons except accused no. 21 Salvi, accused Ajit Rane andaccused Pratap Godse.He fled chargesheet as the period of 90days was getting over.He identifed said chargesheet with thesignature of Senior P.I. Wadkar.Cross examination of PW-21-Motiram Kasar shows thearrest of accused Ajit Rane, Pratap Godse and Ganesh Salvi whowere in police custody for 15 days after their arrest on 1/7/2007, &that they were thoroughly interrogated.Santosh Singh was arrested on 12/4/2007. ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::240 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docThey were all in police custody for 15 days and thoroughlyinterrogated.He himself prepared a brief summary of case ofprosecution at last page of charge-sheet.He also states that accused No.6 Sahebrao Bhintadeand accused No.7-Bala Surve were also interrogated.He was notaware whether their statements were recorded on it.He was notaware whether statements of Shrikrishana Gurav, Madhav Zha,Nilesh Patil, Pravin Marathe, Suman Surve, Manoj Agarwal, JeevanGawali and his father Babu, Ashok Kavatekar, Prakash More,Sanjeev Singh, Jakir Ahmad and Smt. Ajara were recorded bypolice ofcers.He had interrogated Shrikrishna Gurav but he didnot record his statement as he did not fnd it necessary.He thenpointed out that while leaving police station for investigation,entries are made in station diary.He produced station diary entries (xerox copies) ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 ::: 241 Judg.He had nopersonal knowledge that investigation papers were called for byDCB CID Unit-III.He stated that papers were kept with PoliceInspector (Crimes).He was not aware that papers were receivedback in police station.He was not told by PI Crime that paperswere called for by DCB-CID Unit-III.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::About entry 26 dated 29/4/2008, he has deposed thatpapers were brought back from DCB CID ofce by Shri Salvi.EntryNo.27 revealed that those papers were again submitted to DCBCIR Unit-III ofce.He stated that papers were called back by DCBCID within an hour.Hewas not knowing whether articles submitted along with charge-sheet had been returned to police station.As regards entriesin Exhibit No.277, he stated that its contents were correct.Hedenied that when he reached to the spot deceased Kamlakar wasalready rushed to hospital.He stated that till completion of spotpanchanama, he did not go to hospital.He accepted that portionmarked "A" in Exhibit 277 was not correct.In portion marked "A"in Exhibit 277 it is recorded that Kamlakar was already taken toRajewadi hospital and when he reached Rajewadi hospital, he ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 ::: 242 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.doclearnt that Kamlakar had already expired.He has then identifedphotographs taken at spot.He stated that these photographswere not submitted to Court along with charge-sheetinadvertently.His attention was invited to portion marked as "B"in Exhibit 277 which records that direction was issued toinvestigate.He accepted portion marked as Exhibit "B" to becorrect.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::His cross examination shows that portion marked as "B"in Exhibit 277 regarding taking in possession clothes of deceasedand portion marked Exhibit "E" are also shown to him.Thiswitness has stated that portion marked "C" in this document is notcorrect.He accepted that FIR Exhibit 177 does not indicate that itwas recorded at hospital.He pointed out that motive behind the murder wasascertained after making inquiry with family members ofdeceased.Family Members of deceased were reluctant to givetheir statements but he made no record about it.Widow ofdeceased, his PA and associates did not voluntarily come to policestation.When they were summoned by Police Station, they did notgive any material information about motive.However, no record ofthis fact has been made.PW-2-Neelkanth Bane and Shankar Baikar ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 ::: 243 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docwere summoned but he did not record their statements since theydid not give any useful information.He further stated that sketchof accused was prepared as per description given by Neeta Shah.However, no statement of Neeta Shah was recorded afterpreparing sketch.That sketch was shown to Mayuresh Tandel andNeeta Shah.Efort was made to show that sketch to PW-1 and PW-7 but, they did not see that sketch.No note in support of factthat though widow Komal, Sayali and Manali were asked to comefor test identifcation parade, they did not come has beenprepared.He stated that Sayali and Manali were not summoned topolice station and sketch was not shown to them as instructed byPW-1-Komal.He stated that description given by witnesses somewhat matched with physical appearance of arrested suspects.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::On 11/3/2007 for the frst time he realized thatKamlakar was murdered because of defeat of Ajit Rane incorporation election.He was not aware of police record ofquarrel between Mr. Bhanushali and deceased in 2002 elections.He was not aware whether in 2007 elections there was any bogus ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 ::: 244 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docvoting.He accepted that during investigation he found thatKamlakar liked hunting.He was not aware whether Kamlakarfrequently used to go to Konkan.He did not investigate into thetype of weapon/s with deceased for hunting.He did not fnd anyweapon or objectionable article in the search of his house.Hedenied that Ajit Rane, Pratap Godse and Ganesh Salvi werearrested in a false case.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::An association or group facing two or morechargesheets of such nature must be therefore shown at thebase as perpetrator of an organized crime.The actual criminal ieperson giving efect to crime, may not have been party to its ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 ::: 245 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docearlier unlawful activities but then he must be shown to be aperson indulging in organized crime & therefore must haveknowledge of existence of such a syndicate or its business ieCULA.This fows from requirement that the criminal hasknowledge or intention that "his crime" is a organized crime." Hiscrime" here means the organized crime for which he is beingprosecuted.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::Need of the weapon like gun &eforts made to procure it leading to the handgun are also provedby the prosecution.System of maintaining the accounts of theamount extracted, expenditure incurred & responsibility to write ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 ::: 246 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docthe accounts on accused 15 Suresh & PW-25 Vishwanath hascome on record.Funds were used to purchase & run the vehicles,to pay the salaries of the staf, to assist the dependents of gangmembers in jail or injured etc. Diaries discovered under S. 27 ofthe Evidence Act show maintenance of accounts & regularbusiness as extortionist.Accused 13 Ajit Rane contested theelection of Corporation as representative of ABS, participation in &efort to disturb MTNL elections, preparations made to attackgang-rival Solanki, help of Rs. 60,000/ to family of Accd.12 Pratapare the facts also brought on record.Thus an establishment withcriminal inclination having a systematic activity & an ofce hasbeen shown.The activities included locating the possible victimsfor extortion, calling them to Bhajanachi Kholi & threatening themto agree to pay the monthly installments, charge-sheets lookedinto in approval order dated 20.05.2008 all prove an organizedcrime syndicate.This syndicate has its ofce bearers at taluka asalso ward level.This association or syndicatethus encourages & harbours its criminal members.Shri Gupte, thelearned Counsel had urged that Anita Ghaywat, sister of Ajit Ranewho used to sit in the ofce has not been examined by the ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 ::: 247 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docprosecution.We fnd that it was not necessary for the State toexamine her or to record her S. 161 CrPC statement.If theaccused so desired, nobody prevented them from examining heras defence witness.Similarly the argument that scarbutt on thespot, could have been of the gun of Kamlakar himself ismisconceived.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::As already discussed above, the knowledge of allconvicted accused persons, except accused 2 to 5; of theexistence of Akhil Bhartiya Sena and its criminal activities, stepstaken by them to further or advance the goals of ABS & theirparticipation in its afairs are all on record.However, the fact thataccused 2 to 5 had knowledge of existence of said ABS, of itsobjects & activities or fact that accused no. 2 to 5 participated inany such activity has not been proved by the prosecution.Accused 2 to 5 here go to ofce of Amit Travels and from saidofce, work of Bhartiya Kamgar Sena of Accused no. 1 is alsodone.However, the prosecution could not bring on recordknowledge to them that person to be killed was a rival corporatorKamalakar or then knowledge to them that they were eliminatingKamalakar on behalf of ABS or accused 1 Arun Gavali.Theyhave/had no knowledge that accused 1 Arun Gawali was to pay ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 ::: 248 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docthem the agreed amount or ABS was to be the benefciary of theircrime.The material on record shows that they were looking ataccused 10 Shrikrishna @ Babu as source of payment.They were"one time hired" killers to execute the supari or job accepted bythe ABS.Their contact with accused 10,12 & 13 was the frstoccasion and the contract was a one time event and as such, theprosecution has not proved that they have indulged in any CULA.The ofence of murder dated 2.3.2007 is diferent in nature orcontent for them when compared with its nature as against theother accused persons.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::The involvement of accused 1 Arun Gawali in themurder of Kamalakar Jamsandekar has been proved by theprosecution beyond reasonable doubt.Similarly fact that he isleader of organized crime syndicate and party to CULA standsestablished.Hence, his conviction can not be faulted with becauseaccused 11 has been acquitted by the Special Court.Contributionof other accused persons leading to CULA has also come on ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 ::: 250 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docrecord.Hence, submission that PW-2-Neelkanth Bane did notbring any threat perception of deceased Kamlakar Jamsandekar onrecord is not decisive here.When in law, conviction is possibleonly on the strength of the confessions recorded under S. 18 of theMCOCA, in present matter, where the independent corroboration isseen, the conviction of the others by the Trial Court can not befaulted with.Hence, the following order.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::APPEAL NO. 1095 OF 2012 is partly allowed & part of Judgment convicting them under Section 3(1)(i) of the MCOC Act, 1999 and sentencing each to sufer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fne of Rs.1.00 Lac each, and in default to sufer rigorous imprisonment for three years, is set aside.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::251 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.doc(3) Part of Judgment in CR.APPEAL NO. 1095 OF 2012 convicting Vijay Giri (A-2), Ashokkumar Jaiswar (A-3) and Narendra Giri (A-4) for the ofence punishable under Section 452 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing each to sufer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fne of Rs.5000/- each, and in default to sufer rigorous imprisonment for one year, is maintained(4) Similarly Part of Judgment in CR.APPEAL NO. 1095 OF 2012 convicting Vijay Giri (A-2), Ashokkumar Jaiswar (A-3), Narendra Giri (A-4) and Anil Giri (A-5) for the ofence under Section 302 read with Section 34 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing each to sufer rigorous imprisonment for life is maintained.(5) Remaining part of the common Judgment and Order dated 31st August 2012 delivered by the Special Judge, MCOC Act, Gr.Mumbai in MCOC Special Case No.7 of 2008 is maintained.Accordingly the conviction of all the other appellants ie accused persons & punishments inficted respectively upon them are upheld.(6) Accordingly Criminal appeals 1061 of 2012, 1066 of 2012, 1076 of 2012, 1077 of 2012, 1093 of 2012, 1094 of 2012 and 1157 of 2012 are dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::252 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.doc(7) All pending miscellaneous criminal applications (interim applications) ie Cr.APP 144 of 2019, 1406 & 1534 of 2018 are also dismissed.(MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, J.) (B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.) ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:42 :::
|
['Section 120B 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.
|
119,660,835 |
Case diary is available.This is an application for e correction in the cause title of the bail application.ad It is submitted that initially the offence under Section Pr 307 of IPC was not registered, but at the time of the filing of the charge-sheet, the police has added the offence undder a hy Section 307 of IPC also, therefore, he may be permitted to amend the bail application.ad For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same M is allowed.The necessary amendment has been carried out by the of counsel for the applicant on Board itself with the permission rt of this Court.ou This is first application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.C The applicant has been arrested on 13.3.2018 in h connection with Crime No. 367/2017 registered by Police ig Station Porsa, District Morena for offence punishable under H Sections 365, 323, 34 and later added 307 of IPC and Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that this Court, by order dated 27/4/2018 passed in MCRC No. 11472/2018, had granted bail to co-accused Dinesh Singh and the case of the present applicant is identical to that of co- accused Dinesh Singh.It is submitted that according to the prosecution case, the applicant along with other co-accused persons went to the fields of the complainant and the applicant fired a gunshot which missed injured Shyam Singh and hit on the front portion of the tractor.Certified copy as per rules.Digitally signed by ALOK KUMAR Date: 2018.06.19 17:58:55 +05'30' (G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE AKS sh e ad Pr a hy ad M of rt ou C h ig H
|
['Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 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.
|
81,981,470 |
The following are the allegations contained in the Protest Petition filed by the petitioner:The Court below has directed the Inspector of Police, Sirumugai Police Station, to investigate the private complaint filed by the petitioner.But the police did not file any report even though the petitioner sent two letters dated 19.6.2012 and 26.07.2012 which were received on 26.6.2012 and 28.7.2012 alongwith the above said private complaint copy and marriage registration certificate of respondent.The respondent has re-married on 25.02.2010 but on 11.11.2011 during the cross examination she told that she has not remarried.Hence, the Court may be pleased to direct the police to re-open and re-investigagte the matter or direct the CBCID to investigate the complaint and file report.2. Judicial Magistrate, recorded sworn statement of the petitioner and dismissed the petition stating that on going through the records and sworn statement, the only offence made out is under Section 193 IPC., that according to Section 195 Cr.P.C. this petitioner has no locus standi to file this complaint under Section 193 I.P.C. and hence the petition is not maintainable.The petitioner says that the respondent wife was divorced and she re-married on 25.2.2010 in Arulmigu Subramaniaswamy Thirukkoil, Pachaimalai-Modachur, Erode District for which he has produced copy of the Marriage Certificate issued by the Executive Officer of the said Temple.He also adds that she is having a male child aged 1= years.But when she was examined in the same court on 31.08.2012, she admitted that after divorce she contacted second marriage and her husband's name is Arjunan, that after the said marriage she is having a male child aged 1 year 3 months.If it is so, while she deposed earlier on 11.11.2011 her child should have been aged 5 months.It is consciously admitted by her that the child was born out of the second marriage.Hence, it is manifest that she has given a false statement on 11.11.2011 as to her marriage that she has not married for the second time.Significantly it is to note that she has made false statements while she was examined before the same Court in M.C.No.22 of 2007, i.e., Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam.Taking advantage of this situation, the petitioner has come forward with this claim.
|
['Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
81,991,748 |
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Krishna Pahal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Sanjay Sharma, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is lady and she has been falsely implicated in the present case.It is next submitted that earlier an FIR was lodged on 17.3.2017 against the brother of applicant for an incident which took place on 17.3.2017 at 7:30 pm.
|
['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
81,995,200 |
Item No. 31And In the matter of: Raja Dakua @ Raja Haldar Petitioner- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Ms. Ranjana Talapatra For the Petitioner Mrs. Suman Sehanabis For the State The Petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Hanskhali Police Station Case No. 893 of 2012 dated 16.11.2012 under Sections 341/325/326/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code, has applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocates for the Parties.We have seen the case diary and the injury reports.There is no need for the custodial interrogation of the Petitioner in this case.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', '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.
|
81,995,631 |
The investigation is almost complete and he is not required for further interrogation.There is no possibility of his / her absconsion or tampering with the evidence, if enlarged on bail.Conclusion of the trial will take sufficiently long time.Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.
|
['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
81,997,609 |
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the present bail application.The present bail application has been filed by the applicant Yogesh with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 266 of 2020, under Sections 323, 354B, 376, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Etah.It is further submitted that accused applicant has no criminal history and he is prepared to furnish sureties and bonds and there is no possibility of his either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the evidence.Applicant is languishing in jail since 21.5.2020 and undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and cooperate in trial.Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.Upon hearing the submissions made by learned counsel of both sides, considering the contention made above, and without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.Order Date :- 14.10.2020 Mini
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
8,200,051 |
The property has 16000 sq.ft. of constructed area in 4 floors viz.,(i) Basement admeasuring 4000 sq.ft.defendant through his brothers contact."5. ........That the second party shall pay an advance six month rent of Rs.42,00,000/- (Forty Two lacs Only) to the first party as security out of which he has already paid an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- (Seven Lacs Only) vide cheque No.428160 dated 14th September, 2011, drawn of Vijya Bank, Defence Colony, New Delhi and the balance CS(OS) Nos.5/2012, 508/2012 & 641/2012 Page No.8 of 53 of Rs.36,00,000/- (Thirty Six Lacs Only) is being paid vide cheque No.428161 dated 19.09.2011, drawn of Vijya Bank, Defence Colony......."(i) Out of the said sum of `42 lac, only a sum of `7 lac was paid and thereafter nothing has been paid so far.As regards the mentioning of cheque of `36 lac in paragraph 5 of the lease agreement dated 19 th September, 2011, the said cheque was never handed over to the plaintiff.The amount of `7 lac was only paid in the form of rent and no security as per paragraph 5 was paid, therefore, no possession was handed over to the defendant.The said fabrication, according to the plaintiff, is apparent as unlike every other page(s) of the Lease Agreement, the page under reference does not in any point bear the signatures of the plaintiff.It is stated that since the plaintiff was unable to pay his debts to the Bank towards the end of the year 2009, the plaintiff requested the defendant to help him.So, between November, 2009 and December, 2009 the defendant advanced to the plaintiff various sums totaling `50 lac.In March, 2010, the plaintiff again approached the defendant requesting him to advance a further sum of `2,28,70,000/- to which the defendant conditionally agreed.(d) In the event of the inability of the plaintiff to repay the loan of Rs.2,78,70,000/- (Rupees two crores seventy eight lakhs and seventy thousand only) to the defendant by 30.06.2011, the plaintiff shall hand over vacant, peaceful possession of the entire first floor of the property at No.A- 24, Kailash Colony, New Delhi to the defendant along with proportionate, undivided share in land underneath and the defendant shall be entitled to get a sale deed executed in its favour for transfer of ownership of the said first floor for a total sale consideration of Rs.5,50,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crores and fifty lakhs only).(e) That the plaintiff shall obtain a No Objection Certificate from Indian Bank releasing its charge over the entire first floor of property No.A-24, Kailash Colony, New Delhi, along with proportionate, undivided share in the land underneath.On 16th December, 2011 the plaintiff with 20 goons came to the site and started damaging furniture and abusing and pushing the defendants staff working there.The plaintiff threw away the defendants furniture from the basement and put in two beds of his own.On the ground floor and the second floor, the plaintiff put his own locks.When the police came in, it was realized that it was difficult to control the plaintiffs men.The GK-1 police was also called.The defendant made an initial complaint of apprehending assault on 16th December, 2011 followed by a detailed complaint on 17th December, 2011 to the SHO, Police Station GK-1, New Delhi.CS(OS) Nos.5/2012, 508/2012 & 641/2012 Page No.18 of 53(vii) After preliminary inquiry, the police has registered FIR No.173 dated 30th December, 2011 in the matter by accepting the complaint.He also brought bath tubs during the night which was captured on CCTV.Entire First floor (Both rare and front portion) ad-measuring 4000 sq. Fts.Along with car parking in building bearing Property No.24, Block- A, Kailash Colony-I, New DelhiLet me now deal with the rival submissions of the parties in relation to the first floor of the suit property.It is the admitted position in the MOA dated 11 th March, 2010 that the plaintiff approached the defendant for financial assistance to make the payment to the Bank to regularize the accounts and the defendant had agreed CS(OS) Nos.5/2012, 508/2012 & 641/2012 Page No.22 of 53 to extend the financial assistance of `2,78,70,000/-.The relevant clauses 2 to 9 of the said agreement reads as under:-That Rs.50,00,00/- (Fifty Lacs Only) has already been paid by the SECOND PARTY to the FIRST PARTY in November and December 2009 which FIRST PARTY duly acknowledges and the balance amount of Rs.2,28,70,000/- (Two Crore Twenty Eight Lacs and Seventy Thousand Only) has to be paid to the FIRST PARTY by 12th March, 2010 for which he will issue separate money receipt...."along with proportionate undivided share in land underneath.That if the FIRST PARTY is not able to repay the above said loan with Indian Bank, then the SECOND CS(OS) Nos.5/2012, 508/2012 & 641/2012 Page No.24 of 53 PARTY shall have the option to repay the outstanding loan with the Bank on behalf of the FIRST PARTY and get the ENTIRE FIRST FLOOR admeasuring about 4000 SQ.along with proportionate undivided share in land underneath of the said property transferred vide Registered Sale Deed by the FIRST PARTY in his favour."It is further argued by the defendant that on 16th December, 2011 the plaintiff with 20 goons came to the site and started damaging furniture and abusing and pushing the defendants staff working there.The plaintiff threw away the defendants furniture from the basement and put in two beds of his own.I.A. No.42/2012 (u/o XXXIX, R.1 & 2 CPC), I.A. No.3918/2012 (u/o VII, R.11 CPC) & I.A. No.15990/2012 (u/s 151 CPC for brining subsequent developments and facts on record) in CS(OS) No.5/2012 and I.A. No.4798/2012 (u/o XXXIX, R.1 & 2 CPC) and I.A. No.15989/2012 (u/s 151 CPC for brining subsequent developments and facts on record) in CS(OS)By this common order, I propose to decide the abovementioned applications along with other pending applications which were filed during the hearing of interim applications.One Mr.Sateesh Kumar through registered Power of Attorney Holder Dr.Yashwant Singh filed the suit for eviction, declaration, cancellation, mandatory injunction and for damages, against Mr.Ashutosh Verma, defendant in the matter.The following prayers are made in the suit:-"(a) Pass a decree of eviction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, so as to evict the defendant and all his agent, servants, friends, friends, relatives, associates and anyone else acting on his behalf, form the CS(OS) Nos.5/2012, 508/2012 & 641/2012 Page No.2 of 53 property being the first floor of the property being A-24, Kailash Colony, New Delhi;(b) Pass a decree of permanent and mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, his assigns, heirs, successors, legal representatives, his servants, agents, or anyone acting or claiming through him from interfering in any part and portion of the property being A-24, Kailash Colony, New Delhi;(c) Pass a decree of declaration, declaring that the "Lease Agreement" dated 19.09.2011 between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 as null and void non-est in the eyes of law and was never acted upon, and/or(d) Pass a decree of declaration, declaring that the "Memorandum of Understanding dated 11.3.2010 between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 as null and void non-est in the eyes of law, and/or(e) Pass a decree of declaration, declaring that the "Supplementary Memorandum of Understanding" dated 20.1.2011 between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 as null and void non-est in the eyes of law, and/or(f) Pass a decree of declaration, declaring that the "Deed of Lease" dated 20.1.2011 between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 as null and void non-est in the eyes of law, and/or(g) Pass a decree of declaration, declaring that the arrangement of issuance of money receipt of cash (or by whatever named called), in lieu of interest on the sum borrowed as indicated in paragraph No.3 G, as null and void non-est in the eyes of law, and/or(h) Pass a decree of cancellation, cancelling the "Memorandum of Understanding" dated 11.3.2010 between the plaintiff and defendant No.1, and/or CS(OS) Nos.5/2012, 508/2012 & 641/2012 Page No.3 of 53(i) Pass a decree of cancellation, cancelling the "Supplementary Memorandum of Understanding" dated 20.1.2011 between the plaintiff and defendant No.1, and/or(j) Pass a decree of cancellation, cancelling the "Deed of Lease" dated 20.1.2011 between the plaintiff and defendant, and/orVarious applications have been filed in these three matters by both parties.But, there are two main applications under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 & 2 CPC, being I.A. No.42/2012 filed by the plaintiff in CS(OS) No.5/2012 and I.A. No.4798/2012 filed by the defendant wherein the arguments were addressed by the parties.In the first application, the plaintiff is seeking interim order restraining the defendant from interfering or causing hindrance in usage of the portions being basement, ground and second floors and terrace, and in the second application, the interim order is sought by the defendant in his suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act being CS(OS) Nos.5/2012, 508/2012 & 641/2012 Page No.4 of 53 CS(OS) No.641/2012 to restore the possession of the said floors and to restrain the plaintiff to provide access to the defendant and further, the plaintiff be directed not to sell, alienate, transfer and part with the possession of the said floors of the suit property.The entire dispute of the parties revolves around mainly five documents of property No.A-24, Kailash Colony, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "Suit Property"), i.e. (a) Memorandum of Agreement dated 11th March, 2010, (b) Lease Deed dated 20th January, 2011, (c) Possession Letter dated 1st February, 2011 with respect to first floor of the suit property,(d) Supplementary Memorandum of Agreement dated 20th January, 2011 and (e) Lease Agreement dated 19th September, 2011 in respect of the remaining portion of the suit property, i.e. basement, ground floor and second floor.All the above-mentioned documents are executed between the plaintiff and the defendant.Plaintiff's Case:The Bank declared the account of the plaintiff as Non-Performing Assets (NPA) with a threat of taking securitization action against the mortgaged property.Taking advantage of the said situation, the defendant proposed to the plaintiff to extend the loan for which the plaintiff agreed upon.(h) On 19th September, 2011, the defendant approached the plaintiff to take on lease the entire suit property except first floor being Basement, Ground Floor and the Second Floor on rent.(j) The letter dated 26th September, 2011 issued by the defendant was referred with regard to the deduction of the rent which also contains the details of some discussions over phone and suggestions.As per plaintiff, the said letter of the defendant dated 26th September, 2011 acknowledges the fact that it was in the nature of a counter offer as implicit as no formal contract was concluded between the parties with respect to their rights and CS(OS) Nos.5/2012, 508/2012 & 641/2012 Page No.9 of 53 obligations i.e. Lease Agreement dated 19th September, 2011, coupled with the fact that the cheque dated 19th September, 2011 for an amount of `36 lac issued by the defendant as a condition precedent for the execution of a valid contract was never honoured.(k) It was admitted by the plaintiff that after several telephonic conversations between the parties from 30th September, 2011 to 18th December, 2011 when the defendant handed over an amount of `27,10,000/- in cash to the plaintiffs guard/peon and somehow entered into possession.The plaintiff after legal advice served a notice dated 20 th December, 2011 to the defendant, stating that the lease agreement dated 19 th September, 2011 is non-est in the eyes of law, as no formal contract was concluded between the parties, though the plaintiff has received a sum of `7 lac from the defendant as part payment by way of cheque and also received `27,10,000/- which the defendant forcefully handed over to the plaintiffs guard/peon.(l) The possession of the basement, ground floor, second floor and the terrace was still with the plaintiff and the lease agreement dated 19 th September, 2011 was void ab-initio.It was never acted upon, therefore, with respect to the said floors, the plaintiff became desirous of leasing out the entire property to a single entity on a long term basis and was negotiating with Embassy of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as the "Korean Embassy") which came to be settled vide lease agreement dated 20th December, 2011 by which the plaintiff leased out the entire property to the Korean Embassy for a period of 20 years with a lock-in period of 5 years, at a monthly rent of `15 lac.CS(OS) Nos.5/2012, 508/2012 & 641/2012 Page No.10 of 53 Specific statement was made in the plaint that the Korean Embassy was put to possession of the basement, ground and second floor of the suit property vide possession letter executed on 20th December, 2011 in pursuant to the covenants in the lease deed the Korean Embassy has started structural modifications like installation of telephone connections, air conditioners and other related works.It was on 24th December, 2011 when in order to desist the tenant to take the premises on rent, the defendant had put up a board in the staircase mentioning that Ashutosh Verma and Associates are the owners of Basement/Ground Floor/First Floor/Second Floor of A-24, Kailash Colony i.e. the suit property.The plaintiff called upon the police where the police came and made the defendant to remove the board.On 28th December, 2011 at about 2.00 p.m. when the team members of the Korean Embassy along with the MTNL Staff were fixing the EPBX in the premises, in presence of other staff members including one Mr.Rohit Kumar and one other lady colleague of Korean Embassy, the defendant called upon the police headed by the SHO, GK-I along with his colleague.They started shouting at the staff of Korean Embassy and the defendant tried to forcefully enter into the second floor.At this stage, the Korean Embassy called the plaintiff who came at the site and after realizing that the police was not ready to listen to the plaintiff and as an associate of the defendant was making an attempt to somehow get an entry of the defendant into the premises, the plaintiff made a call to 100 No. where a PCR Van came and a written complaint was made to the PCR Van and thereupon by the intervention of the PCR Van Officer, the defendant was disbursed at about 3.00 p.m. and the possession was handed over to the Korean Embassy.Along with the suit, the plaintiff also filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 & 2 being I.A. No.42/2012 seeking interim order against the defendant from interfering, disturbing or causing hindrance in usage of the portions being basement, ground floor, second floor and terrace of the suit property.The suit along with the interim application was listed before the Court first time on 3rd January, 2012 when the matter was taken up by the Court for the purpose of settlement.Mr. Saurabh Seth, Advocate was appointed as Local Commissioner to inquire with respect to the status of possession and use of basement, ground floor, second floor and the terrace of the suit property.As per the order, the Local Commissioner visited the premises on the same day and submitted his report.In the concluding para, it was stated by him that the defendant was not in possession of any of the floors of the suit property except the first floor and he was informed by the plaintiff that the entire premises was/is being used for commercial purposes.However, he found that the basement, ground floor and the second floor of the suit property were locked as no commercial activity was undertaken therein at that time.Objections to the said report were filed by the defendant.In the application, it was stated by CS(OS) Nos.5/2012, 508/2012 & 641/2012 Page No.12 of 53 the plaintiff that after the visit of the Local Commissioner, the defendant put a lock on the second floor of the suit property.However, the learned counsel for the defendant made a statement before the Court that the said lock did not belong to the defendant.In the presence of the counsel, an order was passed directing both the parties to maintain status-quo as regards the possession as on the date of visit of the Local Commissioner.Mr. Saurabh Seth, Advocate was again appointed as Local Commissioner to visit the second floor of the suit property with the directions that he would remove the lock on the second floor and put his own lock and submit the keys before this Court.The Local Commissioner who visited the site on 11th February, 2012 and as per the directions of the Court put his own lock on the door of the second floor of the suit property in the presence of the parties and three keys thereof were deposited in this Court.In the meanwhile, the plaintiff filed another application under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 being I.A. No.3001/2012 for willful disobedience of the order dated 10th February, 2012 by the defendant, on the ground that the defendant is interfering into the possession of the plaintiffs tenant i.e. Korean Embassy and are guilty of breaking the lock of the premises.The defendant also filed another application under Order VII, Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC being I.A. No.3918/2012 on the ground that the CS(OS) Nos.5/2012, 508/2012 & 641/2012 Page No.13 of 53 plaintiff has not paid the proper Court fee.One more application was filed by the defendant being I.A. No.3917/2012 under Order XXVI, Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC for appointment of Local Commissioner to inquire as to who is in actual possession of the basement, first floor and the second floor of the suit property.The defendant relied upon the following clauses of the MOA dated 11th March, 2010 in the written statement:-"(a) The said amount of Rs.2,28,70,000/- (Rupees two crores twenty eight lakhs and seventy thousand only) would be utilized by the plaintiff for making payment to the Indian Bank and for finishing work of the property at No.A-24, Kailash Colony, New Delhi.It may be relevant to mention here that construction on the property at No.A-24, Kailash Colony, New Delhi was commenced some time in or about 2005 and was over by 2011, CS(OS) Nos.5/2012, 508/2012 & 641/2012 Page No.14 of 53 although finishing in certain respects, lifts etc. are yet to be provided by the plaintiff.(c) In the event of default in making payment of three consecutive monthly instalments by the plaintiff to the defendant, the plaintiff would hand over vacant, peaceful possession of the entire first floor of the premises at A-24, Kailash Colony, New Delhi to the defendant.(f) That the plaintiff shall make Dr. Sateesh Kumar Singh, owner of the said property, available for receipt of balance sale consideration and execution of sale deed."(ii) The plaintiff has not repaid any amount advance by the defendant and was not able to obtain no objection certificate from the bank for release of its charge or lien towards the entire first floor of the suit property.The plaintiff also failed to comply the terms of the agreement, although the defendant was always ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration for the purpose of execution of the sale deed qua the first floor of the suit property.CS(OS) Nos.5/2012, 508/2012 & 641/2012 Page No.15 of 53 According to the defendant, up to January, 2011 the total amount lent and advanced by the defendant to the plaintiff stood at `3.18 crores towards the first floor of the suit property despite of even issuing of money receipt of cash.(iii) On 20th January, 2011, the plaintiff and the defendant executed a lease deed in respect of the entire first floor of the suit property.It was the plaintiff who interpolated, forged and fabricated the version of the said deed of lease where in para B appearing on the second page of the said lease deed has been changed.The plaintiff gave the defendant a post-dated cheque for `3,18,00,000/-, copies of the same are filed.The said supplementary agreement further recorded, inter-alia, that the defendant would be liable to pay monthly rent of `3,50,000/- to the plaintiff with effect from 1st July, 2011 in respect of the said first floor of the suit property only after the defendant has received the entire amount of `3,18,00,000/- from the plaintiff.Having committed breach of his obligation to repay the loan to the defendant, the plaintiff is obliged to sell the first floor portion to the defendant as agreed in the MOA followed by supplementary MOA.(iv) The plaintiff was not able to secure the no objection certificate from the Indian Bank to release the first floor portion of the suit property from its charge and lien to give effect its sale in favour of the defendant as was promised by the MOA followed by the supplementary MOA.Since the plaintiff failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the two agreements, the plaintiff approached the defendant with a request to take basement, ground floor and second floor of the suit property.Both the parties signed a lease agreement dated 19th September, 2011 recording the factum and the plaintiff handed over the actual and physical possession of the premises of the said floors with an assurance that the defendant would enjoy peaceful and uninterrupted possession of the demised premises.(v) By virtue of the lease agreement dated 19th September, 2011 the plaintiff acknowledged the receipt of `7 lac as security and cheques for `36 lac towards advance rent as set out in the said lease agreement itself.While the cheque for `7 lac recorded in the said lease agreement was duly acknowledged by the plaintiff, further sum of `36 lac was received by the plaintiff from the defendant on several dates between September and October, 2011 in cash by returning the cheques given to him for the said amount.With the execution of the said lease agreement, the defendant CS(OS) Nos.5/2012, 508/2012 & 641/2012 Page No.17 of 53 having been put into possession of the entire basement, ground floor and second floor of the suit property which was noted, acknowledged and admitted by the plaintiff himself in the said lease agreement.After obtaining the possession of the said floors, the defendant started renovating the same who has also installed two air conditioners, eight fresh and exhaust air fans in the basement, besides putting all the wooden work, computers, tables, revolving chairs, files, books, electrical wiring, switch boards, etc. in the basement, besides high value painting of the basement, ground floor and second floor through the agency of Asian Paints.The defendant has spent a sum of over `41 lac on such renovation with a view to expand his office.The bills available with the defendant for the said purpose have been filed.(vi) As the rent of the suit property was increased in the market, the plaintiff started putting pressure on the defendant for cancelling the lease deed dated 19th September, 2011 and refused to carry out installation of lift, railings and other civil works.The plaintiff also assaulted the security guards of the defendant for which the plaintiff was detained at the police station.The defendant first time noticed on 16th December, 2011 when some foreign company entered into the building before.The defendant filed a complaint petition under Section 145 Cr.P.C. on 27th December, 2011 before the Sub Divisional Magistrate.Although, said complaint petition was dismissed by an order dated 13th January, 2012 on the ground that there is no threat of breach of peace.The defendant filed the appeal against the said order as the said order was a non-speaking order.(viii) As regards `36 lac which is stated to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff in cash against the return of the cheques of `36 lac, the said amount was paid to the caretaker of the plaintiff.(ix) The defendant states that after having received the entire amount of `36 lac from the defendant, it was incorrect on the part of the plaintiff to allege that the defendant deceitfully handed over the sum of `27,10,000/- in cash to the plaintiffs peon, as it was impossible for anyone to pay such a CS(OS) Nos.5/2012, 508/2012 & 641/2012 Page No.19 of 53 huge amount in cash without the receipt.The clauses 3 and 12 of the said agreement dated 19th September, 2011 were also relied upon by the defendant stating that the possession of the basement, ground floor and second floor of the suit property was handed over by the plaintiff to the defendant.(x) That despite of admission made in the lease agreement, the plaintiff in an illegal and wrongful manner put his locks on the ground floor, basement and second floor of the suit property.It was also stated that the plaintiff acted in collusion with Korean Embassy to oust and dispossess the defendant from the said floors i.e. basement, ground floor and second floor of the suit property by purporting a lease agreement with the Korean Embassy to show that the same have been given to the Korean Embassy whereas the fact is that no possession was given by the plaintiff to the said Korean Embassy.Various other allegations were made by the defendant against the plaintiff by capturing the picture of the plaintiff for removing the locks of CCTV.(xi) Lastly, it is alleged by the defendant that the defendant is in possession of the first floor of the suit property and in case both the agreements i.e. MOA dated 11th March, 2010 and supplementary MOA dated 20th January, 2011 are read together, there can be no question of his eviction from the said first floor of the suit property.The plaintiff has admittedly received a sum of `3.18 crores as part sale consideration for sale and transfer of the said first floor portion in favour of the defendant.CS(OS) No.508/2012In the meanwhile, the defendant on 28th February, 2012 filed a suit being CS(OS) No.508/2012 for specific performance and permanent injunction against the plaintiff and Indian Bank, seeking a decree against the CS(OS) Nos.5/2012, 508/2012 & 641/2012 Page No.20 of 53 plaintiff (defendant in said suit) to perform his part of the contact in terms of the MOU dated 11th March, 2010 and supplementary agreement dated 20th January, 2011 by executing and registering the sale deed of the entire first floor of the suit property, free from all liens, charges and encumbrances including lien of defendant No.3 Indian Bank, upon receipt of the balance sale consideration amount from the plaintiff.The interim injunction was also sought from selling, transferring or dealing with the suit property in any manner whatsoever.It appears from the record that the suit was actually filed in the month of December, 2011 but it was lying in the filing counter under objections.The suit was first time listed before the Court on 29 th February, 2012 when time was sought to file the Court fee and thereafter, it was listed on 7 th March, 2012 when the plaint was registered as a suit and notice was issued in the interim application.The written statement was filed by the plaintiff.CS(OS) No.641/2012The plaint was registered as a suit on CS(OS) Nos.5/2012, 508/2012 & 641/2012 Page No.21 of 53 the same date.The said suit was filed against four defendants, namely, Dr.Sateesh Kumar Singh, Dr.That the FIRST PARTY immediately on receiving the balance loan amount of Rs.2,28,70,000/- (Two Crore Twenty Eight Lacs and Seventy Thousand Only) from the SECOND PARTY on 12th March, 2010 will make part payment to Indian Bank, A-7 Ring Road, South Extension Branch-I, New Delhi and Will utilize the rest amount for finishing works of the said property.CS(OS) Nos.5/2012, 508/2012 & 641/2012 Page No.23 of 53That it is specifically agreed between the parties that if the FIRST PARTY defaults in making payment of 3 (three) consecutive monthly installments to the SECOND PARTY, then the FIRST PARTY will immediately hand over the vacant physical possession of the ENTIRE FIRST FLOOR admeasuring about 4000 SQ.That the FIRST PARTY will obtain a NOC from Indian Bank, A-7, Ring Road, South Extension Branch, Part-I, New Delhi releasing its charge over the said ENTIRE FIRST FLOOR admeasuring 4000 Sq.along with proportionate undivided share in land underneath built on the said property before the execution of sale deed in favour of the SECOND PARTY in respect of the ENTIRE FIRST FLOOR admeasuring 4000 Sq.Thereafter, on 20th January, 2011 the deed of lease was executed between the parties with regard to the first floor for a term of 3 years with effect from 1st February, 2011 at a monthly rent of `1 lac up to 30th June, 2011 and `3.50 lacs w.e.f. 1st July, 2011 subject to certain conditions.The possession of the first floor was also given against the Possession Certificate dated 1st February, 2011 which is duly signed by the parties.On the same day, one more document i.e. Supplementary Memorandum of Agreement dated 20th January, 2011 was executed between the parties, the relevant paras 7 to 9 of which read as under:-That the FIRST PARTY specifically agrees that the SECOND PARTY shall pay him a monthly rent of Rs.3,50,000/- (Three Lacs and Fifty Thousand only) per month with effect from 01.07.2011 i.e. after the receipt of the entire amount of Rs.3,18,00,000/- (Three Crores and Eighteen Lacs only) on 30.06.2011 as stated above.The parties have also entered into a Rent Agreement dated 20.01.2011 to this effect.That on expiry of the period of 3 (Three) years, the lease period shall be further renewed in respect of the said ENTIRE FIRST FLOOR (Both Front and Rear Portion) admeasuring 4000 Sq.It is a matter of fact that as far as the execution of the said agreement is concerned, it is signed by both the parties and the witnesses and also attested by the Notary Public.The plaintiff, on the other hand, has his own explanation with regard to cash receipt.However, the plaintiff has not denied the fact that he has received `1.48 crores from the defendant.I am of the considered view that two versions of the parties require trial, at this stage no final conclusion can be arrived as to how much amount has been received by the plaintiff from the defendant except in the various clauses of the supplementary agreement, the plaintiff has acknowledged to have received a sum of `3.18 crores from the defendant who has filed certain documents which are disputed by the plaintiff.There is no prayer in the application for order of eviction of the defendant from the first floor.Even otherwise, the defendant has filed the suit for specific performance seeking directions from this Court against the plaintiff to execute the sale deed in favour of the defendant on failure of compliance of various clauses of supplementary agreement.In the said suit, with consent of the parties, the interim application filed by the defendant being I.A. No.3902/2012 was disposed of on 24th August, 2012 with the consent of the plaintiff that the plaintiff has no intention to sell, alienate, transfer or create third party interest in the first floor of the suit property.In the interim application filed by the plaintiff, the prayer is made to restrain the defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff on basement, ground floor and second floor of the suit property, therefore, this Court has to consider the said prayer made in the application.CS(OS) Nos.5/2012, 508/2012 & 641/2012 Page No.28 of 53 Basement, Ground and Second Floors of the Suit PropertyThe plaintiff himself has placed the lease deed dated 19 th September, 2011 arrived between the plaintiff as well as the defendant with regard to the tenancy for nine years Lock-in period which shall be renewed after three years subject to abiding the terms and conditions of the agreement with mutual consent of the parties.The said lease deed dated 19th September, 2011 is duly signed by the plaintiff as well as by the defendant.Each and every paper has been signed by the plaintiff as well as by the defendant.As per para 7, the defendant was allowed to temporarily construct the guard room and security room and entrance structures shall be constructed at the front for lower ground floor and ground floor with the permission of the plaintiff.Clause 9 allows the defendant to use the roof with the permission of the plaintiff.Paras 12, 13 and 14 of the said lease also read as under:That the SECOND PARTY has received peaceful possession of the said rented premises from the first party on 15th September, 2011 and the FIRST PARTY also acknowledges the receipt of Rs.42,00,000/- (Forty Two Lacs Only) as advance rent for the rented premises from the SECOND PARTY vide cheque Nos. as mentioned above which will be returned to the SECOND PARTY at the time of vacation of the premises without any interest over money.The second submission of Mr. Sethi is that the lease agreement dated 19th September, 2011 is not a concluded agreement between the parties as after the execution of the said agreement, the defendant himself has written a letter dated 26th September, 2011, inter-alia, requesting the plaintiff to revise the rent as well as change the nature of the user.The contents of the said letter read as under:-On the ground floor and the second floor, the plaintiff put his own locks.Then the police was called and complaint was filed against the plaintiff on the same day followed by a detailed complaint on 17th December, 2011 to the SHO, Police Station CS(OS) Nos.5/2012, 508/2012 & 641/2012 Page No.36 of 53 GK-1, New Delhi.He also brought bath tubs during the night which was captured on CCTV.The said fact was also brought to the notice of the police by the defendant.The defendant intended to file an appeal against the said order.The defendant has filed proof of despatch of notice dated 20th December, 2011 on 21st December, 2011 when at that time according to the plaintiff he had already executed the Lease Agreement with the Korean Embassy and had handed over the possession by that time on 20 th December, 2011, copies of the FIRs and record of the complaints filed by the defendant in the police station and letter dated 28th December, 2011 issued by the defendant to the Korean Embassy informing that the defendant is in possession of basement, ground floor and second floor.The defendant in order to show his possession filed the copies of the Lease Agreement dated 19th September, 2011 wherein it was mentioned that the possession was handed over to the defendant.The details of the work done in the basement, ground floor and second floor and relied upon the status report which confirms his possession.The report of the Local Commissioner dated 3rd February, 2012 was also relied upon by the defendant in order to show that Mr.Rohit Kumar Advocate claiming to be the counsel of Korean Embassy alleged to have been in custody of the key but did not supply the same to ascertain the physical actual possession of the defendant whose belonging articles, furniture, files, computers etc. were lying in the premises.The plaintiff in the plaint has admitted that somehow the defendant entered into possession.Large numbers of documents have been filed by the defendant, such as, photographs, CDs and receipts of purchasing the material as well as complaints made to the police.Counsel has also referred the report of the Local Commissioner dated 3rd February, 2012 where the representative of the Korean Embassy was not able to supply the keys of the said floors to ascertain the physical possession.In the report, it was also stated that there were no commercial activities at the site.The plaintiff in support of his version filed the electricity bills and documents of telephone connection, photographs, etc. in order to show that the possession was with the plaintiff after execution of the lease agreement dated 19th September, 2011 till 20th December, 2011 (when the same was handed over to the Korean Embassy in view of the lease agreement executed between the plaintiff and Korean Embassy dated 19th December, 2011).Both the parties have also filed cross-applications under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A read with Section 151 CPC for violating the status-quo order under willful disobedience of the Court order dated 10 th February, 2012 whereby the parties were directed to maintain status-quo with regard to the possession of the second floor of the suit property.After having gone through the material placed on record by the parties as well as their pleadings prima-facie, it appears to the Court that after the execution of the Lease Agreement, the defendant was put into the possession of the said floors and he was dispossessed during the third/fourth week of December, 2011 as by then the plaintiff received better offer from the Korean Embassy to pay the rent for all floors including first floor of `15 lac.Some of the clauses of the Lease Deed executed between the plaintiff and the Korean Embassy dated 20th December, 2011 are reproduced herein below:-CS(OS) Nos.5/2012, 508/2012 & 641/2012 Page No.40 of 53 "1.2 Built Up Area shall mean and include the built up areas of the Said entire basement, ground floor, first floor and either second floor or third floor to be decided by the Lessee after construction of third floor which will constructed by the Lessor within three months of the signing of the present lease, including the area under the periphery walls, area under columns and walls within the Said Premises and shall include the areas of the building, lobbies, staircases, balconies, circulation areas, walls shafts (all types), passages, corridors, refuge areas, stilts etc. The total area is as per the site plan attached as Annexure A.The Lessee will not pay the rent if the third floor is not completed and handed over to the Lessee within 3 months of the signing of the present lease.The LESSOR undertake to remove the tenant from the first floor of the building within 3 months from the signing of the lease or if the Lessor fails to remove the tenant within the said time the Lessee will not pay the rent for the entire property till removal of the tenant from the first floor of the property.The Lessee can start its renovation immediately after signing of the present Lease Agreement.The Lessee will not pay the rent if the third floor is not constructed and handed over to the Lessee within 3 months of the signing of the present lease.The LESSOR shall remove the tenant from the first floor of the building within 3 months from the signing of the lease or if the Lessor fails to remove the tenant within the said time the Lessee will not pay the rent for the entire property till removal of the tenant from the first floor.The rent of 15 lacs will start when both the conditions are fulfilled by the Lessor.4.2 15% escalation after the end of every 5 years on the last rent paid."It is also pertinent to mention that during the course of arguments, on various dates similar statement was repeated by the counsel for the plaintiff that physical possession has already been handed over to Korean Embassy before filing the suit and they are in possession.Not only that, the plaintiff has also filed an affidavit dated 20th March, 2012 along with large number of documents by way of photographs with dates, evidencing vacant and peaceful possession of the Korean Embassy since 20th December, 2011 up till date.However, the case of the plaintiff is that the musclemen of the defendant were obstructing the Korean Embassy people, putting the articles and material inside the premises and finally they came out on interfering of police and it is now under the Korean Embassys peaceful possession.The photographs in this regard are filed along with the affidavit of the plaintiff.Possession Letter filed by the plaintiff along with the Lease Deed reads as under:-"Possession Letter I, Dr. Yashwant Singh Attorney of Mr. Sateesh Kumar Singh handing over the possession of the property as mentioned in the lease deed dated 20th December 2011 to Mr. Kim Kum -Pyoung, First Secretary, of the Embassy of Republic of Korea the terms and condition of the lease will be complied and the Lessee will give permission for the installation of the elevator, air conditioner and for CS(OS) Nos.5/2012, 508/2012 & 641/2012 Page No.44 of 53 other related works which are mentioned in the lease deed.After the order was reserved, the defendant filed an application being I.A. No.11443/2012 for bringing the subsequent facts and information on record informing the Court that on the complaint of Korean Embassy, an FIR has been registered at Greater Kailash Police Station vide FIR No.77 of 2012 dated 8th June, 2012 under Section 420 IPC against the plaintiff who had filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. vide Crl.M.C. No.2164/2012 for quashing of the said FIR.In the said petition, the Korean Embassy is respondent No.2 and in its reply to this petition, the Korean Embassy has reiterated that the defendant was and is in the possession of the ground floor, basement, first floor and the second floor of the suit property.Furthermore, the tenant has lodged an FIR No.173/11 U/s 448 of IPC dated 30.12.2011 against the petitioner.It was also mentioned in the application that the plaintiff from the very beginning was falsely stating the facts and misleading the Court on the factum of defendant being in actual physical possession of basement, ground floor and second floor of the suit property and incorrectly denying the version of the defendant about his possession on the said floors and approached the Court with unclean hands in order to obtain an order in his CS(OS) Nos.5/2012, 508/2012 & 641/2012 Page No.47 of 53 favour.In support of the application, the defendant also filed the reply filed by the Korean Embassy in Crl.Therefore, I am not inclined to pass the order for restoration of possession to the defendant in view of the conflicting evidence available on record, therefore, the versions of the parties are to be tested at the time of trial.There are other reasons also for not granting this relief as prayed in the application.The aspect of fabrication and inserting of new clauses raised by the plaintiff shall also to be considered at the final stage after recording the evidence of parties.The plaintiff at the same time has not denied the fact that he has signed all the documents as mentioned earlier.The Registrar General shall keep the aforesaid amounts in FDRs initially for a period of one year.Section 35A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 empowers the Court to pass an order of compensatory costs in respect of false claims or defences.The plaintiff in the present case intentionally and deliberately not only made the false averments in the plaint but also in the written statement filed by him in the suits filed by the defendant about handing over physical possession of portions i.e. basement, ground and second floors of the suit property.Therefore, a cost of `1 lac is imposed upon the plaintiff to deposit the same within four weeks from today with the Delhi CS(OS) Nos.5/2012, 508/2012 & 641/2012 Page No.51 of 53 High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.The receipt shall be produced by the plaintiff on the next date.I.A.No.1079/2012 (u/s 151 CPC for directing defendant to deposit the rent, by the plaintiff) In view of the order passed above, it is directed that the defendant shall pay the rent due in respect of the first floor of the suit property with the plaintiff within a period of 4 weeks from today and shall continue paying the rent as agreed every month.The application is accordingly disposed of.CS(OS) Nos.5/2012, 508/2012 & 641/2012 Page No.52 of 53 CS(OS) No.5/2012, CS(OS) No.508/2012 & CS(OS) No.641/2012 List on February 11, 2013 along with I.A. No.14446/2012 before the roster bench.MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
820,089 |
The opposite party 2, Shri Bijay Singh Nahar, was the president of the Bihar State Board of Swetamber Jain Religious Trusts and was authorised by the Government of Bihar to supervise all the Swetamber Jain Religious Trusts in Bihar.Late Maharaj Bahadur Singh father of the petitioners was the Trustee/Manager of Sikherjee Group of Temples.The audit report of Sammet Sikharjee Group of Temples for the year ending 31-3-75 showed that a sum of Rs. 17,66,607.16 P. was kept as fixed deposits in some scheduled banks in the personal names of the petitioners and that an amount of Rs. 1,83,661.99 P. was kept by the petitioners as cash in hand in their sadar office at Calcutta.After receipt of this audit report in August, 1975, the opposite party 2, Bijay Singh Nahar, wrote a letter on 15-9-75 to the petitioners, complaining to them about their keeping of the sum of Rs. 17,66,607.16 P. in their personal names instead of depositing the amounts in the name of Sammet Sikharjee Group of Temples and asking them not to keep a huge amount of Rs. 1,83,661.99 P. as cash in hand.As per the second part, the necessary allegations are to be found in paras 10, 11,16 and 22 of the petition of complaint.The summing up of these allegations is to be found in para 22 of the petition of complaint wherein it is stated that the accused persons fraudulently and dishonestly converted the amounts for their own personal use by retaining them in their own hands in the Banks concerned.ORDER S.P. Das Ghosh, J.This revisional application is directed against an order passed on 7-12-82 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 6th Court, Calcutta, rejecting the prayer of the accused-petitioners to discharge them under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. on the ground that the charge against them was groundless.By that letter the opposite party 2 requested the petitioners to deposit their cash in hand in Bank on keeping some working fund in their hands for meeting the day-to-day expenses.On 26-9-75 a reply was sent by the petitioners as Hony.Joint Managers of Jain Swetambar Society intimating that steps were being taken to keep the fixed deposits in the name of the Trust and that the cash in hand was indispensable for urgent and unforeseen expenses.On 10-10-75, the opposite party 2 wrote another letter to the petitioners requesting them to furnish the details of the bank accounts, particularly, the fixed deposit receipts.On 18-10-76, the petitioners sent the particulars of fixed deposits in different banks wherefrom it transpired that the sum of Rs. 17,66,607.16 P. had been shown as deposits in 34 different accounts in 12 banks of Calcutta and Isri Bazar Branch, Giridih, in Bihar in the personal names of the petitioners.Suspecting foul play, the opposite party 2 sent a complaint to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Detective Department, Calcutta, for taking cognizance of an offence in respect of the sum of Rs. 17,66,607.16 P. On the basis of that complaint, Section-K Case No. 316 it.4-7-78 was started.On 17-4-78, the opposite party 2 sent another complaint to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Detective Department, for taking cognizance of an offence in respect of the sum of Rs. 1,83,661.99 P. Both these complaints were investigated together by the police who seized all the fixed deposit receipts during investigation and thereafter closed the investigation on the ground that the dispute was of civil nature.That audit report| showed that a fixed deposit amount of Rs. 17,66,607.16 P. had increased to Rs. 25,29,302.28 P. That audit report further showed that the petitioners retained those fixed deposit receipts in their personal names and some portion of the fixed deposit amounts had been kept in the name of the Jain Swetambar Society.The opposite party No. 2 filed a petition of complaint in the court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, on 6-9-80 on the allegation that the petitioners committed offence under Section 120B/406 IPC.for retaining those amounts as fixed deposit receipts in their personal names and some of these fixed deposit receipts in the name of the Jain Swetambar Society as well as for, keeping the sum of Rs. 1,83,661.99 P. as cash in hand.The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, took cognizance under Section 406/120B IPC.On the basis of this petition of complaint, process was issued against the petitioners.Cm 10-3-81 a petition was filed for discharging the petitioners under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. This petition was rejected by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 6th Court, Calcutta, by the impugned order it.In course of hearing of this revisional application, a supplementary affidavit was filed for the petitioners.The opposite party No. 2 filed an affidavit-in-opposition regarding the supplementary affidavit.Nowhere in the petition of complaint is there any allegation that the petitioners misappropriated these amounts for their own use.Mere retention of the property entrusted in one's hand, without dishonest misappropriation or illegal conversion of the same, does not amount to criminal breach of trust under Section 405 IPC.An attempt has been made to make out a case of criminal breach of trust by alleging in the petition of complaint that the Jain Swetambar Society is a non-existent body and that keeping of amounts in fixed deposits in the name of Jain Swetambar Society amounts to misappropriation.A supplementary affidavit has been filed for the petitioners to show that there is only one Swetambar religious trust known as Jain Swetambar Society which manages also the Sammet Shikharji Group of Temples.To support the averments in the affidavit-in-opposition, the opposite party No. 2 has filed xerox copy of a judgment in Suit No. 288/4 of 1912-14 between Babu Maharaj Bahadur Singh (father of the petitioners) as plaintiff and Seth Hukumchand and others (Digambary Society) in the court of the officiating Subordinate Judge at Hajaribagh, as well as xerox copy of a Misc.Judge, Giridih.The impugned order it.Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below by a Special Messenger at the cost of the petitioners.
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
82,009,032 |
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.Since both the applications are connected with the same crime, therefore, decided by the present common order.The applicants are in custody since 18.05.2017 relating to Crime No. 216/2017 registered at Police Station - Chanderi District Ashoknagar for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 452, 323, 324, 294, 506-B, 34 of IPC and Section 25-B of Arms Act.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are youths of 20 years of age, who have no criminal past alleged against them.Except of offence punishable under Sections 307, 452 and 324, of IPC, remaining offences are bailable.It is alleged against the co- accused Shanu Bugla that he assaulted the victim with a sword on his head.Consequently, they pray for bail.2 M.Cr.C. No.6125/2017 & 6200/2017
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
91,493,042 |
They even entered the house and assaulted them.Neetu went from there and brought PCR from Peer Baba but when he reached there, no one was there at the spot, only Hariraj was lying unconscious and blood was fusing out from his head.They took him to the DDU Hospital where he was declared dead by the doctors and even his Father and Sister-in-law was injured.Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State with Insp.Mr. Satyavir Janaula, P.S-HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGALBy way of the present petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'), the petitioner seeks grant of Regular Bail in FIR No. 231/2012 under Section 302/452/325/323/147/148/149/427/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') registered at Police Station Bindapur, New Delhi.The present case is registered on the complaint of one Neetu, who stated that at night while he was returning home after meeting his relative, at about 9:30 pm, he reached at Sanjeev's House on Bindapur Road where he saw Sanjeev, Rajni Gautam, her huaband BAIL APPLN.637/2017 Page 1 of 6 Rajkumar and Pritam standing there and was asked by Sanjeev to go home.After an hour, he was standing outside his house, Sanjeev came with a rod with Pritam, one other person who was having danda in his hand and Rajkumar was standing on the scooter.Then, they started abusing him and Sanjeev gave him a blow on his head with the iron rod.His brother came out of the house for his rescue but he too was beaten up by them and destroyed their Santro car.Hence, in the said circumstances bail be granted to the petitioner.BAIL APPLN.637/2017 Page 2 of 6On the contrary, learned APP for the State opposed the bail application of the petitioner and submitted that serious allegations have been made against the petitioner; that they have been charged for offences under Section 302/452/325/323/147/148/149/427/34 IPC for which maximum punishment is death or imprisonment for life; that the prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution to a large extent; that keeping in view the gravity of offence bail shall not be granted to the petitioner.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.During recording of evidence of PW-1/Neetu Singh, it was deposed by him that "...I got up and I along with my parents came to the main gate of our house and opened the same and there I found that my brother Hari Raj and accused Sanjeev was holding a sword, accused Deepa holding a pistol, accused Naveen, Jimmy, Pritam, arvind, Ravinder, Raju, Rajkumar, his wife Rajni gautam, Bacchan (devar of accused Rajini gautam), Yogesh, @ Tunna, Chela, Shiva and some unknown persons were present outside the house... ....At this stage witness has correctly pointed out towards the accused Arvind, Sanjeev, Raj Kumar, Jimmy, Rajni, Naveen, Pritam, Bacchan and Mohit @ Shiva who are present in the court today were present at the spot.." During his Cross- Examination BAIL APPLN.637/2017 Page 3 of 6 on behalf of counsel for Naveen, it was stated by him that " It is wrong to suggest that accused Naveen had got no concern with this case and he has been falsely implicated.It is wrong to suggest that on the date of incident accused Naveen was sleeping in his house..."BAIL APPLN.637/2017 Page 3 of 6In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee reported in (2010) 14 SCC 496, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the basic principles laid down in catena of judgments on the point of granting bail.Further, PW-2/ Sh.Jai Raj Narain has deposed that "...All the 25- 30 persons were trying to pull my son Hariraj outside the house.Myself, my wife and my younger son Neetu had intervened to save Hariraj and in the process we all were beaten up by 25-30 BAIL APPLN.637/2017 Page 4 of 6 persons with rod and sticks and one of the persons was also holding sword in his hand...BAIL APPLN.637/2017 Page 4 of 6...At this stage, witness has correctly pointed out towards accused Sanjeev, Naveen, Raj Kumar, Rajni, Pritam, Shiva, Bacchan, Jimmy and Arvind, as the same persons, who were part of the mob of 25-30 persons and who were instrumental in causing injuries to Hairaj, Neetu, Santosh, parveen and witness himself..."During his cross-examination by the counsel for Naveen, it was stated by him that " It is wrong to suggest that on 25.07.2012, at about 12:00 in the night accused naveen was sleeping in the house at RZ-167, Roshan Garden, Najafgarh, New Delhi and his bike was parked outside his house... It is wrong to suggest that accused Naveen is falsely implicated in this case or that he is not concerned in the present case.It is wrong to suggest that I have seen accused Naveen for the first time in the court.I had seen him at the time of incident.PW-3/Smt.Santosh (Mother of the deceased), also deposed on similar lines as that of above witnesses and categorically mentioned that the petitioner was involved in the alleged crime along with the other co-accused.In the present case, 17 out of 36 witnesses have been examined by the concerned court and the matter is fixed for further recording of evidence.Moreover, the petitioner is also involved in two more FIRs registered at PS, Bindapur.Keeping in view the aforementioned facts and circumstances as well as taking into consideration the gravity of the offences BAIL APPLN.637/2017 Page 5 of 6 alleged, this court does not deem it fit a case to grant regular bail to the petitioner.BAIL APPLN.637/2017 Page 5 of 6Accordingly, the petition stand dismissed.Before parting with the above order, it is made clear that observations made in the order shall have no impact on the merit of the case.SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J NOVEMBER 14, 2017 gr// BAIL APPLN.637/2017 Page 6 of 6BAIL APPLN.637/2017 Page 6 of 6
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
9,149,305 |
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):On 03.09.2009 at about 07:30 PM at Gopal Pur Road crossing of Rohtak Road within the jurisdiction of police station Kharkhoda, District Sonepat (Haryana), an accident occurred involving two wheeler scooter bearing registration no.DL-8S-3126 driven by Virender Singh and a tractor- trolley described as vehicle bearing no.HR-10L-3264 resulting in injuries being suffered by Virender Singh who died in the consequence.The fifth and sixth respondent herein were impleaded on the grounds that they are the owner and driver of MAC APP.No.1006/2013 Page 1 of 5 the tractor-trolley while the appellant herein was impleaded as a party respondent since the tractor was insured with it against third party risk for the period in question.MAC APP.No.1006/2013 Page 1 of 5The tribunal, by judgment dated 27.09.2013, awarded compensation in the sum of `18,69,001/- with interest at the rate of nine percent (9%) per annum from the date of filing the petition till realization.The insurance company has come up in appeal raising the issue of involvement of the trolley which was insured with it, contending that the accident had occurred, per the evidence adduced, only on account of wrong parking of the trolley in the middle of the road and that in absence of evidence showing a connection between the tractor, which was subject matter of insurance and the trolley, which was not, the insurance company cannot be called upon to indemnify.The insurance company also argues that the income of the deceased has been wrongly assumed to be `11,000/- for working out the loss of dependency on the basis of salary certificates Ex.PW1/A & Ex.PW1/B which were not proved in accordance with law.The insurance company further questions the multiplier of 18 which was adopted in the case of death of a 27 years old person.The argument about the non-involvement of the tractor in the fatal accident must be rejected.The tribunal has taken an appropriate view on the matter resting its conclusion on the basis of evidence of the claimant and MAC APP.No.1006/2013 Page 2 of 5 additionally by reliance on the evidence gathered during the investigation of the first information report (FIR) no.352/2009 which had been registered by the local police for offences punishable under Sections 283/337/304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).The tribunal has noted that the trolley is shown by the said material to have been parked in the middle of the road without any indication and that the accident had occurred on the night of 03.09.2009 at 07:30 PM at Rohtak Road, Gopalpur road crossing, wherein the scooterist was taken by surprise on account of stationary trolley coming in his way.It is noted that in the written statement jointly filed by the owner and driver of the tractor-trolley, they did not dispute the connection between the trolley of the tractor which was insured with the appellant/insurance company.They rather themselves pleaded that the tractor-trolley in question was at the scene of the accident on there being need to take out the wheel of the trolley for purpose of repairs.Though it was claimed on their behalf that the trolley was parked on the side of the road, the evidence accepted by the tribunal shows otherwise.MAC APP.No.1006/2013 Page 2 of 5In above facts and circumstances, the finding of the tribunal that the accident had occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of the tractor with which trolley would have moved to the place of occurrence must be upheld.There is substance in the contentions of the insurance company that the income of the deceased has been wrongly assumed to be `11,000/- per month without salary certificates Ex.PW1/A & Ex.PW1/B being strictly proved.The multiplier was also wrongly adopted in as much as, per the dictum in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors.No.1006/2013 Page 3 of 5Faced with the above situation, the learned counsel for claimants submitted, that the claimants may be given fresh opportunity before the tribunal to prove the income of the deceased in the nature of salary given by the housing society at Vishakha Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi and by Spring Field School Pitampura, Delhi where he was working as part time employee.He submitted that the appeal of the insurance company may be allowed and the impugned award of compensation may be set aside but the matter remitted for further inquiry in above nature.The learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submitted no objection.The matter to that extent is remitted for further inquiry to the tribunal during which the claimant will be entitled to lead additional evidence.Needless to add, the opposite parties will also be entitled to lead evidence in rebuttal.By order dated 06.11.2013, the tribunal was directed to release sixty percent (60%) of the awarded amount in favour of the claimants and keep the balance in the form of fixed deposit receipt with UCO bank Delhi High Court branch, New Delhi for six months, to be renewed periodically.The amount thus released earlier shall be subject to adjustment against the award MAC APP.No.1006/2013 Page 4 of 5 of compensation that would be passed on completion of the further inquiry ordered as above.The balance lying in UCO Bank Delhi High Court branch New Delhi, shall presently be refunded to the insurance company alongwith statutory deposit, if made.MAC APP.No.1006/2013 Page 4 of 5The appeal stands disposed of above terms.R.K. GAUBA (JUDGE) FEBRUARY 29, 2016 ssc MAC APP.No.1006/2013 Page 5 of 5MAC APP.No.1006/2013 Page 5 of 5
|
['Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
91,493,385 |
The second respondent had lodged a criminal complaint (CC no.9107/17) in the court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM), District Shahdara, Kakardooma on 26.10.2017 invoking the jurisdiction of the said court under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. P.C.) to seek criminal action for offences punishable under Sections 325, 452, 457, 354, 506, 504, 393, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), naming inter alia, one Rahul Kalra as the prime accused, he having been allegedly associated with eight persons unknown to the complainant, also mentioning the name of the petitioner herein as the second prospective accused.P.C. with a prayer for direction to the Station House Officer (SHO) of police station GTB Enclave for investigation.The CMM by order dated 16.03.2018 found it to be a case involving cognizable offences that required investigation by the police.He, thus, directed Crl.M.C. No.4234/2018 Page 1 of 3 the SHO, PS Shahdara to register the first information report (FIR).The allegations in the said criminal complaint are primarily directed against the person named Rahul Kalra and his associates, they not only having forcibly entered into her house armed with iron rods and hockey sticks but also having assaulted her, causing mischief by damaging her property, using abusive language, extending threats and causing injuries.The role attributed to the petitioner concerns the time when he statedly had come to the spot, based upon information having been received by the police control room telephonically.The complaint undoubtedly attributes certain misconduct to the petitioner, wherein he had not only used abusive language but also slapped the son of the complainant and upon protest being lodged, he having extended threats to arrest his family members.
|
['Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
91,495,501 |
Heard through Video Conferencing.This first application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail.The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.314/2020 registered at Police Station Indergarh, Distt.Datia for offence under Sections 379,414 of IPC.It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that according to the prosecution case, the applicant is owner of the tractor on which illegally excavated sand was being transported in an illegal manner.It is further submitted that the applicant has deposited the penalty of Rs.25,000/- as imposed by the Collector Rule 20 of Madhya Pradesh Sand (Mining, Transportation, Storage and Trading) Rules, 2019 (In short Rules, 2019) and accordingly it is submitted that now the applicant cannot be prosecuted for theft of sand.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.This Court by order dated 05.10.2020 passed in M.Cr.In case of violation of any water and air consent, the pollution board can also register an offence.So far as the recovery of penalty and royalty is concerned, at the most, it can be said that it is for the satisfaction of the civil liability.There is no bar in the Rules, 2019 to resort to the provisions of Penal Code or any other Statute."Thus, it is clear that in absence of any provision, barring the applicability of Indian Penal Code, it cannot be said that merely because the penalty imposed under the Rule, 2019 has been deposited by the applicant then he cannot be prosecuted for the offence under Section 379, 404 of IPC.Further, this Court by order dated 07/10/2020 passed in the case of Rajeev Sharma Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh in MCRC No. 35538/2020 has considered the effect of illegal mining and has held as under:-Thus, the period of 60 days would start from the date, which would be fixed for the first time for taking evidence in the case.The trial has not reached to the stage of evidence.
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
91,497,818 |
The head injuries are as follows:?(a) Lackration over left tempanoparictik region 17X3X2 cmsThe petitioner has filed this petition for bail for the offences underSections 341, 307, 506(ii) r/w. 34 of I.P.C.2.The case of the petitioner is that on 26.11.2011, the petitioner'sson A3 fired the crackers in a careless manner, when the same was questioned by one Madhan and Murali at that time, A3 called his parents A1 and A2 inthis case.Therefore, the above case hasbeen registered in Crime No.1283 of 2011 on the file of the 1st respondentpolice and arrested the petitioners on 11.07.2017 by way of Non-Bailablewarrant issued by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge in S.C.No.182 of2016, pending on the file of the learned IIIrd Additional Subordinate Judge,Madurai.4.The further case of the petitioner is that this is a false case dueto the political enmity between the parties namely the de-facto complainantUdayasuriyan who is the father of the deceased having wreak vengeance againstthe petitioner and his parents namely A2 and A3, he has given false complaintagainst the petitioner and falsely implicated in the above said criminalcase.5.Originally the petitioner was arrested and later on he was enlarge onstatutory bail by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Maduraiin Crl.6.The petitioner further states that after granting bail, the defactocomplainant Udayasuriyan, who is the father of the deceased Murali moved acancellation bail petition in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2843 of 2017, which was grantedby the trial Court in Crl.Aggrieved against thesaid order, the petitioner moved before the Hon'ble Apex Court inSLP(Crl.)No.4265 of 2017, but the petition was dismissed.In the meantime, the petitioner was detained under Act14/1982 and later on the said detention order was revoked.9.The de-facto complainant Mr.Udayasuriyan has filed an InterveningApplication in Crl.MP(MD)No.8506 of 2017 in Crl.10.The case of the de-facto complainant is that the 1st respondent, whois the Kumar @ Home Guard Kumar the A1 in this case have made political enmity with the de-facto complainant and his family members and due to thaton 26.10.2011 at about 13.00 hours, A1 and his wife Sundari and his son SonaiMuthu pickup quarrel with the de-facto complainant's son Murali and also thede-facto complainant brother's son Madhan.A1 and his wife Sundari and hisson Sonai Muthu are attacked the de-facto complainant's son Murali and hisbrother's son namely Madhan with deadly weapon (Aruval) and caused serious head injuries to the said persons.Due to the grievous head injuries sustained in the de-factocomplainant's son, he was admitted in the ICU and the said Madhan had given acriminal complaint before the respondent police on 26.10.2011, on the basisof the complaint, a criminal case has been registered by the respondentpolice under Sections 341, 324 and 506(ii) of IPC against the A1 Kumar andhis wife Sundari and his son Sonai Muthu.At the time of register the saidcase, the de-facto complainant's son Murali was admitted in very seriouscondition in unconscious manner and had 27 switchers on the head.(b) Lacrpation over left eyes 3X2X1 cms(c) Left parictal fipidural harmatoma(d) Pnivmocrphalus diffuse one(e) Communited left high partial bone fracture(f) Fracture of left frontal bone?Thereafter, the other accused were released on bail and the mainaccused, who is the petitioner herein was arrested and he was moved on bailbefore the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai inCrl.13.It is the further case of the de-facto complainant that even afterreleased on bail, A1 in this case, the 1st respondent having strong enmitywith the de-facto complainant and his family members, since the said 1strespondent is a notorious criminal in the Madurai City and he is havingstrong bond with local rowdy elements.Due to the political motive, the 1strespondent has continuously threatened the de-facto complainant and his sonMurali to withdraw the case in S.C.No.182 of 2016 which is pending underSections 341, 324, 307 and 506(ii) IPC.But, eventhereafter, A1 is continuously threatening, but the de-facto complainant andhis family members and other witnesses in S.C.No.182 of 2016 to withdraw thesaid criminal case, otherwise they will kill the de-facto complainant and hisfamily members.14.A1 is violate the bail order condition imposed by the learnedPrincipal District and Sessions Judge, in Crl.While being so, due to the strong politicalmotive, on 25.05.2016 at about 10.50 p.m. the said A1 Kumar was murdered the de-facto complainant's son Murali and the said A1 was having strong politicalmotive for the past five years and finally he was committed brutal murder ofthe de-facto complainant's son.15.The de-facto complainant further states that though the respondentpolice was filed the charge sheet in the year 2013 itself, but it is stillpending.Taking into advantage of the bail in the said criminal case, A1 wascontinuously threatened the de-facto complainant and his family members andfinally he was killed the de-facto complainant's son Murali, since if thecase in S.C.No.182 of 2016 was taken by the learned IIIrd AdditionalSubordinate Judge, Madurai, definitely the said A1 was convicted by the saidCourt and then the de-facto complainant's son Murali life was saved.16.The de-facto complainant further states that he is having two sons,one elder son was attacked with Polio and his movements are totallyrestricted and one younger son Murali, who is the only breadwinner wasmurdered by A1 Kumar.After the murder of the de-facto complainant's sonMurali, after seven days of the murder, the 2nd son was born to deceasedMurali, now the two kids were lost their father.17.The de-facto complainant also filed a Crl.The very same A1 who originally attacked the de-facto complainant's son with deadly weapons(Aruval) and committed offences under Section 307 IPC dated 26.05.2016, afterregistration of the criminal case, the very same A1 Kumar committed thebrutal murder of the de-facto complainant's son Murali, which was registeredin Cr.No.592 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 302 and 506(ii)IPC.18.Since A1 Kumar has committed the offence and two cases are registered against him and the same is pending.He was brutally attacked thedeceased Murali along with the A2 and A3 and hence the case was registered inCr.No.1283 of 2011 for the offences under Sections 341, 324, 307 and 506(ii)IPC and charge sheet was filed in S.C.No.182 of 2016 and the same is pendingon the file of the learned IIIrd Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai.Lateron, he committed murder of the very same person by namely the de-facto complainant's son Murali and later on a case was registered in Cr.No.592 of2016 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 302, 506(ii) IPC and finalreport also filed in this case and the same was taken on file in S.C.No.373of 2017 which is pending before the learned Ist Additional District Judge,Madurai.Therefore, this petitioner/A1is not entitled for bail, since on the very same person having two criminalcases in S.C.No.182 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 341, 324, 307 and506(ii) and another case for the offences under Sections 294(b), 302 and506(ii) IPC and the case is pending in S.C.No.373 of 2017 pending before thelearned Ist Additional District Judge, Madurai.Therefore, the de-factocomplainant is praying this Court for dismiss the bail petition.20.A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent/police.Therespondent/police has denied all the allegations set out in the petition.The petitioner having three morecriminal cases are pending in the petitioner's name in Cr.No.592 of 2016 forthe offences under Sections 294(b), 302 and 506(ii) IPC dated 26.05.2016 inCr.No.4 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 427 and 506(i) IPC read withSection 3(1) of TNPPDL Act and one another criminal case in Cr.No.422 of 2016under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. and all the criminal cases are pending.21.The respondent/police further states that the petitioner was underthe custody in Central Prison, Madurai under GOONDAS Act, Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982 and the said Act 14 of 1982 was quashed by this Court on 20.07.2016.Therefore, all the criminal cases were clearly established that thepetitioner/A1 Kumar is a notorious criminal in Madurai City and he can doanything for his survival.22.In this case, the petitioner/A1 is having political motive with oneUdayasuriyan the de-facto complainant and with his family members, due tothat on 26.10.2011 at about 13.00 hours, this petitioner and his wife Sundariand his son Sonai Muthu pickup quarrel with Udayasuriyan's son Murali andwith his brother's son Madhan and they were attacked Udayasuriyan's sonMurali and his brother's son namely Madhan with deadly weapon (Aruval) andcaused grievous head injuries to the said persons and the case was registeredin Cr.23.This petitioner/A1 was moved bail in Crl.M.P(MD)No.4198 of 2011 andthe same was ordered on 17.11.2011 by this Court.Later on the petitioner/A1has committed murder one of the injured witness namely Murali, who is the de-facto complainant's son and the petitioner was strong motive for the pastfive years.24.The respondent police filed a case and the same was taken on file inS.C.No.182 of 2016 and the same is pending on the file of the learned IIIrdAdditional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai for trial.When thecancellation of bail filed by the de-facto complainant in Crl.O.P.No.2843 of2017 in Crl.M.P.No.4198 of 2011 in Cr.No.1283 of 2011 under Sections 341,323, 506(ii) and 307 of IPC, this Court by passing orders on 10.04.2017 asfollows:?The petitioner has placed on record that he is being intimated by the1st respondent.One of the victims by name, Murali had been murdered and the1st respondent is sole accused in that case.Hence, the accused/1strespondent by killing the victim of his earlier crime, has literallyobliterated one of the witness in that case, for which, he was granted bail.Therefore, there can be no more better reason to cancel the bail.?25.Later on, this petitioner/A1 has moved before the Hon'ble Apex Courtin SLP(Crl.)No.4265 of 2017 and the same was dismissed on 23.05.2017, even after that the petitioner was not surrender.Therefore, the learned SessionsJudge issued Non-Bailable Warrant, thereafter he was arrested and remanded into the judicial custody.The murder case registered in Cr.No.592 of 2016and the charge sheet was filed which was taken on file in S.C.No.373 of 2017and the same is pending on the file of the learned Ist Additional DistrictJudge, Madurai for trial.Therefore, the respondent/police strongly objectfor granting bail.26.I heard Mr.D.RameshKumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.C.Ramesh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearingfor the respondent and Ms.K.M.Priscilla Jancy, learned counsel appearing forthe Intervener and perused the entire records.28.While pendency of the above case in Sessions Case in S.C.No.182 of 2016, he continuously threatened the deceased Murali for withdrawal of thecomplaint, to that effect, the de-facto complainant also given a complaint tothe police, but the respondent police failed on their duty from taking anyserious steps on the complaint given by the de-facto complainant in whichC.S.R.No.25 of 2015, dated 02.02.2015 was also issued by the respondent/police.29.When the de-facto complainant Udayasuriyan has given a complaint that this petitioner A1 has continuously threatened his son Murali and hisfamily members, if the respondent police would have taken steps for thecomplaint of de-facto complainant Udayasuriyan, definitely this murder wouldnot taken place, but due to the lethargic manner and activity of therespondent/police, the de-facto complainant's son Murali was murdered in thiscase.30.The person who was acting against the prejudice the law and orderproblem, the respondent/police who is the authority concerned, who have takeneffective steps, cannot ignored the responsibilities and bounden duty.Due tothe lethargic manner and activity of the respondent police, the de-factocomplainant's son Murali was murdered in this case.No.1283of 2016, dated 17.11.2016 to dispose the said sessions case expeditiously buteven then it is pending.Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for bail,since this petitioner is having one another case in S.C.No.373 of 2017 forthe offences under Section 302 of IPC, pending on the file of the learned IstAdditional District Judge, Madurai.Therefore, thispetitioner / A1 is not entitle any bail from this Court, since the bailgranted already to this petitioner/A1 was cancelled by this Court, which wasalso confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.33.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Jaihindpuram Police Station, Madurai City.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
91,509,526 |
2/ The date of incident is 21/4/2010 and prosecution case is that about one year prior to incident, deceased Kalibai and Balu Mankar had got their daughter Sonubai @ Sunitabai married to appellant as per the village customs and about 8 days prior to the incident Balu had brought his daughter Sonubai from the 2 house of the appellant to his own house to celebrate Akhati festival, but about 3 days prior to the incident appellant had come to the house of Balu at village kundia, at that time Sonubai had gone to attend the marriage in the village which was not liked by appellant and he had quarreled with Sonubai and asked her to immediately come with him.On this Kalibai mother in law of appellant had said that she would sent Sonubai the next day.Aggrieved with this the appellant came around 1:30 pm midnight to his in-laws house where Kalibai, Balu and Sonubai were sleeping in the open courtyard of the house being summer season and appellant had given a blow of axe with full force on the neck of Kalibai and hearing the voice of Kalibai, Balu and Sonubai had seen the appellant running away with the axe in his hand in the moonlight.The incident was informed to the neighbourers and FIR Ex. P-8 was registered at police Station Chainpur which is situated 27 k.ms.away and on the same day Safina Form Ex.P-2 was issued and Lash Panchnama Ex.P-3 and spot map Ex.The query report is Ex.P-15 wherein the autopsy surgeon had opined that such an injury was possible from the seized axe.7/ PW-10 Balu @ Balsingh Mankar and PW-13 Sonubai @ Sunitabai are the eye witnesses of the incident who were sleeping by the side of the deceased Kalibai at the time of incident.PW-10 Balu @ Balsingh is the husband of the deceased who has deposed that appellant is husband of his daughter Sonubai who had come to her parent's house and on Monday the appellant had come and had quarreled with Sonubai on the issue of her attending the marriage in the village and on being consoled by Kalibai, appellant had gone back saying that he would kill either Kalibai or Sonubai and on the night of Tuesday, when Kalibai alongwith Balu and Sonubai was sleeping in the open courtyard of the house, the appellant had come armed with an axe and had given a blow from the axe on the neck of Kalibai and had ran away.(Delivered on 20/8/2018) 1/ Being aggrieved with the judgment dated 5/3/2011 passed in Sessions Trial No. 147/2010 by the Vth Additional Sessions Judge Khargone (West Nimar) convicting the appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and default imprisonment of one year on failure to pay the fine, the appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C.P-9 were prepared and blood stained soil and other articles were seized vide Ex.P- 10 and Marg intimation Ex.P-11 was sent to SDM and body was sent for the postmortem where the postmortem was conducted by Dr. Ratan Singh Kanas.The blood stained cloths of the deceased were seized vide seizure memo Ex.P-7 and the statement of witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. were recorded and appellant was arrested vide Ex.P-16 and on the disclosure made by the appellant under Section 27 of Evidence Act his blood stained cloths i.e. (Article C & D) and the blood stained axe (Article D) was seized vide seizure memo Ex.P-18 and the axe was sent to autopsy surgeon vide Ex.P-4 and the query report Ex.P-15 was given by the autopsy surgeon 3 disclosing the possibility of causing of injury by seized axe and all the seized items were sent to the Regional FSL Rau vide Ex.P-20 and Ex P-21 and the FSL report Ex.P-22 was received.After the investigation challan was filed against the appellant who had abjured the guilt and the trial took place in which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced.3/ Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the matter and it is a case of single blow therefore, at the most, offence under Section 304 Part II IPC would be made out.5/ Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is found that the Statement of Dr. Ratan Singh Kanas PW-8 autopsy surgeon as also the postmortem report Ex.6/ The postmortem of deceased Kalibai was done by PW-8 Dr. Ratan Singh Kanas who had given the postmortem report Ex.The statement of autopsy surgeon as well as postmortem report reveal that deceased was having a cut wound on the left side of the neck below the jaw admeasuring 7 X 2 X 3 c.m.This injury was caused by sharp object and death had taken place on account of shock due to excessive bleeding.The injury was antemortem in nature and was possible by sharp heavy object.Looking to the nature of injury the autopsy surgeon had disclosed that the death was 4 possible within half an hour of receiving the injury.The blood stained axe which was seized from appellant was sent to autopsy surgeon vide Ex.P-14 for his opinion on the query if the injury was possible from the seized axe.Balu had seen the appellant in the light of the electric pole and had recognized him and had also seen him running away with axe.The incident had taken place around 1:30 pm and FIR Ex.P-8 was lodged by Balu the very next day at 9:30 am narrating the details of incident.8/ The statement of PW-10 Baul is duly supported by statement of another eye witness PW-13 Sonubai @ Sunitabai wife of appellant, who has given the same version of the incident as given by Balu.She has also stated that appellant used to fight with her and used to say that if she would go to 5 her parent's house frequently then he would kill either her father or her mother.She had also deposed that prior to the incident on the issue of attending the marriage, the appellant had given her 2-3 slaps and had said that if she would not accompany him at night then he would kill her or her parents.Both PW-10 and PW-13 have stated that it was a moon night and they had seen the appellant killing and running away from the spot of incident.9/ The statements of PW-10 Balu and PW-13 Sonubai are also duly supported by other witnesses, though other witnesses were not the eye witnesses.PW-2 Rukmabai whose house is situated near the house of deceased has also stated that she had reached immediately after the incident and Sonubai had informed that her husband had given axe blow to her mother and that the incident was of about 1:30 at night.PW-1 Kalu, PW-3 Chamar Tardi and PW-4 Ramesh Mankar though have turned hostile but they have admitted that PW-1 Sonubai had informed them about murder of Kalibai by appellant using axe and that quarrel used to take place between appellant and Kalibai because Sonubai in every 15-20 days used to come to her parent's house and Kalibai used to resist sending her back to the appellant's house.10/ From the statements of above witnesses it is also clear that incident had taken place at night but at the time of incident the moon light was there.11/ The record further reflects that on the disclosure made by appellant vide Ex.P-17 the blood stained axe and blood stained cloths of appellant were seized vide Ex.P-18 and they were sent to FSL vide Ex.P-20 and the FSL report Ex.P-22 was received in which human blood was found on Articles B,E & F i.e. axe and blood stained shirt and paint seized from the 6 appellant.12/ The aforesaid evidence clearly establishes that appellant had caused murder of Kailbai by means of axe.Hence trial court has not committed any error in holding that appellant had committed offence under Section 302 of IPC.13/ So far as the plea of counsel for appellant for converting the offence under Section 304 part-II of IPC on the ground that only single injury has been caused, is concerned, such a plea cannot be accepted having regard to the fact that after the quarrel the appellant had gone back and at the night of the incident he had come prepared armed with axe and had given axe blow on neck i.e. vital part of the body of Kalibai who was sleeping alongwith her other family members.Its a case of brutal murder without there being any provocation on the part of Kalibai or her family members.14/ The motive is also established because Kalibai had refused to send Sonubai @ Sunitabai the wife of appellant with him and appellant had already threatened that he would either kill Sonu @ Sunita or her parents.The appeal is devoid of any merit which is accordingly dismissed.C.C. as per rules.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
915,204 |
She wanted him to give up his obnoxious habit.The appellant's father also had written letters, advising him to correct himself.The appellant did not desist from drinking and his relations with the deceased had become unhappy.There was no issue from their marriage.The appellant was residing within the premises of the Vidyapeeth.His sister Surekha (P.W. 9), aged about 10 or 12 years also used to live in the same house.The appellant's father is a landlord in the same district.Dr. Ghali was married to the sister of the accused.On the day of occurrence (Sept. 7, 1969) the deceased wanted to go to her brother's place in Gadhilganj she had 'asked permission of her husband for the contemplated trip and he had allowed her to go.But she missed the bus and could not go.In the morning on the day of occurrence only three persons, namely, the accused-appellant, Surekha.Malti deceased wore in the house.Surekha was in the bathroom.When she heard the outcry of Malti to the effect: 'I am dead : I am dead!' Surekha, rushed out to the kitchen where Malti was.The appellant also rushed to the kitchen.They saw a small bottle lying near her.The bottle contained Baygon, an insecticide.The appellant then administered saline water to the deceased to induce vomitting and she vomitted.The appellant sent Surekha to fetch Dr. Kulkarni the Medical Officer of the Public Health center in Mouni (Manvi) Vidyapeeth.Surekha ran to Dr. Kulkarni's house, gave the message and returned to the house.Dr. Kulkarni (P.W. 2) followed by his compounder Kambale (P.W. 5) came to the house.The appellant informed the Doctor that Malti had consumed the insecticide and that he had given her saline water to induce vomitting.After examining the patient Dr. Kulkarni gave more salt water to her and she vomitted.Dr. Kulkarni gave her three injections: one was of coramine, the second of teramycin and third of betnisol.On his advice, the appellant prepared tea and administered it to her.She sat on the bed, took the tea but vomitted it.After remaining with the patient for about an hour, Dr. Kulkarni wont away at 8-45 or 9-45 A. M., telling the appellant that if he was needed he might be called again.A couple of hours thereafter, the appellant again sent Surekha out to fetch Dr. Kulkarni.On receiving the message, Dr. Kulkarni accompanied by his compounder went to the appellant's house and rang the bell twice.Dr. Kulkarni went inside, while the compounder carrying the medicine chest waited outside.Dr. Kulkarni wanted to enter the room in which the patient Malti was, but the appellant came into the door and told the Doctor that his wife Malti was alright and that he would himself manage.Dr. Kulkarni, thereupon (as he deposed) immediately left the house without seeing the patient, saying that if there was any emergent need, he could be sent for again.Dr. Kulkarni then went to Dr. Mali (P.W. 1), the Director of the Vidyapeeth, and told him all that had happened.(a) Malti met a homicidal death.She was throttled to death, and did not die of poisoning,(b) The accused was addicted to heavy drinking and he did not leave this habit in spite of the repeated protests of his wife and the reprimands and advice of his father.As a result, the relations of the accused with his wife were not happy and on the morning of 7th Sept., 1969, she attempted to commit.suicide by taking Baygon poison, but she did not die of poisoning because of the saline emetic first given to her by the accused and later by Dr. Kulkarni.(c) During his first visit which lasted for about one hour, Dr. Kulkarni found Malti lying on the cot.He found her quite conscious.Her pulse.and blood- pressure and chest were normal.He gave her injections.Malti at that time sat up in the bed and took tea.She asked for a towel and wiped her face.Dr. Kulkarni had examined her throat and finding Malti alright left the house around 9 or 9-45 A, M.(d) At about 10-45 A. M. when Dr. Kulkarni visited the house of the accused second time and tried to enter the room in Which Malti was, the accused came in the doorway and turned back Dr. Kul karni with the representation that Malti was alright and he himself would manage.(e) At about 11-15 or 11-30 A. M" when Dr. Kulkarni, Dr. Mali and Prof. Chan dake were on their way to the house of the accused, gardener Markat (P.W. 4) told them that Malti had expired.(f) On going into Malti's room at about 11-30 A.M. or 12 noon, Dr. Kulkarni found her lying dead on the floor, without any saree or blouse over her body, while during his first visit Malti was on the cot with the clothes on her person and was practically alright.He then stated that he had gone into the bath room where he heard the sound of 'dhab' 'dhab' from Malti's room.The accused thereupon came out and saw his wife lying on the floor near the diwan.It was difficult for her to breathe at that time.He, therefore, made her sleep in the middle of the room.Her saree had become loose and had also been stained with vomits.He, therefore, tried to change her clothes because the doctor was to come after some time.His wife, however, became more restless and serious.He, therefore, went put for calling the.But he could not spot anybody, and when he went inside he saw his wife was no more.He then went out, and on his way met Markat, whom he informed that his wife was no more.Mar kat then went to Dr. Mali and Dr. Kul karni to inform them about the death of his wife.The accused admitted that his wife was utterly dissatisfied and was unhappy because he was addicted to drink, but stated that he had endeavoured to control his vice.JUDGMENT R.S. Sarkaria, J.1.The appellant, a graduate in agriculture, was working as a lecturer and Head of the Agricultural Department in the Composite Training center of the Manvi Vidyapeeth at Gargoti in the district of Kolhapur.He was tried and convicted by the Sessions Judge.Kolhapur under Section 302, Penal Code for the murder of his wife, Smt. Malti, and sentenced to imprisonment for life.The learned Judges of the Division Bench of High Court who heard Prabha kar's appeal were divided in their opinion.Bhole, J. opined that the conviction of the appellant be upheld while his companion Judge held a contrary opinion.The case was then referred to a 3rd Judge and heard and disposed of by Kotwal, C.J. , who agreed with Bhole, J. and dismissed Prabhakar's appeal.Prabhakar has come in appeal to this Court after obtaining special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution.We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and examined the record very carefully.The conviction of the appellant mainly rests upon circumstantial evidence.The facts of' the prosecution case may be set out as under:The appellant was addicted to drinking.Malti used to protest and object against this conduct of her husband.Thereupon Dr. Mali, Dr. Kulkarni and Prof. Chandake proceeded towards house of the appellant to see Malti.On their way, at about 11-45 or 11-30 A.M. , gardner Markat (P.W. 4) met and told them that Malti had expired.Dr. Kulkarni followed by the other two, then hurriedly reached the house of the appellant.On going inside, the Doctor did not find Malti on the bed on which he had seen her on his earlier visit, but found her lying on the floor, without saree and blouse on her body.Information was also sent to Dr. Ghali, the brother, and also to the father of the deceased, who came at about 4-30 P. M. Thereafter, Dr. Mali reported the matter to the police.In the first information report Dr. Mali stated that he himself did not see anything after entering the house of the accused but was told by Dr. Kulkarni that on examination he found that Malti had consumed a poisonous drug.At first, the case was registered as one of accidental death.But after receiving the post-mortem examination report, it was altered to an offence under Section 302, Penal Code.The post-mortem examination of Malti was conducted by Dr. Khade on the following day in the morning.Dr. Khade found these five external injuries on her body:Two linear scratches on the middle of the nose the right side l" X 3/4 " each, respectively.2.Five crescentic scratches on the right side of the face.Two on the right maxilla and three below it, varying from 3/4 " X 1" each.An oblique linear scratch 3/4 " in length on the lower border of the mandible, on the left side left to the chin.A transverse linear scratch on the anterior part of the neck, just below the thyroid cartilage and going towards the left side of the neck by 1 1/2 " in length.A pea-sized abrasion, near the posterior superior iliac spine, on the right buttock.Injuries (1), (2), (4) and (5) were brownish red.Dr. Khade found ecchymosis in the surrounding tissues underneath injury No, 4, on dissection.He also found extravasation of blood in the subcutaneous tissues underneath the wound, and in the surrounding muscles of the neck, and marked congestion.The Doctor also found laceration of the sheath of the left carotid artery.All these injuries, in the opinion of Dr. Khade, were ante-mortem.The internal injuries found on her by Dr. Khade were as under:1. Abrasion on the.left side of chest wall.2. Left lung exudes dark blood mixed with froth in fair account.Treaches lumber is covered with' froth and mucous membranes are congested.Fracture of the cricoid cartilage in the middle.Fracture of the first two tracheal rings.Right side of the.heart is full of dark blood.The left side of the heart is empty.In Dr. Khade's opinion, Injury No. (4) must have been caused by violent pre sure on her throat and the force applied must have been sufficient to cause fracture of the thyroid cartilage and of the first two tracheal rings.On the above data, Dr. Khade opined that the death of Malti was due to asphyxia as a result of throttling.Dr. Khade was apprised of the fact that case was of suspected poisonings He, therefore, preserved the viscera which was in due course sent for chemical examination.The Chemical Examiner reported; that baygon was detected in the stomach contents and also in intestine, liver, spleen and kidneys.The conviction of the appellant for murder of his wife, rests on an inference drawn from these facts and circumstances:(g) (Inferentially) Malti died some time between 9 A. M. and 11 A. M. Probably, she had already died a homicidal death when Dr. Kulkarni, on his second visit at 10-30 A. M. tried to enter Malti's room but was prevented by the accused on the false representation that she was feeling better and he would himself manage.(h) At the time of Malti's death,no other person excepting the accused, was in the house.In morning of the day of occurrence, when the maid-servant, Akkatai came to work in the house, the accused sent her back saying that there was no work of cleansing pots in the house. .In his examination under Section 313, Criminal P.C. the accused first tried to set up the defence that Malti committed suicide by taking Baygon poison.The accused further admitted that he and his wife, Malti, were the only inmates of the house when Surekha had gone in the bathroom and Malti had raised the outcry.As regards the scratches and other external injuries found on the chin, lip and neck of the body of the deceased by Dr. Khade, the accused stated that he did not see them and the same must have been sustained by her as a result of the fall from the cot.He further stated that the evidence of Dr. Khade to the effect, that the death of Malti was due to asphyxia caused by throttling, was false.The prosecution evidence with regard to (a) mainly consists of the testimony of Dr. Khade who conducted the post-mortem examination of Malti.Sun-porting evidence is also furnished by the Panchnama (Ex. P-3) in which, the investigating officer noted the injuries seen by him on Malti's dead body during the inquest.With regard, to (b) (i) evidence is furnished, inter alia by Akkatai, the maid-servant and the letters written to the accused by his father.As regards (b) (ii), the prosecution evidence partly consists of the testimony of Dr. Khade and partly of Dr. Kulkarni, Surekha also deposes to the presence of Baygon bottle lying near Malti.The Chemical Examiner also found some Baygon poison in the viscera of the deceased.Dr. Kulkarni is the chief prosecution witness in regard to circumstances (c), (d), (e) and (f).To an extent, Compounder Kambale (P.W. 5) gives supporting evidence in respect of circumstance (d), inasmuch as he stated that Dr. Kulkarni entered the house of the accused and came out immediately thereafter.Dr. Mali also renders evidence regarding (e).The accused does not seriously dispute the existence of facts (b) (i), (c), (e), (f) and (h).But, he strenuously controverts fact (a), namely, that Malti was strangulated to death.He maintained that Malti died of poisoning and her death was suicidal and not homicidal.He also disputes the correctness of (d) and Dr. Kulkarni's evidence to that effect.He has tried to explain (f) and also the last limb of (h) as to why he had sent Akkatai away.Circumstance (a) listed above, is by far the most clinching of all the facts catalogued above.Proof of this circumstance primarily turns on the question whether the testimony of Dr. Khade is reliable.We have set out in detail, earlier, the external and internal injuries which were found on the body of Malti by Dr. Khade.We have also given the substance of his evidence.In his opinion, Malti was strangulated to death.Dr. Khade has given cogent and convincing reasons in support of his opinion.The learned trial Judge and two learned Judges of the High Court (Bhole J. and Kotwal, C.J.) found Dr. Khade's evidence entirely trustworthy.As before the High Court, here also, an attempt was made to assail his testimony on the ground that Dr. Kulkarni, who had examined her body soon after her death, did not notice any external mark of injury on her neck, lip, nose, face or the left side hip.In this connection, Dr. Kulkarni has stated: "I had not examined Maltibai minutely at the time of my third visit to the house of the accused, in order to find out whether she had any injuries".It may be noted that on his last visit, when Dr. Kul karni examined the pupils arid felt the pulse of Maiti, and declared her dead, she was lying on the floor without any saree or blouse on her person.In such a situation, Dr. Kulkarni could not have failed to notice the external injuries on her throat, nose and lip.We agree with the learned Chief Justice of the High Court, that Dr. Kulkarni had not told the whole truth and had tried to suppress the existence of these injuries to favour his friend, the accused.His conduct in not reporting the matter to the police immediately after 12 noon when he found her dead, further confirmed that he had a tendency to shield the accused and was interested in him.As rightly pointed out by the learned Chief Justice, the evidence of Dr. Khade with regard to the external injuries of Malti was strongly corroborate ed by the Panch witnesses and the Police Sub-Inspector who at the time of the in quest noted these injuries on her body:1.Scratches on the right cheek, nose and chin.2.Scratch-like line on the throat.3.Scratch of the size of a gram-dal on the left side hip.Although the Chemical Analyser found some Baygon in the viscera, but he did not say how much its quantity was.Further, in his report (Ex. 24) he did not say that the death was caused by any poisoning.The Chemical Analyser clearly mentioned that no experimental data regarding the fatal dose, fatal period and the poisonous effect of Baygon on various organs of a human being was available with them.On the other hand, Dr. Kulkarni's evidence was to the effect that during his first visit between 8 A.M. and 9-30 A.M. , the de ceased was conscious and normal.She vomitted several times.She sat up in the bed and took tea and vomitted it again.The doctor had examined her throat, also.Dr. Kulkarni stated that he left the house, Malti was alright.Even the accused stated that after vomitting, his wife felt "much better".Contrary to what Dr. Kulkarni had stated, the accused said that Dr. Kulkarni had examined his wife on his second visit, also, and after his departure, "his wife started feeling much better".The second visit of Dr. Kulkarni can be fixed at about 10-30 A. M. This means even about two hours of her consuming Baygon, Malti was feeling better.Moreover, according to Surekha, the bottle was less than half full of the liquid as on previous occasions they " had used approximately half of its contents for killing insects.In the face of these facts it is not possible to hold that her death, which must have occurred about or very soon after the second visit of Dr. Kulkarni-was due to Baygon poisoning.A suggestion was made to Or.Khade that injury No. 4 and underlying fractures could have been the result of a fall.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
91,526,435 |
DATED: 3rd May, 2019 P.C. :Upon mentioning, taken on production board.In this Appeal, the Application is moved by the applicant/accused for suspension of sentence and for releasing him on bail.The applicant is sentenced to suffer maximum punishment for four years and to pay fine and in default, to suffer rigourous imprisonment for four 1 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2019 01:05:58 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2019 01:05:58 :::The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that theapplicant/accused was on bail throughout the trial, however, afterhe was convicted, i.e., on 6th March, 2019 by the learned SpecialJudge, Pune, he is taken in custody.Thelearned counsel submitted that the applicant/accused has goodcase on merits and therefore, prays for suspension of sentenceand for bail.Learned Prosecutor is present and submits to the orders ofthe Court.In view of the submissions of the learned Counsel for theapplicant and also as there is no chance that the Appeal will beheard in near future, the Application is allowed on the followingterms:2 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2019 01:05:58 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2019 01:05:58 :::i) The statement made by the learned counsel for the applicant/accused about payment of fine is accepted;ii) The applicant/accused shall be released on bail upon furnishing a P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount;(iii) The sentence is suspended, pending the Criminal Appeal;iv) The applicant/accused shall not indulge into any criminal activity.Criminal Application stands disposed of accordingly.(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) 3 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2019 01:05:58 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2019 01:05:58 :::
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
91,253,892 |
Watch was kept on them.In the vicinity ofstation house Kashimira, near bus stop.On 24 th November 1999, AccusedNo.1 and Accused No.2 appeared on the scene carrying one bag each intheir hand which tallied with the information emanating from the informer.They were apprehended along with material and bags.The accused No.1was carrying about 370 sheets of counterfeit Government Stamps of Rs.10/- denomination.Accused No.2 was carrying two bundles of 600/- sheetseach stamps of Rs. 5/- and 2/- denominations.On further probe throughinterrogation the accused No.3 (Appellant) was traced out and subjected tointerrogation.He disclosed the place where contraband material was stored.Pursuant to that material consisting of equipment and material used formanufacturing the counterfeit stamps and fake stamps were recovered.Thestamps were in huge quantity.The accused were arrested.(vi) The Police Officer who arrested the appellant has not been examined.PW No.6 has stated that, the involvement of the appellant was disclosed on 28th November 1999, during the interrogation of co-accused.PW No.2 did not refer to arrest of appellant.The articles were not sealed.The prosecution has established that in pursuant tomemorandum statement of the appellant in accordance with Section 27 ofthe Evidence Act, discovery of huge quantity of stamps worth more thanRs.2 crores were seized from the premises where the appellant had lead thepolice and panchas.The co-accused were also convicted.8 Navnath Kavde (PW No.1) has deposed that, on 24 th November1999 at about 01:00 a.m., trap was arranged at Kashimira Naka in thepresence of panch and PSI Juvekar.The information was received by Mr.Juvekar.Two persons appeared on the scene, they were apprehended.Theirpersonal search was conducted in the presence of panch witness.AccusedNo.1 was in possession of rexin bag containing Government Stamps of Rs.10 denomination in the quantity of 370 sheets each having 200 stamps.Accused No.2 was carrying gunny bag containing 600 sheets of Governmentstamps of Rs. 5/- denomination and 600/- sheets Government Stamps ofRs.2/- denomination.Each sheets of these two articles contains 200 stamps.These items were seized right on the spot.Panchnama was drawn.In the ::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 03:10:25 ::: Ethape 7/20 4.Cri.9 Vishnu Shyamrao Killedar (PW No.2) stated that, on 24 thNovember 1999 he was attached to Local Crime Branch, Thane.He joinedthe Police party of seven persons organized under Mr. Juvekar.They went toKashimira village and halted near the bus stop.He was asked to watch twopersons who are likely to come with the stamps.Two persons came fromDahisar side.Both of them were holding a bag with contents.They wereapprehended.Bags were opened in the presence of panchas.Stamp indenominations of Rs. 2/-, 5/- and 10/- were found with them.They wereseized by drawing panchnama.In cross-examination, it was stated that it did not appear from theirmovements that the accused No.1 were waiting to board the vehicles.Panchas were called before apprehension of accused.The stamps were inthe bags but same bags are not now before the Court.Rajendra Juvekar (PW No.3) deposed that, he was attached toThane Rural Crime Branch.He was on night petrolling duty alongwith hisstaff.At about 01:30 a.m., in the night of 24 th November 1999, informationwas received that two persons carrying fake stamps were likely to appear atKashimira Naka.Trap was arranged with panch witnesses by 11.30 a.m. onnext morning.It continued upto 02.15 p.m. two persons carrying bags weregoing towards Mira Road.Accused No.1 was the same persons.Informerwas with the police.Both the accused found carrying fake stamps.AccusedNo.1 was carrying stamps of Rs. 7,40,000/-.Accused No. 2 was inpossession of stamps of Rs. 8,40,000/-.They were in sheets.Articles 21 and22 are the same.Accused were arrested.Complaint was lodged.Hediscovered the name of third accused during interrogation and located theplace where he was likely to be.Accused No.3 was apprehended at MiraRoad Naka by staff.Mr. Killekar and Mr. Ingavale brought accused No.3 tohis office.He was arrested in the morning.He was interrogated.He offeredto recover the artciles about the manufacture of false stamps and disclosedthat the same are kept in his house at Kandivali.Memorandum Exh.27 was prepared.There were sharetransfer stamps worth Rs. 2/-, 5/-, 10/- and 50/- denominations and postalstamps of Rs. 10/-.All were fake.Equipment machines, perforatingmachine, gum were found.They were seized vide panchnama exhibit-28.The value of the stamps was Rs. 2 crore 26 kakhs.Machine was valued Rs.25,000/-.The property recovered was transported by tempo vehicle.He did not record the statement of owner of tempo.The entire property wastaken to crime Branch.Kisan Namdev (PW No.4) was called at Rural Police Station.On28th November 1999 one person was shown to him.His name was MukeshMashrur.The said person did not say anything in his presence.He wasasked to sit outside.Nothing happened in his presence.The said personbrought outside.He was made to sit in the jeep.They were taken by jeep toBhayandar.Jeep haulted.He was waiting in jeep.They came back.Something was wrapped in cloth in the hand of Mukesh.All came back toCrime Branch.No writing executed at Bhayandar.His signature was nottaken there.The document was already written.The contents of panchnamathat the documents were recovered in his presence are not correct.Therewas no recovery and sealing of property in his presence.Abdul Gafar Shaikh (PW No.5) deposed that, Police officercontacted him and asked him to act as panch.They went to the room.One woman was sitting outside and the doorwas simply closed from outside.The Officers gave her identification andentered the flat.The quantity was larger.In cross-examination, he statedthat, the accused came from Bhayandar side.The writing work wasconducted at Kashimiara Police Station.The articles were transported fromthe place in a tempo.::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 03:10:25 :::Raman Sakharam (PW No.6) is Investigating Officer.Hedeposed that he took up investigation in the present case.He receivedpapers including the complaint.On 28th November, 1999, he interrogatedAccused No.1 - Mukesh.He took them to Bhayandar.Stamps were recovered fromhim.He sent charge sheet against threeaccused.In cross, he deposed that, the cabinet from which the stamps weretaken from accused No.1 were not seized.Memorandum was made at LocalCrime Branch Office and panchnama was made at the spot.He did notrecord the statement of neighbours.On scrutinizing the evidence on record, it is evident that,information was received by the police that persons carrying counterfeit ::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 03:10:25 ::: Ethape 12/20 4.Cri.Appeal No.511-2003.docstamps are likely to come at Kashimira Naka for selling the counterfeitstamps.Trap was arranged.The police, panch and secret informant waitedat Kashimira Naka from 11:30 a.m. Two persons arrived at about 02:15p.m.they were carrying bags with them.The trap was arranged under thesupervision of PW No.3-Juvekar.PW No.2 was attached to Local CrimeBranch, Thane, he was part of raiding party.PW No.3- Juvekar is PSIattached to Thane Rural Crime Branch.In the night of 24 th November, 1999,he received information at about 01:30 a.m. that, two persons carrying fakestamps were likely to appear at Kashimira Naka.In his presence accusedNo.1 was apprehended.According to him name of accused No.3 wasdisclosed during investigation.He was arrested at Mira Road by his staff.PW No.2 and Mr. Ingavale brought him to Police Station.He was arrested.He was interrogated.delivery of counterfeit stamps from the other persons who are named byhim and that the same were stored in the premise from where they wererecovered.It is also alleged that process of gumming and putting whole tothe stamps was carried out at the said place.The Trial Court has observedthat entire process of manufacturing has not been established.The accusedfrom whom allegedly counterfeit stamps were procured by the appellantwere not arrested.The accused No.1 and accused No.2 were allegedlyarrested on 24th November 1999 and they were found in possession ofcounterfeit stamps.Subsequently, the recovery is made at the instance of theaccused No.1 from his residence.Section 255 of IPC relates to counterfeiting GovernmentStamps.Section 257 provides punishment for making or selling instrumentfor counterfeiting Government Stamp.Section 258 punishes sale ofcounterfeit Government Stamp.Section 260 provides punishment for usingas a genuine Government Stamps known to be counterfeit.Appeal No.511-2003.docfor counterfeiting Government Stamps and Section 259 of IPC providespunishment for having possession of counterfeit Government Stamps.Thus,the appellant has been convicted for the aforesaid offences and acquitted inthe charge of counterfeiting Government Stamps, sale of counterfeitGovernment Stamps, making or selling instruments for counterfeitingGovernment stamps and using at genuineness of government stamps noneto be counterfeiting.::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 03:10:25 :::20 The accused No.1 and accused No.2 were convicted forthe offence under Section 259 of IPC.On the date of the Judgment convicting him, he was taken intocustody.Learned advocate for the appellant hadsubmitted that the appellant is aged more than 60 years in the event ofCourt convict him, he may not be sent to jail again.The accused No.2 wassentenced to imprisonment which had undergone by him.The appellantmay be provided similar punishment.1 The appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections256, 259 of Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") and sentenced to undergoimprisonment for a period of five years on each count with direction thatboth the sentences shall run concurrently.2 The prosecution case is as under:-Information was received by Police that two persons are carrying ::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 03:10:25 ::: Ethape 2/20 4.Cri.Appeal No.511-2003.doccounterfeit Government Stamps.On completinginvestigation charge sheet was filed.::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 03:10:25 :::3 Charge was framed against all three accused by order dated31st January 2003 for offences under Sections 255, 256, 257, 258, 259 and260 read with Sections 420 and 465 read with Section 34 of the IPC.It wasa composite charge against all the accused.4 The prosecution examined six witnesses.Statements of theaccused were recorded under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code (for ::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 03:10:25 ::: Ethape 3/20 4.Cri.Appeal No.511-2003.docshort "Cr.P.C.").By judgment and order dated 27th March 2003, the LearnedAd-hoc Additional Districts and Sessions Judge, Thane convicted AccusedNo.1 Mukesh Mashrur and accused No.2 Dinanath Bhimrao Patil underSection 259 of IPC.Accused No.1 was sentenced to undergo imprisonmentfor a period of two years and pay fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default toundergo imprisonment for a period of one year.Accused No.2 is sentencedto imprisonment for a period equivalent to the one he has undergone jail asunder trial, with benefit of set off for both.The accused No.3 (appellant)was convicted under Section 256 and 259 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergoimprisonment for a period of five years for each offence.::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 03:10:25 :::6 Shri.Aniket Vagal, learned Advocate for the appellant advancedfollowing submissions:::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 03:10:25 :::::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 03:10:25 :::convicting the appellant and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for five years.On the same evidence accused No.1 was sentenced to imprisonment for two years and accused No.2 was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of equivalent to one he has undergone in jail as under trial prisoner which was approximately for six months.Hence, the punishment awarded to the appellant is disproportionate and discriminatory.(ii) There are discrepancies and contradictions in the testimony of recovery panch and Investigating Officer.(iii) The prosecution has not proved that the premises from where counterfeit stamps and the material was recovered belongs to the appellant.(iv) There is no documentary evidence to establish that the house from where the recovery was made belongs to the appellant.There is no ::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 03:10:25 ::: Ethape 5/20 4.Cri.Appeal No.511-2003.doc evidence to show that on what basis the appellant was apprehended by the Police.::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 03:10:25 :::The driver of the Tempo from which the counterfeit Government Stamps were transported has not been examined.(vii) The report about the genuineness of the Government Stamps is not exhibited in evidence.The copy was not furnished to the accused.The Trial Court however relied upon the findings in the report.7 Learned APP submitted that, accused No.1 and accused No.2were arrested on spot.The accused No.3 (appellant) was arrested duringthe trial.His involvement was revealed during interrogation of accused No.1and there is no cross-examination at the instance of the accused in respectto the arrest.There is no cross-examination with regard to the ownership of ::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 03:10:25 ::: Ethape 6/20 4.Cri.Appeal No.511-2003.docthe house from where the counterfeit Government Stamps and other articleswere seized.The panchwitnesses cannot be disbelieved.There is no effective cross-examination atthe instance of the advocate for the appellant to discard the evidence ofpanch witnesses with regard to recovery.::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 03:10:25 :::Appeal No.511-2003.doccross-examination he stated that, each accused was having one bag ofstamps.When the accused No.1 was holding the bag with stamp bundle, thestamps were not visible from outside.::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 03:10:25 :::In cross-examination, he ::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 03:10:25 ::: Ethape 8/20 4.Cri.Appeal No.511-2003.docstated that he had not told the police as to which hand, the accused No.1was holding the bag.::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 03:10:25 :::He took the police to his ::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 03:10:25 ::: Ethape 9/20 4.Cri.Appeal No.511-2003.dochouse at Kandivali.He identified the accused and the articles.In the cross-examination, he deposed that, Kashimira bus-stop is opposite to the policeStation.Information was received on the previous night while they werepatrolling.Information was received at 01.30 a.m. while they were at MiraRoad.Police station are within range of two kms., from there.In theinvestigation it was revealed that accused No.1 had obtained the stampsfrom Mahesh Shah and Shirdhankar.The accused No.3 disclosed the nameof Mahesh Shah and two persons with surname Shirdhankar.A bag foundwith accused No.1 was not separately labelled by signature of panchwitnesses.Accused No.3 was apprehended by VishnuKillekar and Sanjay.Panchnama of arrest was made.He do not rememberwhat was found on his person.He did not recordstatement of neighbours.There was no lock to the premises.The house was ::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 03:10:25 ::: Ethape 10/20 4.Cri.Appeal No.511-2003.doclocated in chawl.The articles were transported in small truck.::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 03:10:25 :::::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 03:10:25 :::Two persons came there, eachone was carrying polythene bag and gunny bag.The bags were containingcounterfeit stamps.Accused No.3 gave information to the police anddisclosed that he has material kept in his house.They went to Kandivali in a ::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 03:10:25 ::: Ethape 11/20 4.Cri.Appeal No.511-2003.docjeep.They were proceeding towardsMira Road.The informant pointed them as persons referred by him.Boththe persons were apprehended.They gave their names as Mukesh Mashrurand Dinanath Patil.On search they were found in possession of fake stamps,which are used for share certificate.They were arrested immediately.Panchnama Exh.25 was recorded from 14:20 hrs.to 15:45 hrs.It is further allegedthat, involvement of the accused No.3 was disclosed.Memorandum statement of accused/appellant wasrecorded.He disclosed that he is willing to show the place where he keptcounterfeit stamps and the equipments.The panch and police thenproceeded to the place shown by the appellant and stock of counterfeitstamps were recovered from the premises shown by him.::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 03:10:25 :::::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 03:10:25 :::::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 03:10:25 :::Ethape 13/20 4.Cri.Appeal No.511-2003.docThe arrest panchnama of accused No.3 is noton record.The evidence of PW No.2 do not refer to arrest of accused No.3(appellant).PW No.4 is the panch witness.According to him accused No.1lead the police and panchas for recovery of counterfeit stamps from hisresidence.Stamps worth Rs. 70,000/- were recovered from his house.PWNo.5 Abdul Shaikh is the panch witness for arrest of accused No.1 and ::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 03:10:25 ::: Ethape 14/20 4.Cri.PW No.6conducted investigation.::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 03:10:25 :::16 The prosecution has relied upon the testimony of the witnessesand documents on record.Indeed there are some discrepancies inprosecution case.Although, PW No.3 has stated that appellant was arrestedby staff, more particularly by PW No.2 and Ingawale, there is no supportingevidence.PW No.2 Killedar is silent in that regard and Ingawale was notbefore Court.Arrest panchanama if any was not adduced in evidence.The report indicated that the stamps were fake.The report is part of record and proceedings.However, the investigationofficer or any other witness has not adduced it in evidence.It is notexhibited.17 The accused No.1 and accused No.2 are not before this Court.Learned Advocate for the appellant had submitted that the said accusedhave undergone sentence and did not prefer appeal against conviction.TheTrial Court has observed that the appellant was found in possession of ::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 03:10:25 ::: Ethape 15/20 4.Cri.Appeal No.511-2003.doccounterfeit stamps as well as the equipment made in preparing counterfeit.It was further observed that, after analyzing evidence it emerges that theaccused were found in possession of counterfeit stamps.The prosecutionhas not been able to picturise the actual process of manufacturing theGovernment Stamps through regular plant by fitting raw material mostlythe paper of the requisite quality and form.The trial Court has also opinedthat the scrutiny and evaluation of evidence shows that all the three accusedwere found in possession of counterfeit Government Stamps and certaindevises.The accused No.3 found keeping huge stock and giving thefinishing touches to the end product by using the perforating machine.During the investigation names of two persons had appeared but they couldnot be traced.This has lead to presenting the case that of mere possessionof the contraband and instruments used in processing but notmanufacturing plant.The set of charges levelled against all the accusedneed to be pruned down in as much as there is no proof of actualcounterfeiting, manufacturing the first product.It is further observed that,the prosecution has proved under Sections 256 and 259 of IPC.The chargeof forgery was embedded in the offence held to be proved against theaccused.::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 03:10:25 :::::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 03:10:25 :::which are reproduced herein above.Learned APP has countered thesubmissions of the appellant.On analyzing the evidences, I do not find thatthe trial Court has committed error in convicting the appellant for theoffence under Sections 256 and 259 of IPC.There are some discrepancies inthe evidence of witnesses.As referred hereinabove.There is no seriouschallenge through cross examination to arrest and recovery.Panchas werecommon.There is nothing on record to disbelieve evidence of PW No.5,panch for recovery at the instance of appellant.It is not the case of accusedthat stamps were genuine.The core of evidence has not been demolished bythe defence.After the arrest of accused No.1 and accused No.2 who werefound in possession of counterfeit stamps, the involvement of the appellantwas disclosed.There is recovery of counterfeit stamps from the premises atthe instance of the appellant.The recovery has been proved.The trial Court hasrightly observed that, the title of the properties from where the counterfeitstamps and the equipment were recovered is immaterial.What is theimportant, if the discovery made by appellant accused reading to recoveryof huge stamps.The Trial Court had acquitted the appellant for the chargesunder Sections 255, 257, 258, 260, 465, 420 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 03:10:25 :::::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 03:10:25 :::Section 465 ofIPC provides punishment for forgery and section 420 related to offence ofcheating.The appellant has been acquitted for all these offences.Theappellant is convicted for offence under Section 256 and 259 of IPC.Section256 provides punishment for having possession of instrument and material ::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 03:10:25 ::: Ethape 18/20 4.Cri.The appellant is also convicted for thesame offence.The accused No.1 was sentenced to undergo imprisonmentfor two years and the accused No.2 was sentenced to undergo imprisonmentwhich is already undergone as under trial prisoner.Learned advocate for theappellant submitted that both these accused have undergone the sentence.It is contended that the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for fiveyears while convicting him for the offence under Section 259 of IPC.It issubmitted that there was common charge against all the accused anddifferent punishment ought not to have been provided.The appellant is alsoconvicted for the offence under Section 256 of IPC and sentenced toimprisonment for five years.The accused No.2 ::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 03:10:25 ::: Ethape 19/20 4.Cri.The appellant was convicted forhaving in possession of counterfeit stamps and certain equipment.He isacquitted for other charges.The appellant was on bail during the trial.It appears that, he was incustody for a period of 6 months & 18 days.The conviction of the appellantfor offence under Sections 256, 259 deserves to be confirmed.However,considering the factual aspect as stated above sentenced to imprisonmentcan be reduced to the period which has undergone by him concurrently forboth the charges.::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 03:10:25 :::::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 03:10:25 :::::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 03:10:25 :::of IPC and 259 of IPC is confirmed.However on both counts the appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period which has undergone in custody with the benefit of set off.(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) ::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 03:10:25 :::::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 03:10:25 :::
|
['Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
91,269,533 |
Mr. Alok Vagrecha, learned counsel for the complainant.The complainant Saniya Singh is present in person.She also produced her Aadhar Card.Case diary is available.This is the Second bail application filed on behalf of applicant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.The first bail application M.Cr.T h e applicant apprehends h i s arres t i n connection w i t h Crime No.283/2018 registered b y P o lic e Station-Semariya, District- Rewa for offence punishable under Sections 354-A, 354-D, 341 & 34 of IPC, 7/8 & 11/12 of POCSO Act.I t i s submitted b y counsel f o r t h e applicant that t h e applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case.It is stated that the co- accused person has been enlarged on bail and the complainant does not want to prosecute the matter.It is further submitted that the applicant is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and there is n o possibility o f his absconding or tampering with the prosecution case.On these grounds prayer is made to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail.Certified copy as per rules.(AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE nd Digitally signed by NEETI TIWARI Date: 23/08/2019 23:43:53
|
['Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
912,737 |
The consignment for Jaunpur consisted of two packages weighing 2 mds., 17 seers while that intended for Shahganj consisted of five packages weighing six maunds.The railway man at the west Cabin of Karwa Station noticed on the night between the 28th and 29th April, 50, that the door of one of the vans in the goods train, which had passed his cabin, was open.He informed the Station Master who got into touch with the next station.When the train stopped at Balamau, about three stations from Karwa the packages in the van, whereof the door was found open, were checked.There was a shortage in the weight in each of these consignments.The accused are on bail.ORDER Kaul, J.Ahibaran Singh and Gokaran were convicted by a Magistrate of the first Class, Hardoi, under Section 411, Penal Code, and sentenced to nine months' rigorous imprisonment each.An appeal preferred by them was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge of Hardoi.They now come up in revision.The prosecution story as held established at the trial was as follows:Two consignments of 'Kattha' were despatched from Najibabad by the firm Babu Ram Suresh Chander.One of these consignments was intended for Shahganj and the other for Jaunpur.The next morning the two present petitioners were found selling kattha in Hardoi railway bazar.While the two petitioners were engaged in settling the rate with Ram Ratan a dealer in 'Kattha' in Hardoi Railway Station bazar, a constable came and interrogated them.They gave some explanation but when questioned further, they attempted to run away and were caught.They were in due course sent up for trial.Ahibaran Singh's defence was that the whole quantity of kattha which had been taken to Ram Ratan's shop belonged to him and that Gokaran had nothing to do with the same.Gokaran also pleaded not guilty.His case was that he knew Ahibaran Singh & as he met him in the market he accompanied him to the shop of Ram Ratan to whom Ahibaran Singh wanted to sell the kattha.By way of explanation of his presence at the bazar, he said that he had been there to purchase 'bhoosa' for some Court Inspector,Evidence was led on behalf of the prosecution to prove that the theft of 'Kattha' despatched by the firm Babu Ram Suresh Chandra took place on the night between the 28th and 29th April 1950 at some place between Rosa and Karwa railway station and that the Kattha which the accused offered to sell to Ram Ratan was manufactured by the firm Babu Ram Suresh Chandra.Reliance was further placed on the conduct of the accused when they attempted to run away on being questioned by the police.On behalf of Ahibaran Singh there is produced an invoice purporting to be written on a form of invoices used by a firm at Kanpur known as firm Narain Das Chhotey Lal.Ahibaran Singh called the 'munib' of that firm to prove the invoice.The 'munib's' evidence, however, did not go further than this that the form on which the invoice was written was similar to that used in his firm.He accordingly held that the guilt had been brought home to the accused, and convicted and sentenced them as already stated.The learned Sessions Judge took the same view.It was strenuously argued by their learned Counsel Mr. Ram Asrey Misra that the approach of the two Courts below to the question that was before them was not correct.
|
['Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
9,129,438 |
The gist of the oral report which activated the wheels of investigation is that the complainant Gopal Laxman Pund and P.W.2 Ramrao, the Sarpanch of the village, were induced to visit the house of the accused.The accused initially visited the house of the complainant, told the complainant that he was called by the sarpanch, the accused asked his wife to visit the house of the sarpanch and fetch him.Many persons from the village were witnesses to the incident including the Sarpanch and some villagers made an attempt to intervene in it.Ramdas threatened them with murder.The complainant states that after he was humiliated and forced to walk on every road, he was made to stand in front of the house of the accused who returned the clothes and untied the hands.::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 01:53:23 :::Au contraire, the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class is clearly perverse to the extent::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 01:53:23 ::: 4 apeal94.04 & revn 10.04 the accused is convicted for offence punishable under Section 440 of the Indian Penal Code without an iota of evidence on record and indeed without any witness even alleging, that the accused committed mischief within the meaning of Section 425 of the Indian Penal Code.I refrain from making any further observation and deem it appropriate to exercise judicial restraint.::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 01:53:23 :::The Sarpanch Ramrao Pandey and the complainant Gopal accompanied the accused to his house, the accused was about to close the door when the sister of the complainant Narmadatai came and asked the accused as to why the accused was detaining and beating the complainant.The accused pushed Narmadatai, asked her to leave the scene and threatened to cause her physical harm, then closed the door from inside.The accused assaulted the complainant with slaps and fist blows, made him remove the shirt and the full pant at the point of::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 01:53:23 ::: 5 apeal94.04 & revn 10.04 spear, tied the hands of the complainant with nylon rope, cut his hair, applied gulal, put a garland of tomatoes around the neck of the complainant, and paraded the complainant on each and every road in the village.The report states that the complainant was forced to submit since the accused was continuously pricking the back of the complainant with the spear and holding the rope.The sister of the complainant Narmadatai was moving with the complainant and the accused and was requesting the accused to leave the complainant alone.The accused threatened the complainant and asked him to leave the village.::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 01:53:23 :::On the basis of the said report, offences punishable under sections 342, 355, 292, 504 and 506 of IPC were registered at the Karanja Police Station.The completion of investigation led to submission of the charge-sheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karanja.The learned Magistrate framed charge vide Exh.9 for offence punishable under sections 342, 355, 292, 504 and 506 of IPC.::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 01:53:23 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 01:53:23 :::6 apeal94.04 & revn 10.04 The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.The learned Magistrate by judgment and order dated 31.03.1998 was pleased to convict the respondent for offence punsihable under sections 342, 440, 355, 504 and 506 (II) of the IPC and was pleased to sentence the respondent as follows:Aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction, the respondent-accused preferred Criminal Appeal 12/1998 which is decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim on 01.12.2003, by and under which, the respondent-accused is acquitted of all the offences, which is the judgment and order impugned assailed in the appeal.I have scrutinized the evidence on record closely and::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 01:53:23 ::: 7 apeal94.04 & revn 10.04 having done so, I have no hesitation in observing that the prosecution case is improbable and suspect.Be it noted, that although, the complainant contends that when he was forced to walk on each and every road of the village at the point of spear, the humiliating parade was followed by the sister of the complainant Narmadabai, who is cited as witness.However, for reasons well known to the prosecution, she is not examined.PW 1 - Gopal and PW 2 - Rama are influential persons.PW 2 Rama was then the Sarpanch.The version of PW 1 and PW 2 that they were summoned to the house of the accused, the accused tied both the hands of PW 1 - Gopal by nylon rope cut the hair and sprinkled Gulal, undressed PW 1 - Rama and then took him in a humiliating procession on each and every road of the village, without PW 1 and PW 2 resisting, is held to be highly improbable and indeed unbelievable, by the learned Sessions Judge.I am inclined to agree.The explanation that the accused threatened PW 1 and PW 2 with spear deserves to be noted only for rejection.The learned Sessions Judge has discussed and appreciated the evidence in paragraph 12 and 13 of the judgment and the said appreciation is unexceptionable.The learned Sessions Judge has noted that it was well nigh impossible for the accused to constantly hold the spear in one hand and with the other free hand to assault the PW 1, fetch a nylon rope and tie the hands of PW 1, cut the hair of PW 1 and force PW 1 to undress and::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 01:53:24 ::: 8 apeal94.04 & revn 10.04 thereafter to force PW 1 out of the house and parade him in a procession.The learned Sessions Judge has noted, and rightly so, that in the social hierarchy PW 1 and PW 2 who were member and Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat were on a higher pedestal as compared to the accused.PW 1 and PW 2 were persons of status and who were even physically of the same age as that of the accused and were robust.::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 01:53:23 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 01:53:24 :::The learned Sessions Judge has recorded sound reasons for disbelieving PW 3 and PW 4 and the discussion in paragraph 13, 17, 21, 22 and 23 in the judgment and order impugned reveals that a possible view is taken by the learned Sessions Judge.The appeal is sans merit and is rejected.JUDGEAdgokar/Nikhare/Belkhede ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 01:53:24 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 01:53:24 :::
|
['Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
9,129,657 |
State of West BengalAsha Arora, J.:By the present application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioner has approached this court for quashing of the proceeding in GR No. 899 of 2013 arising out of Hare Street P.S. Case No. 154 of 2013 dated 6/3/2013 under section 93(4)(c)/93(6)/93(7) of West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2 2003 read with section 120B/403/420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Calcutta.The facts in brief leading to the instant application are as follows:On 6/3/2013 the complainant/opposite party no. 2 herein lodged a written complaint with the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Enforcement Branch Kolkata alleging commission of offences under section 93(4)(c), 93(6) and 93(7) of West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and under the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code by the Company named M/S MBL Infrastructure Ltd. and its directors namely, Surinder Singh Kohli who is the petitioner herein, Maruti Maheswari and Anjanee Kumar Lakhotia the two other directors and Nitin Bagaria the Secretary who were in charge of and responsible to the said company for the conduct of its business during the relevant period of tax evasion.M/S MBL Infrastructure had executed works contract during the aforementioned period for Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Public Works (Roads) Department, Government of West Bengal but did not show the same in the returns filed under the Act. Business activities were carried out clandestinely by the dealer without maintaining proper books of accounts.On the basis of the said written complaint the proceeding was initiated 3 against the petitioner and three others hereinabove named as the directors and Secretary of the said Company.Investigation into the case culminated in the submission of the charge-sheet under section 93(4)(c)/93(6)/93(7) of WBVAT Act read with section 120B/403/420/467/468/471 IPC against the four accused persons hereinabove named including the petitioner.Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the contents of the FIR and the charge-sheet do not disclose the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner.Referring to the petition of complaint dated 6/3/2013 and the letter dated 19/2/2013 addressed to MBL Infrastructure Ltd., it is pointed out that the tax alleged to have been evaded as mentioned in the FIR is Rs. 2,79,02,375/- whereas in the letter dated 19/2/2013 the figure of evaded unpaid tax is Rs. 2,35,92,215/-.It is further canvassed that the order dated 7/3/2013 of the Taxation Tribunal was not complied by making a formal assessment order for the relevant period quantifying the dues payable by the Company.Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to impress that without the demand being quantified by way of making assessment as per law there is no liability to pay the tax.Placing reliance upon the case of P. Jayappan versus S.K. Perumal, First Income Tax Officer, Tuticorin reported in AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1693, learned counsel for the State argued that there is no legal bar to the institution of criminal prosecution during the pendency of the assessment proceeding.In P. Jayappan's Case (Supra) the petitioner, an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961, filed income tax return for the relevant periods which was accepted.Later a search of the petitioner's residence revealed that the petitioner had suppressed certain business transactions and had kept false accounts.On the basis of the allegation that the petitioner had deliberately filed false returns and had kept false accounts with the intention of using them as genuine evidence under the assessment proceedings, complaints were filed against him in the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate(Economic Offences), Madurai for taking action against him for offences punishable under sections 276 C and section 277 of the Income Tax Act and under section 193 and 196 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioner moved before the High Court of Madras under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings 5 contending that the launching of the prosecution was a premature one on the ground that the reassessment proceedings started against him under the Income Tax Act had not been completed.The High Court refused to quash the criminal proceeding and dismissed the petition.
|
['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
90,617,397 |
None present for the applicant.This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the applicant for quashment of FIR for the offence punishable under Section 354 and 506-B of IPC and 3(1)(XI) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)On the last date of hearing i.e. on 18.2.2016, when none was present on behalf of the applicant, it was observed that if no one appears on behalf of the applicant on the next date of hearing also, the Court may consider dismissal of the case in default.Hence, the petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.However, a liberty is extended to the applicant to move appropriate application for recalling of this order on admissible grounds along with copies of complete set of challan papers, if any filed.(SUBHASH KAKADE)
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
90,618,817 |
And In the matter of : Tanmoy Chakraborty & Others.... Petitioners Mr. Kalyan Chakraborty Ms. Laila Khaitan.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Debi Prosad Dey, J. ) 3
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
90,621,720 |
Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected and application dismissed.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Debi Prosad Dey, J. )
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 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.
|
90,623,301 |
Passed on 15/05/2015 Per Mrs. S.R. Waghmare, J.All the four petitions are dealt together since common question is involved in all the petitions.Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioners have applied for the post of Constable (GD) in the District Police Force in the recruitment year 2013 (second) and they had cleared all the physical tests and issued the admit card.The petitioners were exempted from the written examination as they have completed 13 years of service as Nagar Sainik.The Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board issued a selection order to the petitioners as they were selected for the post of Constable (GD).The petitioners were allotted District Dewas and they have also filed the affidavit regarding their character verification.It is also submitted that there were three criminal cases No. 1582/08 for offence under Sections 323, 294, 506, 34 of the IPC, Criminal Case No.1162/10 offence u/s 294, 452, 323/34, 324/34 of the IPC and Criminal Case No.927/12 for offence u/S 323/34, 294, 3 325/34 of the IPC have been registered against petitioner Omprakash, a criminal case No.61/13 for offence under Sections 366, 376(1), 506 of the IPC has been registered against petitioner Manoharlal Sharma, two criminal cases No.13393/98 for offence under Section 324, 294, 506 of the IPC and No.6692/07 for offence under Sections 324,323, 294 and 506 of the IPC have been registered against petitioner Sandeep Pandey and a Sessions Trial No.103/2000 for offence under Section 376 of the IPC has been registered against petitioner Kamal Singh Verma.However, all the petitioners have been honourarily acquitted from the said offences by the judgment dated 21/10/08, 17/5/12, 25/2/14, 19/9/13, 25/6/02, 7/3/07 and 22/8/2000 respectively and the copies of judgment of the acquittal are filed along with the affidavit.However, the respondent Superintendent of Police, Dewas has passed the impugned order dated 22/8/2014 intimating the respondent Additional Director General of Police (Recruitment/Selection), PHQ, Bhopal that the petitioners were found guilty for the offence of moral turpitude and hence, they are ineligible for the post of Constable (GD) and consequently the petitioners were also precluded from joining their services.And hence, the present petitions.Counsel further submitted that there was a compromise between the parties and in this light also the petitioners cannot be faulted with.Counsel submitted that despite having qualification the petitioners are being deprived of their services.To bolster his submissions, Counsel placed reliance on Dinesh Singh Parihar vs. State of M.P (W.P. No.896/2014(s) whereby this Court was pleased to held as follows:-"Resultantly, the impugned order dated 11.11.2013 is hereby quashed.The respondents are directed to take appropriate steps for issuance of appropriate orders to appointment of the petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order keeping in view his placement in the merit list.The petitioner shall be entitled for seniority and all other consequential benefits.With the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed.No order as to costs."Counsel also placed reliance on Rakesh Sharma vs. State of M.P. and others (W.P. No.9913/2012), whereby the same ratio has been upheld by this Court.Hence, Counsel prayed that the present petitions be also allowed and the same benefit be extended to the present petitioners.Counsel for the respondents/State, on the other hand, has filed reply to the petition.He has pointed out that the Screening Committee did not find the petitioners fit for the appointment and informed the same vide letter dated 31/7/2014 to the Superintendent of Police, Dewas (Annexure R/1).Counsel submitted that in respect of the similar controversy a specific reply is filed on behalf of State of M.P. in W.P. No.6610/2014 before the Gwalior Bench and the Gwalior Bench has held in favour of the respondents/State under identical circumstances.Counsel also pointed out that the record of the petitioners is contrary to the M.P. Police Regulation of 53 (c) since the petitioners were found guilty of moral turpitude.Hence, Counsel prayed for dismissal of the petitions.On perusing the aforesaid submissions, I find that the Apex Court in the said SLP Commissioner of Police New Delhi and another vs. Mehar Singh has held thus:The Tribunal and the High Court, in our view, erred in setting aside the order of cancellation of the respondents candidature.In the circumstances, the appeals are allowed.The orders of the Delhi High Court impugned in both the appeals are set aside.No order as to costs.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
90,627,362 |
30.05.2013 (66)RP/NB CRM No. 7460 of 2013 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 23.05.2013 in connection with First Information Report Vide No.651 of 2013 dated 26.04.2013 in connection with Bidhannagar East under Sections 409/420/210B of the Indian Penal Code.One director of a company has made a complaint before the Police against the Petitioner no.1/ Director and Petitioner no.2/ Engineer, alleging breach of trust and misappropriation.The short point raised is that one director cannot make a complaint against another when the loss, if at all, has been caused to the company.The company ought to have been the complainant, if at all.allowed In the event, the petitioners are arrested in connection with this case, they shall be released on bail upon furnishing a Bond of `10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and on further conditions as stipulated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the petitioners shall surrender before the regular Court within a week thereafter.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(I. P. Mukerji, J.) (Murari Prasad Shrivastava, J.)
|
['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
906,278 |
(a) P.W.1 is a native of Emapur Village within the jurisdiction of the respondent police.The deceased Arasan is his younger brother.They have got lands adjacent to each other.As per the understanding, P.W.1's family should take water from the public channel for 12 hours, and thereafter the other 12 hours, A-1's family should take water.Regarding the taking of the water, there was often quarrel in the past.When he was about to take water, both the accused objected to the same, and P.W.1 made a request that he could be allowed to take water at least for half an hour.At the time when P.W.1 was making attempt to take water, A-2 attacked him with an iron rod on the head.When P.W.1 tried to ward off the attack made by A-1 with a spade on his head, it fell on the little finger, and it was actually severed.On seeing this, the deceased Arasan who was standing nearby, intervened and went to the rescue of his brother.Immediately, A-2 attacked him with the iron road on his left leg, while A-1 attacked him with the spade on his head.Immediately, both the accused ran away from the place of occurrence.(b) Both P.W.1 and the severely injured Arasan were taken to the Government Hospital, Villupuram.P.W.8, the Doctor, gave initial treatment to the deceased at about 10.05 A.M., and the accident register copy is marked as Ex.Then he was advised to go to the Government General Hospital at Madras.Accordingly, the deceased was taken.On the strength of Ex.P1, a case came to be registered in Crime No.459/2005 under Sections 294, 323, 324 and 307 IPC.The printed FIR, Ex.P10, was despatched to the Court.(d) P.W.11 took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P2, and also a rough sketch, Ex.Then both the accused were arrested on 21.9.2005, and A-2 gave a confessional statement voluntarily which was recorded.The admissible part of the said confession is marked as Ex.P3, pursuant to which, he produced M.O.1, iron rod, and M.O.2, spade, which were recovered under a cover of mahazar.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) Challenge is made to a judgment of the Principal Sessions Division, Villupuram, made in S.C.No.155/2009 whereby both the appellants/A-1 and A-2 stood charged under Sections 307 and 302 of IPC, tried, found guilty as per the charges and awarded seven years Rigorous Imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.10000/- and default sentence under Sec.307 IPC and life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5000/- and default sentence under Sec.302 IPC.2.Short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:Both of them were sent for judicial remand.(e) Pending investigation, an additional statement was given by one of the brothers of the deceased by name Settu, which is marked as Ex.P12, stating that his brother Arasan died in the hospital at 10.15 P.M. on 22.9.2005, pursuant to which the case was altered to Sections 294, 323, 324 and 302 of IPC.The amended FIR, Ex.P13, was despatched to the Court.Then, the Investigator conducted inquest on the dead body of Arasan in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex.A requisition was given to the hospital authorities for the purpose of postmortem.(f) P.W.9, the Tutor in Forensic Medicine, Madras Medical College, on receipt of the requisition, has conducted autopsy on the dead body of Arasan and has issued a postmortem certificate, Ex.P8, wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of effects of head injuries.(g) The weapons of crime recovered pursuant to the confessional statement of A-2, were subjected to chemical analysis, and Ex.P15 is the chemical analyst's report.On completion of the investigation, the Investigator filed the final report.3.The case was committed to Court of Sessions, and necessary charges were framed.In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and also relied on 15 exhibits and 3 material objects.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which they flatly denied as false.No defece witness was examined.The trial Court heard the arguments advanced on either side and took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and hence found them guilty and awarded the above punishment.Hence this appeal at the instance of the appellants.4.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellants, the learned Senior Counsel Mr.N.R.Elango would submit that in the instant case, according to the prosecution, the occurrence has taken place at about 7.30 A.M. on 20.9.2005; that though the prosecution marched five witnesses as eyewitnesses, P.Ws.2 and 5 have turned hostile; that P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 have spoken about the prosecution story; that P.W.1 is shown as an injured witness, and he is also the brother of the deceased; that though he is shown as an injured witness, the discrepancies found in the evidence of P.W.1 and the other witnesses, would clearly indicate that such an occurrence could not have taken place at all; that P.W.4 has categorically admitted that on the date of occurrence, at about 6.00 A.M., there was another occurrence in which P.W.1 and the deceased Arasan were attacked by one Kaliaperumal and that has taken place in the village; and that the same is actually suppressed by the prosecution.5.Added further the learned Senior Counsel that both of them were taken to the hospital at the same time; that the deceased was first given treatment by P.W.8, the Doctor, at about 10.05 A.M., and the accident register copy is marked as Ex.P9; that he was advised to be taken to the Government General Hospital, Madras, for further treatment; that it is pertinent to point out that P.W.1 was given treatment by P.W.8, the Doctor, only at about 2.00 P.M.; that it is further pertinent to note that he was actually treated as Out-Patient; but on the contrary, he has deposed that he was in the hospital for a day; and that had he really been treated as O.P., Ex.P1, complaint, could not have been recorded from P.W.1 by P.W.11, the Inspector of Police, at about 3.00 P.M. and the case could not have been registered at 8.15 P.M. as put forth by the prosecution.6.Added further the learned Senior Counsel that even the Investigator P.W.11, claimed that the case was originally registered under Sec.307 IPC on 20.9.2005 at about 8.15 P.M., and the FIR has actually reached the Court on 22.9.2005 at 7.15 P.M. Pointing to the fact put forth by the prosecution that Arasan died at about 10.15 P.M. On 22.9.2005, at the Government General Hospital, Madras, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that no documentary evidence is produced in that regard.He would further add that only after the death of Arasan, the case was actually converted to Sec.302 IPC, and the FIR was sent to the Court, and till the time, the FIR was not sent to the Court; that all would clearly indicate the delay in not only giving information to the police, but also the registration of the case and the despatching of the FIR to the Court; and that all would clearly reflect that the prosecution story cannot but be false.7.The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the medical opinion did not support the prosecution case; that the recovery of the material objects from the accused following the alleged confessional statement, is nothing but an invention in order to suit the prosecution story; that all put together would clearly indicate that the prosecution did not place all the material facts before the Court or the evidence what is necessary pointing to the guilt of the accused; that under the circumstances, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case, but the trial Judge has taken an erroneous view and found them guilty, and hence it has got to be set aside.8.Added further the learned Senior Counsel in the second line of argument that in the instant case, even if the Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the factual matrix, the act of either of the accused cannot be said to be either intentional or there was any common intention to be shared by them.Added further the learned Senior Counsel that in the instant case, even as per the prosecution case, there was a wordy altercation for about 30 to 45 minutes between the accused party on the one side and P.W.1 and the deceased on the other, and following the same, the incident has taken place; and that it would be quite clear that it was neither intentional nor premeditated.9.Added further the learned Senior Counsel that as far as A-2 is concerned, different versions are given by the witnesses; that P.W.1 is the injured person; that according to him, A-2 has attacked the deceased on his leg; that P.W.3 says that he attacked on his head, and P.W.4 says that he attacked on the neck; but the trial Court has taken into consideration the evidence of P.W.1 who was in the closer proximity because he was an injured witness; that he has actually stated that A-2 attacked the deceased on his leg and therefore, there could not have been any intention to cause death; that under the circumstances, the act of A-2 would attract only the minor penal provision, and hence it has got to be considered by this Court.10.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on all the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.11.It is not in controversy that one Arasan, the brother of P.W.1, following an incident that had taken place at about 7.30 A.M. on 20.9.2005, was originally taken to the Government Hospital, Villupuram, and after he was given treatment as found in Ex.The contention put forth by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that there is no material placed before the Court to prove the fact that Arasan died at about 10.15 P.M. On 22.9.2005, at the Government General Hospital, Madras, cannot be accepted for the simple reason that there was specific evidence given by the Investigating Officer to that fact, and the same was not even denied by way of a suggestion by the appellants.According to the Investigator, one of the brothers of the deceased by name Settu gave a written statement as found in Ex.P12, on the basis of which the case was actually converted to Sec.302 of IPC.Thus it would be quite clear that the prosecution has proved the fact that Arasan died at about 10.15 P.M. On 22.9.2005, at the Government General Hospital, Madras.12.In order to establish the charges levelled against the appellants, the prosecution marched five witnesses out of whom P.Ws.2 and 5 have turned hostile.But fortunate to the prosecution, P.W.1 was an injured witness, and P.Ws.3 and 4 have witnessed the occurrence.That apart, when P.W.1 and the deceased were taken to the hospital, P.W.1 has stated to the Doctor that three known persons attacked him.P5, the accident register copy, that P.W.1 was treated as an Out-Patient.But P.W.1 has stated that he was in the hospital for a day.It remains to be stated that P.W.11 has stated that he went to the hospital on intimation, recorded the statement of P.W.1 at 3.00 P.M., came back to the police station and registered the case.It is to be noted that P.W.1 was treated in the Government Hospital, Villupuram, at about 2.00 P.M. Thus it would be quite clear that P.W.11 as stated by him, went to the hospital and recorded the statement of P.W.1 which is marked as Ex.P1, and on the strength of the same, a case came to be registered.Therefore, it leaves no doubt in the mind of the Court.Thus from the evidence available, it would be quite clear that at the time of the occurrence, A-1 has attacked the deceased with the spade on his head, and A-2 has attacked him with the iron rod on his leg, and both have attacked P.W.1 and caused injuries.As a result of the same, the deceased Arasan died.Now, the contentions put forth by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants contra to the above, have got to be rejected.Even according to the prosecution, when P.W.1 was making attempt to take water, it was objected to by the accused, and there was a wordy altercation, and in that process, A-1 and A-2 have attacked P.W.1 and caused injury.As far as A-1 is concerned, he has attacked him on the head and caused fatal injury.But, due to the quarrel, A-1 has acted so.Under the circumstances, the act of A-1 would attract the penal provision of Sec.304 (Part I) of IPC, and awarding a punishment of 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment would meet the ends of justice.16.Insofar as A-2, he has no common intention to share with.However, he has attacked the deceased on his leg and caused simple injury.17.As far as the attack on P.W.1 is concerned, the injury inflicted by A-1 on P.W.1, was found to be grievous, and hence he has got to be found guilty under Sec.326 of IPC, and awarding a punishment of three years Rigorous Imprisonment would meet the ends of justice.As regards A-2, he has caused simple injuries to P.W.1 as found in the medical report.Under the circumstances, A-2 has got to be found guilty under Sec.324 of IPC, and awarding a punishment of two years Rigorous Imprisonment would meet the ends of justice.18.Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court on the appellants/A-1 and A-2 under Sec.302 of IPC are set aside, and instead, A-1 is convicted under Sec.304 (Part I) IPC and is directed to suffer seven years Rigorous Imprisonment.A-2 is convicted under Sec.324 IPC and is directed to suffer two years Rigorous Imprisonment.19.The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court on A-1 and A-2, under Sec.307 of IPC are set aside, and instead, A-1 is convicted under Sec.326 IPC and is directed to undergo three years Rigorous Imprisonment.A-2 is convicted under Sec.324 IPC and is directed to suffer two years Rigorous Imprisonment.20.The above sentences imposed on A-1 and A-2, are ordered to run concurrently.The sentence already undergone by A-1 and A-2, shall be given set off.The fine amounts imposed by the trial Court, will hold good.21.In the result, with the above modification in conviction and sentence, this criminal appeal is dismissed.1.The Principal Sessions Judge Villupuram2.The Inspector of Police Thiruvennainallur Police Station Villupuram District (Crime No.459/2005)3.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
90,633,221 |
The petitioner is a member of the legislative Assembly from Katpadi constituency and claims to be the Deputy General Secretary of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), a registered political party.He was also a former minister during the tenure of the previous Government.2.The short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the petitioner should be given one more opportunity by re-issuance of a final opportunity notice in the investigation into the disproportionate Assets case registered against him?He was informed that if he did not appear and give his statement or if he expressed his intention not to give any reply, it will be presumed that he has no explanation to offer and further criminal investigation will take place.4.This court disposed of the writ petition by an order dated 10.04.2012 after recording the statement made by the learned Public Prosecutor and in paragraphs 11 to 13, it was observed as follows :"11.....learned Public Prosecutor stated at the bar, that the impugned questionnaire is voluntary and it is for the petitioner either to answer or not to answer it.In the event of the petitioner not answering the questionnaire, no adverse action will be taken and it will be for the Investigating Agency to proceed with the investigation strictly as per the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.12.In view of the positive stand of the learned Public Prosecutor, the petitioner cannot have any grievance to the impugned questionnaire, as the petitioner has option to ignore it, if so advised.No costs.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed."5.It is pursuant to the said direction, the impugned notice dated 25.4.2012 came to be issued by the respondents asking the petitioner and his wife to account for disproportionate assets and that the notice was labelled as the final opportunity notice.Once again, the petitioner is before this court challenging the said notice in the present writ petition.When the writ petition came up for hearing on 30.5.2012, this court had passed the following interim order :Notwithstanding the same, the petitioner insisted for a hearing of the main writ petition by this court.
|
['Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
906,359 |
P.W.33 Srinivasan, brother of P.W.12, has stated that P.W.12 approached him with a proposal to marry her second daughter Lakshmi with his (P.W.33) son Duraipandi due to the problem created by the accused.The evidence of the above witnesses, particularly the injured eye witnesses, namely, P.Ws.1, 12, and 13 would clearly prove that the accused had married Perumal Ammal (D3) first time; then Ramalakshmi (P.W.31) second time; and then Murugeswari (P.W.1) third time; and finally attempted to marry Lakshmi (P.W.13) fourth time.There is no reason to disbelieve their versions.There is no reason to disbelieve their version.P.W.41, Dr. Santhanakrishnan, Assistant Medical Officer attached to Government Hospital, Srivilliputhur explained the injuries found on P.Ws.12 and 12 and the treatment given to them.He deposed that there were 9 injuries found on P.W.12, of which injuries 1,3,4 and 6 are grievous in nature.He also found 6 injuries on P.W.13 of which, injuries 1 to 4 are grievous in nature.Exs. P-19 and P-20 are the respective wound certificates issued to P.W.12 and P.W.13 respectively.He also deposed that the said injuries could have been caused by a weapon like M.O.4 Aruval. P.Ws.12 and 13 were sent to Madurai Government Hospital for further treatment.P.W.42, Dr. Veerasekar, Assistant Professor of Surgery in Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, has stated that P.Ws.12 and 13 were brought to Madurai Government Hospital from Srivilliputhur Government Hospital for further treatment.The medical reports of P.Ws.12 and 13 are Exs. P-21 and P-22 respectively.She explained about the treatment given to P.W.1 and the injuries she had sustained.P-26 is the wound certificate issued by her.He deposed that on 1.5.99 at 9 p.m. P.W.1-Murugeswari was brought to his hospital from Government Hospital, Srivilliputhur for further treatment.He found on her a fracture on her left shoulder, and injuries on her upper arm, left fore-arm, left flank and left abdomen.He noted 5 external injuries on the body of D1 and issued Post-mortem certificate Ex.He also noted 6 external injuries on the body of D2 and issued Post-mortem certificate Ex.He found 4 external injuries on the body of D-3 and issued Ex.P-24 Post-mortem certificate.We are satisfied that the evidence of P.Ws.41 to 44, and 46, wound certificates-Exs. P-19, P-20, P-21, P-22, P-26 and P-27 and Postmortem certificates-Exs.P-23, 24 and 25 clearly prove the case of the prosecution.He deposed that on 1.5.99 at about 5.45 P.M., he received a phone message around 6 P.M. from the Government Hospital, Srivilliputhur, went there and obtained information memo-Ex.P-39, and recorded statement-Ex.P1 from P.W.1-Murugeswari between 6.15 P.M. and 6.45 P.M. Then he returned to the Police Station at 7 P.M., registered a case in Crime No. 434 of 1999 under Sections 307 and 302, IPC and sent the F.I.R. and other documents to the Court.Ex. P-33 is the printed First Information Report.The killings were not for gain.ORDER P. Sathasivam, J.Marimuthu, Single accused in Sessions Case No. 227 of 2000 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur is the appellant before us.He faced trial on the said charges and convicted and sentenced to death for offence under Sections 302, I.P.C. (3 counts); seven years R.I. for each count for offence under Section 307, I.P.C.(3 counts); and three years R.I. for offence under Section 449, I.P.C. on 6.2.2004 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur.On the reference made by the learned District Judge, both the Reference and Appeal were heard together.For convenience, the parties are referred herein as described in the trial Court.The case of the prosecution is briefly stated hereunder:(a) The accused is a native of Thiruvannamalai village, Srivilliputhur Taluk, Virudhuangar District.He was married to one Perumal Animal (third deceased-in short "D3"), Ramalakshmi (P.W.31) and Murugeswari (P.W.1).He wanted to marry another lady by name Lakshmi (P.W.13), who happened to be none other than the sister of D3, fourth time.The accused considered the presence of P.W.1 i.e., his third wife as a stumbling block to his wishes and therefore he decided to finish her off.In the course of events, the accused ended up murdering three people and severely injuring three more.In the course of arguments, the accused attacked P.W.1 with Aruval (M.O.4).When one Vellayammal (1st deceased-in short "D1"), who is the mother of P.W.1 intervened, she was brutally injured and she succumbed to the injuries on the spot.(c) Thereafter, the accused went to the house of Thangaia Pillai (Deceased No. 2-in short "D2") who is the father of D3 and P.W.13-Lakshmi.There he picked up a quarrel, in the course of which he attacked D2, P.W.12, Muthuveerammal and P.W.13-Lakshmi.D3, who intervened at that time, was brutally attacked by the accused.D3 also succumbed to the injuries on the spot.P.W.12, P.W.13, D2 and P.W.1 were transported in the van to the Srivilliputhur Government Hospital.First Information Report was recorded at the hospital itself.P.W.49 is the investigation officer.P.W.50 conducted inquest on D1 and D3 on the mght of 1.5.1999 and thereafter in the early hours on 2.5.1999 he conducted inquest on D2 whose body was in the Srivilliputhur Government Hospital.He gave a voluntary confession statement, pursuant to which M.O.4-Aruval and other Material Objects were recovered.Blood-stained objects were sent for Serologist report.On the side of the accused, no one was examined and no documenter was marked.When the accused was questioned under Section 313, Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the offences and pleaded not guilty.On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, after accepting the prosecution case, the learned Principal Sessions Judge convicted the accused on all the charges and sentenced to death for offence under Section 302, IPC (3 counts); R.I. for 7 years for each count under Section 307, IPC (3 counts); and R.I. for 3 years for the offence under Section 449, IPC, and all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.Hence the Reference at the instance of the learned trial Judge and Appeal by the accused.Heard Mr. P. Venkatasubramanian, learned counsel for the appellant/accused and Mr. I. Subramanian, State Public Prosecutor for Respondent/Complainant.He also contended that inasmuch as most of the prosecution witnesses turned hostile, particularly for second occurrence, the conviction and sentence cannot be sustained.(b) On the other hand, Mr. I. Subramanian, learned State Public Prosecutor, would contend that inasmuch as the prosecution has established motive for the occurrence, no reason to disbelieve the three injured eye witnesses to the occurrence.He further contended that the prosecution has proved the first and second occurrences by placing acceptable evidence and in the absence of any mitigating circumstance, considering the gravity of the offences, namely, murdering 3 persons and attempting to murder 3 more persons, the learned trial Judge has rightly convicted and sentenced him by awarding appropriate punishment and no interference is called for.We have carefully considered the rival submissions.The motive for the occurrence as seen from the prosecution evidence is that though the accused married to D3, P.W.31 and P.W.1, he wanted to marry P.W.13 fourth time.The accused considered the presence of P.W.1 as an obstacle to his wishes and, therefore, decided to finish her off.P.W.1-Murugeswari, third wife of the accused, has stated that though initially she did not give her consent for marrying the accused, on persuasion by her parents, the marriage was performed in Perumal Koil at Thiruvannamalai.After the marriage, she lived with him for three years.Only when she came to the accused's house, she came to know that the accused married her as his third wife.On the date of the occurrence i.e., on 1.5.99, her mother-D1 came to her house.P.W.1 told to her mother-D1 that the accused pledged her stud (kammal), for which she (D1) shouted her and also informed this fact to the paternal uncle of the accused, who was residing in the neighbouring house.In the evening around 3 P.M., his paternal uncle came to his house and shouted at the accused.At that time, P.W.1 and D1 were sitting under a tree near her house.Having infuriated with the shouting of his uncle, the accused came out from the house with an Aruval and cut on her neck with the said Aruval.The cut fell on her left shoulder.When she attempted to run, he inflicted several cut injuries on her left arm, left chest, hip, stomach etc. When her mother D1 questioned the conduct of the accused in cutting her daughter, he (accused) cut her mother on the left wrist with the same Aruval and again inflicted injuries on the chest, neck, due to which D1 fell down and succumbed to the injuries on the spot.It is also the evidence of P.W.1 that when she questioned the conduct of the accused, namely in attempting to marry Lakshmi-P.W.13, the accused shouted that "you are the stumbling block" and inflicted several injuries on her.After causing injuries to P.W.1 and murdering D1, the accused left the first scene of occurrence and rushed towards west with Aruval.The first occurrence took place at 3 P.M. and after causing grievous injuries to P.W.1 and fatal injuries to D1, the accused went to the second place of occurrence at 3.15 P.M.She also speaks about the accused getting furious, as his request to her parents to marry her as his fourth wife was negatived.She deposed before the Court that she saw P.W.1 pleading to her husband (accused) not to injure her, but still the accused inflicted several injuries on her.P.W.15 is his wife.He also speaks about the three marriages the accused had.P.W.14 his wife P.W.15 deposed that when they rushed to the scene of occurrence, the accused threatened them.He referred to the various injuries inflicted by the accused on all those persons.Due to the injuries, D3 fell down and succumbed to the injuries on the spot.P.W.17, who lives 4 or 5 houses away from D2's house, deposed that she knows the accused.She heard a noise from P.W.12's house.She went there and saw P.W.12, P.W.13 and D2 with cut injuries.She was told that the accused attacked them.P.W.19-Pechiammal deposed that at the request of P.W.13, she arranged a van to transport the injured to the hospital.P.W.28-Mariappan, who resides at Thiruvannamalai and runs a provision store, has stated that the accused's house is situated on the western side of his house.He also stated that P.W.1 is the third wife of the accused and that the accused and P.W.1 fought often.He further deposed that around 3 P.M. on the date of occurrence, when he was in his shop, he heard some noise and got down from his shop and saw the accused fighting with D1 and P.W.1-Murugeswari.According to him, when he tried to negotiate the accused, the latter threatened him with dire consequence.He further deposed that the accused cut P.W.1 and D1 with Aruval and left the place.He further deposed that he along with others helped the injured in transporting them in a van to the hospital for treatment.P.W.29, brother of P.W.1 and son of D.1, deposed that the accused and his sister P.W.1 used to fight each other often.P.W.30, who is the Village President of the village to which P.W.1 belongs, also deposed that a compromise deed dated 28.3.99 was entered into by the accused and his father and he put his signature along with few others as witness.She also explained the divorce between herself and the accused and that the divorce terms were reduced to writing in a stamp paper.He also explained about the character of the accused.He speaks about the getting of marriage of her daughter Ramalakshmi with the accused and about the torture she experienced at the hands of the accused.Then he entrusted the case to the Inspector of Police for further investigation.P.W.49, the then Inspector of Pollice, Srivilliputhur Town Police Station, elaborated about the visiting the scene of occurrence, preparing mahazar, collection of samples for chemical analysis, sending the bodies for Post-mortem, arrest of the accused on 19.5.1999, recording of the confessional statement given by the accused, recovery of M.O.4 pursuant to that, preparation of sketch in the scene of occurrence, recording the statement of witnesses, etc. We are satisfied that there is no delay in complaining the incident to the police, sending the First Information Report to the Court and the investigation done by P.W.49 upto the filing of charge sheet on 4.11.99 against the accused under Sections 449, 307 and 302, I.P.C.P.W.38, S.T. Venkatakrishnan, Village Administrative Officer, Venkateshvarapuram, on 1.5.99 at about 8 P.M., attested observation mahazar-Ex.P-6, along with one Murugan, prepared by the Inspector of Police in the scene of occurrence.He speaks about the collection of samples such as blood-stained sand from the scene of occurrence.P.W.39-K. Natarajan deposed that on 19.5.99 at about 10.30 A.M., the Inspector of Police enquired the accused at Madagarvilagam grave yard, Srivilliputhur in his presence.Pursuant to Ex.P-13, M.O.35 was recovered from one Koodalingam under Ex. P-14 mahazar at 2.45 P.M., at Sannathi Street, Srivilliputhur; and M.0.4 Aruval, blood-stained shirt-M.O.36 and blood-stained Kaili-M.O.37 were recovered under Ex.P-15 mahzar at about 1.30 P.M. between two rocks at Thiruvannamalai.He attested Exs.P.W.40-Rajmohan, Assistant Medical Officer and Radiologist, Rajaji Government Hospital, Madurai to whom X-rays taken from P.Ws.1, 12 and 13 had been referred to.He explained about the X-rays-M.Os.38, 39 and 40 and he issued reports Exs.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the accused was not given adequate opportunity, since he was heard and sentence pronounced on the same day.In the present case, as discussed earlier, the killings were not for gain.There is nothing so uncommon about the crime as to make the case an exceptional one.The mere fact that his wife and his father-in-law and mother-in-law were killed are not sufficient to bring the case within the category of "the rarest of rare" cases.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
90,638,250 |
The convicted accused desirous of challenging the said order of dismissal, has filed present appeal.There is not provision of second appeal and a ::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2020 02:43:58 ::: Order 10 appeal 410-2020 2 revision would lie against the impugned order.In this regard, the appellant has filed pusis requesting to convert the present appeal into revision.::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2020 02:43:58 :::Having regard to the procedural aspects that the convicted accused ought to have filed revision and in view of his request to that effect, this appeal is converted into criminal revision.Office to take note thereof.Issue notice to the respondent, returnable after four weeks.Ms. G.R. Tiwari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice for respondent.Criminal Application No. ____/2020The Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gadchiroli has convicted the petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Sections 304(A) and 279 of the Indian Penal Code along with offence under Motor Vehicle Act. The maximum punishment awarded is to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and total fine of Rs.12,000/- plus compensation of Rs.50,000/- has been imposed.The said order of conviction was confirmed by the Sessions Court by way of dismissing the appeal.The learned ::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2020 02:43:58 ::: Order 10 appeal 410-2020 3 counsel for the appellant submitted that he has no clear instructions as to whether fine amount has been deposited or not.::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2020 02:43:58 :::The petitioner is seeking suspension of execution of sentence in terms of Section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The substantive sentence is merely of to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.Further, it is to be ensured that the appellant shall deposit the entire fine amount of Rs.12,000/- and compensation of Rs.50,000/- if not, already deposited.The order of suspension will have effect only on confirmation about deposit of fine and compensation amount.At this stage Shri R.M. Tahaliyani, learned counsel for appellant, submitted that he has received revised instructions that entire fine and compensation amount of Rs.62,000/- has been deposited.::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2020 02:43:58 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2020 02:43:58 :::Order 10 appeal 410-2020 4In view of above the execution of sentence awarded to the Appellant vide judgment dated 09/04/2019, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Gadchiroli in R.C.C. 666/2017 and confirmed by the Criminal Appeal No.39/2019 is suspended and appellant be released on bail on his furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.15,000/- with one surety of like amount.The release of accused on bail is subject to confirmation of deposit of fine and compensation amount.This order be communicated to the counsel appearing for the parties, either on the e-mail address or on WhatsApp or by such other mode, as is permissible in law.JUDGER.S. Sahare ::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2020 02:43:58 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2020 02:43:58 :::
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
90,638,456 |
Through: Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP for the State With SI Raju Yadav, PS Sultanpuri CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL.Brief facts of the case are as under:-"(i) That DD No. 7-A was registered at Police Station Sultan Puri, on 27.12.1996, in receipt of the information that some incident has occurred at H. No. A-33, Mange Ram Park, BudhVihar.The said DD was marked to SI Ram Pal Singh(PW-14), and accordingly SI Ram Pal Singh along with the other police staff arrived at the spot.On their arrival, a semi naked dead body of a girl named Deepika was found lying on a bed with injuries present on her neck.Statement of all the family members were recorded wherein Diwakar (brother of the deceased) deposed that on 26.12.1996, he along with his sister Deepika and his brother Amit were sleeping in H.No.A-33 Mange Ram Park, BudhVihar and the accused Ichcha Ram was sleeping in another room of the same house.During the night, he heard the noise of his sister wherein he saw that the accused Ichcha Ram was lying on his sister and was committing penetrative sexual assault with her.On the following instance when he tried to intervene, the accused throttled his neck and threatened to kill him, due to which his body became insensate.(ii) Based on his statement recorded and the inspection of the dead body, FIR No. 1488/1996, was registered under Section 302/376/506-II of the IPC.On the same day, accused Ichcha Ram was arrested, his underwear CRL.A. 765/2004 Page 2 of 18 was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/D and was thereafter medically examined.CRL.A. 765/2004 Page 2 of 18My sister was moving her hands and legs and after sometime, she stopped moving her hands and legs.When we tried to stop Ichcha Ram, he threatened both of us that in case we raise alarm, he would kill both of us and after that he left for his room.My parents were sleeping in our house which we have sold and which was opposite to the house of Ichcha Ram and as that house was very small.K.L. Sharma, SR.CMO, Subzi Mandi Mortuary, Delhi conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased (EX.PW-7/A) and during his examination-in-chief deposed as under:-Injury No. 1 was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature, and time since death was about 38 hours i.e. between 11 and 12 O'clock of 26.12.1996 and 27.12.1996 night."Dr. K.L. Sharma, SR.CMO, Subzi Mandi Mortuary, Delhi during his examination-in-chief also revealed the External and Internal Injuries suffered by the deceased.The examining Doctor further conducted CRL.A. 765/2004 Page 9 of 18 the internal examination of the body of the deceased and revealed as under:-CRL.A. 765/2004 Page 9 of 18"External Injuries The right thigh was laterally tilted and flexed over hip joint and right leg was flexed at knee joint.The rigor mortis sat in this position of the lower limbs.The salwar thread was open and its limbs were struck at upper thighs.Multiple bruises were present over right side neck a bruise line one above the other was transversely place in an area of 10 X 7 cm, the upper line was placed below the angle of mandible right side and the lower line of the bruise was at the base of the neck.Total bruise lines were four.Crecentic abrasions fused with each other over lying downwards over right side neck.The livid due was present over face and hands and their fingers.Abrasion 1 X 1 cm over back of the right elbow.Abrasion 1 X 1 cm over upper front of left leg.Internal examination Head and brain were normal.Neck showed the subcutaneous bruising with subluxation of right superior cornu of hyoid bone with seepage of blood around the tissues.The frothy blood was present in wind pipe.There were blood spots seen over membranes of the lungs.The lungs were profusely oedematous and intensely congested, on cut oozed blood with froth.The abdomen and its viscras were congested.The stomach contained full of undigested food.The urinary bladder was empty and the rectum was also empty.The vagina showed fresh tear of hymen irregularly with bruising of the posterior vestibule.The uterus was empty and normal."Blood samples as well as samples of semen were lifted from the spot and clothes of the accused, including his underwear were also sealed by the Investigation Officer, PW-14 (Investigation Officer) which CRL.A. 765/2004 Page 10 of 18 fact was confirmed from the testimonies of PW-6 (Murari Lal), PW-5 (Diwakar).Mr. D.S. Chakutra, Senior Scientific Officer, Gr.-II, Biology Division, CFSL, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi entered into the witness box as PW-15 and proved the FSL report as (EX.-PW-15/A) and (Ex.PW-14/F).Present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure(hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C') and is directed against the impugned judgment dated 28.02.2004 and order on sentence dated 09.03.2004 passed by Additional Session Judge, Delhi in Session case No. 171/2001 in FIR No. 1489/1996, registered under Sections 302/376/506-II of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') at PS, Sultanpuri, whereby the Learned Additional Sessions Judge has found the appellant guilty and has sentenced him as follows:"I, therefore, sentence the convict Ichcha Ram to life imprisonment with Rs. 10,000/-(ten thousand) as fine and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one-year SI, for the offence punishable U/s 376 IPC.CRL.A. 765/2004 Page 1 of 18I also sentence convict to life imprisonment with Rs. 10,000/-(ten thousand) as fine and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one-year SI, for the offence punishable U/s 302 IPC.I also sentence the accused to undergo RI for the period of seven years with Rs. 10,000/-(ten thousand) as fine and in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for one year, for the offence punishable U/s 506-II IPC.All the 3 sentences shall run concurrently, subject to benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C."Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure wherein he claimed innocence and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case.The appellant chose to produce DW-1 Ms. Suman in his defence.Mr. Bipin Kumar learned counsel for the appellant, opened his submissions by contending that the impugned judgment dated 28.02.2004 is based on conjectures and surmises and the same is against the facts and the settled proposition of law; that the learned Trial Court has ignored and omitted the material evidences and has disregarded the cogent evidences in favor of the appellant; that there are material contradictions in the testimonies of PW-3(Amit Pandey) and PW-5(Diwakar); that the conduct of PW-5 (Diwakar), the brother of the deceased is most unnatural and has been wrongly relied upon by the trial court; that it is highly unrealistic that the deceased and her brothers PW-3(Amit Pandey) and PW-5 (Diwakar) were sleeping on the same bed and despite that the accused committed rape and murder of the deceased; that the seizure of underwear of the appellant is doubtful as no public witness has joined the investigation; that the learned trial court has wrongly placed CRL.A. 765/2004 Page 3 of 18 reliance on the scientific evidence as well as serological report produced by the prosecution; that the trial court fell into error by disbelieving the testimony of DW-1 (Suman) who clearly deposed that the accused was with her at the relevant time when the alleged offence happened; that the report obtained by the prosecution (Ex PW-12/A) in relation to matching finger print of the accused on the body of the deceased is a fabricated and manipulated document as PW-12 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that no chance prints were found on the body; that the investigation in the case has been conducted by an officer below the rank of an Inspector which is in violation of departments own circular/practice directions where it has been observed that the investigation in a murder case is to be carried out by an officer not below the rank of Inspector and sought acquittal of the accused.CRL.A. 765/2004 Page 3 of 18Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, learned APP for State, on the other hand, strongly refuted the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant and submitted that the impugned judgment is based on proper appreciation of facts and evidence and no interference in the impugned judgment is called for by this court; that the statements of prosecution witnesses and medical/scientific evidence are corroborative in nature and the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the material placed on record.At the outset we deem it appropriate to peruse the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.CRL.A. 765/2004 Page 4 of 18The case of the prosecution is based on the testimonies of two eye witnesses as such at the outset we deem it appropriate to peruse the testimonies of PW-3 (Amit Pandey) and PW-5 (Diwakar Pandey).PW-3 (Amit Pandey) during his examination-in-chief deposed as under:-"On the night of 26.12.96, I along with my brother Diwakar Pandey and sister Deepika was sleeping in the house of my relation Ichcha Ram who is present in the Court today.I heard some noise and I and my brother Diwakar woke up.I saw that accused Ichcha Ram present in Court was pressing the throat of my sister with one hand and pressing a pillow on his face with another hand.We three brothers and sisters were sleeping in the house of Ichcha Ram.At dawn we went to our parents and informed them as to what had happened and they informed the police."CRL.A. 765/2004 Page 5 of 18PW-3 (Amit Pandey) during his cross examination deposed as under:"Iwas sleeping with Deepika on the bed and my brother Diwakar was sleeping on the floor.We tried to save our sister by removing the hands of the accused when he extended the threat.After that we saw that our sister had stopped moving her limbs, we did not sleep."9. PW-5 (Diwakar Pandey),the brother of the deceased during his examination-in-chief deposed as under:-"On 26.12.98 in the night about 12-1 am I, my sister Deepika and younger brother Amit were sleeping in the room, which was taken from accused on rent and my parents were sleeping in another house, which they have already sold, which was opposite house No.A-33 and there was a street between these two houses.In the H.No.A-33, accused, his wife and two children were residing.In the night, at about 12-1 am, I felt someone in my room, so I awakened and I saw accused was lying on my sister after opening his pant and underwear and my sister was lying semi naked.Accused had pressed the mouth of my sister with one pillow, with one hand and with his second hand he pressed her throat and when I tried to stop this, the accused threatened to kill me by throttling my neck and due to this threat I kept mum and thereafter, I saw that the hands and legs of my sister were stopped moving and she became unconscious and CRL.A. 765/2004 Page 6 of 18 then accused put quilt on my sister and worn his pant and underwear and went in his room after threatening me and due to this I was frightened very much, as at that time my parents were not there and I waited till morning, as I was under fear that Ichcha Ram could kill me and my brother and I saw that my sister has died.In the morning, at about 6 am, accused again came in our room and again threatened me.In the morning, I narrated the whole incident to my parents, who called the police."CRL.A. 765/2004 Page 6 of 18During his cross examination PW-5 (Diwakar Pandey) deposed that:CRL.A. 765/2004 Page 7 of 18As is evincible, the High Court has also taken note of certain omissions and discrepancies treating them to be material omissions and irreconcilable discrepancies.The test is whether the same inspires confidence in the mind of the court.If the evidence is incredible and cannot be accepted by the test of prudence, then it may create a dent in the prosecution version.If an omission or discrepancy goes to the root of the matter ushers in incongruities, the defence can take advantage of such inconsistencies.The omission should create a serious doubt about the truthfulness or creditworthiness of a witness.Abrasion 1 X 1 cm over back of the right wrist.As per scientific analysis report (EX.-PW-15/A) 'Human semen was detected on Exhibits 1,2,3,4a, 4c, 5 and 6'.Relevant portion of (Ex.PW-14/F) reads as under:-:-CRL.A. 765/2004 Page 10 of 18Perusal of the postmortem of the deceased (EX.PW-7/A) shows forcible sexual assault on the deceased.The postmortem report further suggests that the death has been caused due to injuries mentioned as 'Multiple bruises were present over right side neck a bruise line one above the other was transversely place in an area of 10 X 7 cm, the upper line was placed below the angle of mandible CRL.A. 765/2004 Page 11 of 18 right side and the lower line of the bruise was at the base of the neck'.The examining Doctor, PW-7, clearly opined that the deceased was subject to sexual assault and 'Cause of death was asphyxia as a result of manual throttling by other party'.The postmortem report (EX.PW-7/A)supports the case of the prosecution and is in consonance with the testimonies of PW-3 (Amit Pandey) and PW-5 (Diwakar Pandey), brothers of the deceased whereby they revealed that they 'saw accused was lying on my sister after opening his pant and underwear and my sister was lying semi naked.Accused had pressed the mouth of my sister with one pillow, with one hand and with his second hand he pressed her throat'.CRL.A. 765/2004 Page 11 of 18Moreover, as per FSL report (EX.-PW-15/A) and(Ex.PW- 14/F) clearly depicts that the semen stains on the underwear of the accused matched with the stains found on the salwar and underwear of the deceased and points out towards the guilt of the accused person in the commission of the crime for the offence punishable under Sections 302/376/506-II of the Indian Penal Code.In view of thepostmortem report(EX.PW-7/A)and scientific report (EX.-PW-15/A) and (Ex.PW-14/F), it can be safely inferred that there is no inconsistency between ocular testimony and medical evidence/scientific evidence which point towards the guilt of the accused.It further stands proved that the deceased was subjected to sexual assault by the accused and during the scuffle he also committed the murder of deceased which was witnessed by PW-3 (Amit Pandey) and PW-5 (Diwakar Pandey).CRL.A. 765/2004 Page 12 of 18Delay in Registration of FIRLearned counsel for the appellant contended that the time taken by the complainant for registration of the FIR is unexplained by the prosecution and the delay has been caused in order to falsely implicate the accused.As per the case of the prosecution PW-3 (Amit Pandey) and PW-5 (Diwakar Pandey) due to fear and darkness informed their parents about the alleged incident in the morning of 27.12.1996 who were residing at HouseNo.41, Mange Ram Park which was opposite to House No. A-33, Mange Ram Park where the alleged incident took place.CRL.A. 765/2004 Page 16 of 18
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
906,399 |
ORDER Rakesh Saksena, J.In short, the prosecution's case is that, the complainant Karelal who happened to be a member of the Scheduled Caste lodged the report with the Police, AJK, Narsinghpur that about 15 days before 15-2-2007, accused Bhagvedra had dashed his she-goat by his tractor, due to which her leg was broken.Karelal and his brother Kehar Singh lodged the report of that occurrence with the Police.Being annoyed, on 15-2-2007 at about 7:00 PM in the evening, all accused persons came at his house armed with lathis and assaulted him, his brother Kehar Singh and Sona Bai (wife of Karelal).At that time, they abused them and also called them "Chamra".Accused persons assaulted them because they had lodged the report with the Police.As a result of assault, Karelal, Kehar Singh and Sona Bai suffered injuries.After investigation, charge-sheet was filed.Learned Trial Court framed the charges under Sections 147, 323 read with Section 149, 325 read with Section 149, 452, 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act.Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that, the incident had not occurred because the complainant party belonged to the Scheduled Caste.Applicants have filed this revision against the order dated 22-6-2007 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Narsinghpur, in Special Case N. 41/2007, framing charge against them under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, beside other charges.2. Learned Counsel for the applicants does not challenge framing of other charges under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code.In fact, it occurred due to complainants' lodging the report against accused Bhagvedra for hurting their she-goat by tractor.Learned Counsel for the State vehemently opposing the submissions made by learned Counsel for the applicants, submitted that the accused parsons assaulted the complainants who were the members of the Scheduled Caste and at the time of incident, they addressed them as "Chamra".According to him, this is sufficient for framing the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act.I have perused the First Information Report and statements of witnesses recorded by the Police under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Police recorded the statements of Karelal, Sona Bai, Ratnesh, Amit Kumar, Kehar Singh, Guddi, Ramsevak and Bhaiji Prasad.Karelal and Sona Bai stated that, about 15-16 days before the present incident, accused Bhagvedra had ran over the she-goat of his brother Kehar Singh by his tractor.Report of that incident was lodged with the Police.Feeling ill of that, all the accused persons went at the house of Kehar Singh and assaulted him.Sona Bai informed about the incident to Karelal.According to them, at the time of beating, accused persons were abusing and saying as to why he "Chamra" lodged the report against Bhagvedra.When Karelal and his wife tried to save Kehar Singh, they were also assaulted.When he ran away from the spot, accused persons also chased him and assaulted Karelal.Same narration of facts was given by witness Kehar Singh.He stated that accused persons entered his house and assaulted him by fists and kicks.When his daughter called Karelal, they also assaulted him.After the incident he ran away from the village and did not return back for 2-3 days.He did not say that any of the accused called them "Chamar" or "Chamra".Witness Ramsevak stated that complainant Karelal and Kehar Singh were in habit of consuming liquor.After consuming liquor they used to create nuisance in the village, therefore, relations between them and accused persons were not good.Similarly, Bhaiji Prasad also stated that Karelal and Kehar Singh used to create nuisance after consuming liquor.None of them went at the spot and they merely heard noise of quarrel.On perusal of the statements of all the aforesaid witnesses, it does not appear that accused persons abused and assaulted the complainant persons because of their being the members of the Scheduled Caste.
|
['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 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.
|
906,416 |
and Hasibuddin Sk.against Ali Hossain.B.K. Bhowmik as to the identity.The accused Petitioners will now surrender arid serve out the rest of their sentences.
|
['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
913,583 |
ORDER Pratap Singh, J.The accused in C.C. No. 930 of 1989 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, has filed this petition under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records in the above case and quash the same.The allegations in it are briefly as follows :The accused is assessed to income-tax.He is doing business as a jeweller in Coimbatore.The accused filed a return of the income for the assessment year 1981-82 on October 27, 1982, admitting a total income of Rs. 1,89,720, which included only Rs. 1,00,000 representing the value of unaccounted stock seized.The assessment was finally completed on a total income of Rs. 3,29,750 accepting the revised return.By filing an incorrect return of income, on the basis of false statements of income, the accused has committed an offence under section 193, Indian Penal Code.By corruptly making the aforesaid false statements as genuine statements and filing a return of income knowing it to be false in the proceedings before the Income-tax Officer, the accused has committed an offence punishable under section 196, Indian Penal Code.On this ground also, I am unable to accept the submission made by Mr. Kadarkarai that because of the order of the Tribunal, the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed.
|
['Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
91,367,983 |
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.12 of 2020, under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Bansdih, District Ballia.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.(iii) 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.(iv) 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, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.Order Date :- 19.11.2020 m.a.
|
['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
91,369,638 |
dated 11.01.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Sessions Trial 48/2009, by and under which, the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') who was charged under section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) is convicted for offence punishable under section 306 and 498-A of ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2018 02:11:36 ::: apeal53.12.J.odt 2 the IPC.The accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to payment of fine of Rs.2000/- for offence punishable under section 306 of IPC.Separate sentence is not imposed for offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC.2] Heard Shri V.D. Muley, the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri V.P. Gangane, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2018 02:11:36 :::3] Shri V.D. Muley, the learned counsel for the accused submits that the judgment and order impugned militates against the weight of evidence on record.The learned Sessions Judge, having recorded a finding that the demand for dowry is not proved and having acquitted the accused of offence punishable under section 304-B, committed a serious error in relying on stray statements of the relatives of the deceased which are to the effect that the accused asked the deceased to bring Rs.2,00,000/- from her father to enable the deceased to secure employment as Anganwadi Teacher.The learned counsel would invite my attention inter alia to the evidence of the panch to the spot panchnama Shamrao who is examined as P.W.3 who asserts that the well was at ground level, without a protective parapet wall and that even earlier 4 to 5 persons and animals fell in the said well.To similar effect, is the evidence of Kunda, a villager who saw the deceased proceeding towards the 'bandi' and when asked by the said witness as to where the deceased was going, the reply was that she was ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2018 02:11:36 ::: apeal53.12.J.odt 4 going to the agricultural field.P.W.6 Kunda has also deposed that prior to the incident 4 to 5 persons fell in the said well.The submission of the learned counsel for the accused is that the possibility of accidental death is not excluded and although this was seriously urged, as is apparent from the written submissions placed on record, the learned Sessions Judge has not addressed the said possibility.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2018 02:11:36 :::::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2018 02:11:36 :::4] Shri Gangane, the learned A.P.P. supports the judgment and order impugned.5] The learned A.P.P. is more than justified in contending that even if dowry demand is not proved the demand may yet be unlawful.However, in order to invoke explanation (b) of section ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2018 02:11:36 ::: apeal53.12.J.odt 5 498-A the prosecution was duty bound to prove not only a demand, assuming that such a demand is proved by the prosecution, the prosecution was further duty bound to prove that the deceased was subjected to harassment or ill-treatment in order to coerce her or her family to fulfill the unlawful demand.I am afraid, that there is no evidence on record to hold that the accused subjected the deceased to cruelty within the meaning of explanation (b) of section 498-A of the IPC.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2018 02:11:36 :::The marriage was a second marriage for both the accused and the deceased.The accused has three children from the earlier wedlock and the deceased separated from her husband within five months of the marriage.The defence subjected the prosecution witnesses to an extensive, and absolutely unnecessary cross-examination in an endeavour to demonstrate that the temperament of the deceased was arrogant and hot tempered.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2018 02:11:36 ::: apeal53.12.J.odt 6 7] The offence is registered on the basis of report lodged by the father of the deceased one Shankar Kajalkhane, who is however, not examined and the reason for non-examination is not clear from the record.The brother of the deceased Umesh who is examined as P.W.1 states that the accused asked his sister to bring Rs.2,00,000/- from her father to enable the deceased to secure employment as Anganwadi Teacher.P.W.1 admits that he has no personal knowledge of any harassment and that it was his sister who disclosed to P.W.1 that the deceased was harassed.P.W.2 Sanjay Dhargave is the panch to the spot panchnama who has deposed that the well has no edges and that even earlier 4 to 5 persons and animals fell in the said well.P.W.3 Shamrao is again panch to the spot panchnama and the seizure panchnama.He, however, denies that a pair of chappal was seized from the spot.P.W.4 Anita, who is the elder sister of the deceased does state that the accused ill-treated the deceased and asked her to bring Rs.2,00,000/- from her father.But then, P.W.4 is absolutely silent as regards the particulars or details or even the broad nature of the ill-treatment to which the deceased was allegedly subjected.P.W.5 Vinod Kajalkhane is the brother of the deceased who does ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2018 02:11:36 ::: apeal53.12.J.odt 7 not speak of any harassment or ill-treatment.P.W.6 Kunda Ukey has deposed that at 07:00 p.m. or thereabout on the fateful day she saw the deceased proceeding towards bandi.Kunda asked the deceased as to where she was going and the response was that the deceased was going to the field.In the cross examination, it is brought on record that the well is at ground level, has no edges and that even earlier 4 to 5 persons by fallen in the said well. P.W.7 Shubhangi Pardhi who is also the sister of the deceased again makes a reference to the accused having asked the deceased to bring Rs.2,00,000/- to secure the employment as Anganwadi Teacher, but then, P.W.7 does not state that the deceased was subjected to harassment or ill-treatment.P.W.8 Prabhakar Bawanwade is the Investigating Officer who proves that a pair of chappal was seized from the spot.The attempt of the prosecution was to negate the theory of the deceased having fallen in the well accidentally.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2018 02:11:36 :::::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2018 02:11:36 :::8] The evidence on record creates more than enough doubt about the deceased having committed suicide.It is unfortunate that the learned Sessions Judge has not even ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2018 02:11:36 ::: apeal53.12.J.odt 8 considered much less ruled out the said possibility.It is trite law, that the benefit of any alternate hypothesis which is not compatible with the guilt of the accused must necessarily go to the accused.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2018 02:11:36 :::9] The possibility of accidental death apart, even if it is assumed arguendo that the deceased committed suicide, there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that she was subjected to cruelty within the meaning of explanation (a) or (b) of section 498-A of IPC.It is axiomatic, that in the absence of proof that the deceased was subjected to cruelty the statutory presumption under section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act is not activated.The judgment and order impugned is clearly and manifestly unsustainable in law.10] The judgment and order impugned is set aside.The accused is acquitted of offence punishable under section 498-A and 306 of IPC.The fine ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2018 02:11:36 ::: apeal53.12.J.odt 9 paid by the accused, if any, shall be refunded.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2018 02:11:36 :::::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2018 02:11:36 :::
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
913,777 |
JUDGMENT Amar Saran, J.This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionists for challenging the order dated 25.5.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Dacoily Affected Area Act, Lalitpur, in ST.No. 32 of 2004 State v. Tilak Singh Yadav and Ors.under Sections 147, 148, 302/34 I.P.C., rejecting the applicants' prayer for discharge and passing an order dated 4.6.2005 framing charges against them.Heard Sri A.N. Mishra, learned Counsel for the revisionists and the learned A.G.A for the State of 'U.P.An F.I.R. was lodged on 8.10.2002 at 10.30 a.m. at P.S. Jakhlaun.district Lalitpur, by informant Ratan Singh alleging that on (he same day at 9 a.m., his brothers Mahraj Singh and Kapoor Singh were murdered by the revisionists Tilak Yadav, Pushpendra Singh, Kaptan Singh, Mahendra Singh, Bharat Singh, Yangbir Singh, Satyanarain, Narendra Singh, Laklian Singh and Kalloo Singh in the field of the deceased, One accused armed with the lathi, two carrying knives and seven accused holding "chankhar" (stones) assaulted the deceased.The F.I.R. named four eyewitnesses, Ratan Singh, Raghuraj Singh, Kripal Singh and Lakhan Singh.It is further mentioned that after the murder of the two deceased, their dead bodies were thrown in a well by the aforementioned applicants.At the stage of committal the revisionists Tilak Singh Yadav submitted an application (Ext. 184 Kha) for re-investigation stating that he was the District President of the Samajwadi Party, Lalitpur, and a Senior lawyer practicing on the commercial side and that he had been falsely implicated.The medical evidence was not properly evaluated.No investigation about the motorcycles and jeeps used in the incident was done, and that the four eyewitnesses were partisan.So far as the two other eyewitnesses were concerned, they were saying that they had deposed earlier because of political pressure, now with the change of Government, they had become free from fear.(Perhaps the reference here was to the Samajwadi Party having become the Ruling Party).That the revisionist-applicant used to reside with his family members in Lalitpur in his house at the time of incident and was not present at the time of incident.No order was passed by the Court on the application, but several dates were given.On the basis of said application, the S.P. Lalitpur, directed Jaiprakash Yadav, S.O., P.S. Jakhlaun to further investigate the case under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter the Code) after taking permission from the competent court.Thereafter, the J.O. sought permission for further investigation from the Court, An order was passed by the C.J.M. on 13.1.2004 permitting further investigation.It appears that the complainant Ratan Singh moved Criminal Misc.Application No. 945 of 2004 before this Court and an order was initially passed staying the operation of the order for further investigation passed by the C.J.M., Lalitpur, and the I.O. was summoned before this Court.On 20.2.2004 the High Court passed an order disposing of the application in the light of the undertaking given by the lnvestigating Officer, that he would complete the investigation within 15 days, he would not conduct fresh investigation, but only conduct further investigation in the case and would not change the witnesses or the accused.It appears that another application 210 Kha was moved before the C.J.M., Lalitpur wherein it was requested that the Investigating Officer should complete the investigation and place his conclusions about the investigation on record and that the Investigating Officer had full powers of investigating the case in any manner as he chose and the undertaking given before the High Court dated 20.2.2004 was said to be in contravention of the provisions of Section 173(8) of the Code.In that case, the High Court only passed an order on 4.10.2004 calling for the further report about the investigation in the case However, no order staying proceedings before the trial court was granted in this criminal revision and even on subsequent dates stay was sought, but not granted.The learned Sessions Judge has observed in the order impugned in the present case, that as there was no stay in the criminal revision filed in the High Court, nor was there any evidence of any stay order being obtained in any other writ petition, and as the matter related to a murder case and it was only pending for framing of charges, hence the order framing charges could not be deferred.The learned Sessions Judge was right in this conclusion.Hence the learned trial judge was right in not giving any importance to the defence of alibi of Tilak Singh set up by some district court lawyers that at the material time he was in a meeting of the Samajwadi Party.The accused could have an opportunity to produce his evidence in defence at the appropriate stage during trial.Even though the concerned court need not have considered the 161 Cr.P.C statements and material in the ease diary recorded by both the investigating agencies at any depth, I find that the learned trial judge has seriously considered and discussed the statements of witnesses as recorded by the first investigating officer as well as the material recorded by the second investigating officer, in accordance with the decision of the Apex Court in K.C. Chandrashekhar v. State of Kerala which was relied on by the High Court in Anil Kumar v. State of U.P. 2004(49)ACC 237 for the proposition that there can be further investigation but no fresh investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C and that the result of the further investigation is not to efface the material recorded during the curlier investigation, but the new material collected during the further investigation is to be considered along with the earlier material.Tin's was precisely the approach followed by the trial judge in the impugned order, when it considered the matter on merits and observed that some witnesses have stated before the second I.O. that there were only three accused and not the rest.Some witnesses have disclosed that revisionist Tilak Singh and others were conducting a meeting of the Samajwadi Party in their home.The incident took place at 9 a.m. and the report was lodged at 10.30 p.m., wherein the accused were named.One deceased had 13 injuries while the other deceased had 10 injuries.Most of the injuries to deceased Maharaj Singh were on his head and face, while the majority of the injuries to deceased Kapur Singh were incised wounds on his chest and abdomen.On the stones recovered from the place of incidence, human blood was found as per the medico-legal laboratory.In this view of the matter, there was sufficient prima facie material to proceed with the trial and to frame charges against the accused.As the medical and other material on record corroborated the eye witness account and even the report was lodged promptly wherein the accused were named, I see no illegality in the findings of the trial judge.If the revisionists were aggrieved by said order, they had a remedy of approaching the Apex Court.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
91,380,132 |
Heard on admission.The appeal appears to be arguable, hence, admitted for final hearing.Also heard on I.A.No.4831/15, an application under Section 389 (1) Cr.P.C.Appellant has been convicted vide judgment dated 14.05.2015 in Special Case No.20/2011 by Special Judge(Atrocities), Bhind (m.P.) and sentenced as under:-On behalf of the appellant it is submitted that appellant is hopeful of succeeding in the appeal.The appellant was on bail during trial.Appellant has deposited the fine amount.Appellant be granted the benefit of Section 389 Cr.P.C. His substantive jail sentence be suspended.Learned Panel Lawyer opposed the application.On depositing the fine amount, the substantive jail sentence of the appellant is suspended till the disposal of this appeal and he be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for regular appearance before the Principal Registrar of this Court, on 14.07.2015 and thereafter on such dates as may be fixed by the office for his presence during the pendency of this appeal.List the appeal in due course.C.C. as per rules.
|
['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
91,393,101 |
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicants are in custody since 15.7.2014 relating to Crime No.101/2014 registered at Police Station Chopna, District Betul for the offences punishable under Sections 306/34 of the IPC.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are reputed citizens of the locality.They do not have any criminal past alleged against them.The deceased was wife of the applicant No.1 and daughter-in-law of the applicant No.2, who sustained the burn injuries due to an accident on 22.6.2014 and thereafter, she remained in the hospital for six days.In her dying declaration, she has accepted that she sustained the burn injuries due to an accident.After death of the deceased, the parents and relatives kept silence for approximately two weeks and thereafter, they made various allegations against the applicants.However, they did not allege that the applicant harassed the deceased on the basis of dowry demand and therefore, no offence under Section 304-B of the IPC is registered against the applicants.The allegations, which are made against the applicants do not fall within the purview of Sections 107 or 109 of the IPC and hence, no offence under Section 306 of the IPC is made out against the applicants.Consequently, they pray for bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the application.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of offence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants may be accepted.It is directed that the applicants namely Manoj and Vishwanath be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of `35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) each with a surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the concerned CJM, Betul to appear before the committal Court and the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Courts.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE pnkj
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
91,397,611 |
The trial is likely to take sufficiently long time.It is directed that in 2 the event of arrest, present applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer (Investigating Officer).The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required.He shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-Section(2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.It is further directed that the applicant shall appear before the S.H.O., Police Station Dheerpua, District Datia on 1st of every month.Needless to mention that in case of bail jump or in case of failure on the part of the applicant to appear before the concerning Police Station on the specified dates, this order shall become inoperative.Certified copy as per rules.(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge MKB MAHENDRA KUMAR BARIK 2017.11.25 11:05:39 +05'30'
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
91,652,381 |
The petitioner in W.P. No. 9758 (W) of 2011 is Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee, a medical practitioner.He has challenged the validity of an order passed by the Medical Council of India (MCI) acting in the capacity of appellate authority over the West Bengal Medical Council (the State Council) in relation to a proceeding involving allegations of medical negligence.By this order issued on 23 May 2011, the MCI has directed removal of the writ petitioner's name for a period of three months from the register of the State Council.The order of 23 May, 2011 was issued by the MCI in an appeal filed by Dr. Kunal Saha (the respondent no. 4 in W.P. No. 9758 (W) of 2011) under the provisions of Clause 8.8 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 (the 2002 Regulations), framed under the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (the 1956 Act).Dr. Saha is also a medical practitioner involved, inter alia, in research work, based in the United States of America.He was the complainant before the State Council, alleging negligence on the part of Dr. Mukherjee and certain other medical practitioners in treating his wife, Anuradha, (since deceased).In this writ petition, i.e., W.P. No. 9758 (W) of 2011, the validity of the said provisions of the 2002 Regulations is also under challenge.Alternative submission of the writ petitioner in this proceeding is that the said provisions of the Regulations would not apply in his case, and the appeal of Dr. Saha before the MCI, in which the impugned order has been passed, was time barred.The petitioner in W.P. No. 3993 (W) of 2013 is Dr. Kunal Saha, the appellant in the proceeding before the MCI.The medical practitioners against whom allegations were made included Dr. Baidyanath Halder and Dr. Abani Roy Chowdhary.Complaint against them was aloso filed before the State Council at a later date.Dr. Roy Chowdhary passed away during subsistence of that proceeding.A similar order was passed by the MCI against Dr. Halder also in Dr. Saha's appeal.During pendency of that writ petition, Dr. Halder had passed away and there has been abatement of that writ petition.In his writ petition, being W.P. No. 3993 (W) of 2013, Dr. Saha has primarily prayed for enhancement of punishment of Dr. Mukherjee.I shall deal with both these petitions in this judgment, but I shall refer to and decide W.P. No. 9758 (W) of 2011 first.Thus, further reference to the petitioner in subsequent parts of this judgment would imply the petitioner in W.P. No. 9758(W) of 2011, and I shall discuss the factual and legal issues involved in that writ petition only.I shall deal with Dr. Saha's writ petition, W.P. No. 3993(W) of 2013 thereafter in this judgment.The controversy involved in both the proceedings originates from the death of Anuradha Saha, the deceased wife of Dr. Saha on 28 May, 1998 in Breach Candy Hospital at Mumbai.She was initially treated in Kolkata by Dr. Mukherjee (the petitioner) along with certain other medical practitioners and basic complaint of Dr. Saha all along has been negligence on the part of the medical practitioners treating her at Kolkata.One Malay Kumar Ganguly, a relative of Dr. Saha had filed a criminal complaint in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, 24 parganas at Alipore against the writ petitioner and two other medical practitioners.A separate complaint was also filed before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (the Commission) under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking compensation, on the allegation of deficiency in service, and the writ petitioner was impleaded as a party respondent in that proceeding as well.Dr. Mukherjee and Dr. Halder were found by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to be guilty of offence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each, in default of which they were to undergo further simple imprisonment for 15 days.In most of these proceedings lodged before different authorities by Dr. Saha, there has been common orders involving all the medical practitioners against whom proceedings were instituted, but in this judgment I shall deal with only those materials with which the writ petitioner is involved, as these two writ petitions at this stage do not concern any other medical practitioner against whom actions were brought at different fora.The petitioner preferred appeal against the judgment of conviction before the Learned Sessions Judge, Alipore and said Malay Kumar Ganguly also had filed a revisional application for enhancement of sentence imposed on the medical practitioners.An appeal was filed before this Court questioning the legality of the judgment of acquittal against another medical practitioner, who was exonerated by the Trial Court.Further `vital signs' of a patient such as temperature, pulse, intake-output and blood pressure were not monitored.All these factors are considered to be the very basic necessary amenities to be provided to any patient, who is critically ill.Occlusive dressings were carried as a result of which the infection had been increased.(i) Most doctors refrain from using steroids at the later stage of the disease due to the fear of sepsis, yet he added more steroids in the form of quick-acting "Prednisolone" at 40g three times a day.(ii) He stood as second fiddle to the treatment and failed to apply his own mind.(iii) No doctor has the right to use the drug beyond the maximum recommended dose.We are, however, of the opinion, keeping in view the fact that Dr. Kaushik Nandy has done whatever was possible to be done and his line of treatment meets with the treatment protocol of one of the experts, viz. Prof. Jean Claude Roujeau although there may be otherwise difference of opinion, that he cannot be held to be guilty of negligence."The main object of the said statute is for providing for registration of medical practitioners in Bengal and as a professional body, the Council is empowered to remove the names of the doctors registered with them from the register maintained by them.Section 25 of the 1914 Act empowers State Council to direct removal of the names of medical practitioners from the register on the charge of "infamous conduct in any professional respect", which, on its plain reading, would include what is commonly understood as medical negligence.The said provision reads:-"25. Power to Council to direct removal of names from register, and re-entry of names therein.- The Council may direct-(a) that the name of any registered practitioner-The State Council, by an order dated 18 June, 2002 had exonerated Dr. Mukherjee of the charges.I find from the Annexure 'P-1' to the writ petition, which has been titled as "Report on the Final Decision of the West Bengal Medical Council ...", and contains the final decision of the State Council, that at the initial stage, the P.E.Committee of the Council had found that charges of negligence in respect of all the three doctors being the writ petitioner, Dr. Abani Roy Chowdhary and Dr. Baidyanath Halder were not established.The State Council, however, had referred the matter back to the P.E. Committee for elaborating the recommendation and such elaboration, it appears, was made.Thereafter, the State Council after consideration of the report had exonerated Dr. Roy Chowdhary and Dr. Halder at that stage but a charge-sheet was issued against Dr. Mukherjee on the following count:-"That you have used Injection Depomedrol 80 mg BD on Mrs. Anuradha Saha, wife of Dr. Kunal Saha of U.S.A. who was under your treatment on and from April 24, 1998, to May 11, 1998, which is much above the recommended dose of the drug and, hence, you are required to justify use of the said drug at such a high dose."This writ petition was registered as W.P. No. 1357 of 2002 (Dr. Kunal Saha Vs.The West Bengal Medical Council).In that writ petition, Dr. Saha applied for invalidation of the said order of State Council passed.Main ground on which that writ petition was filed was that the President of the State Council was biased.On the latter issue, it was alleged that no opportunity was given to the parties to examine and cross-examine the respective witnesses.This appeal was also dismissed on 20 July, 2006 by a Division Bench of this Court.The SLP was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.An application for review of the order of dismissal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was filed by Dr. Saha, which was rejected, and a further curative petition filed by Dr. Saha stood also dismissed on 24 March 2009 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.These two clauses provide:-8.8 Any person aggrieved by the decision of the State Medical Council on any complaint against a delinquent physician, shall have the right to file an appeal to the MCI within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the order passed by the said Medical Council:Provided that the MCI may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of 60 days, allow it to be presented within a further period of 60 days."These two provisions stipulate:-During pendency of the said appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided the appeal of Dr. Saha against the judgment of this Court acquitting all the medical practitioners, including Dr. Mukherjee as also order of dismissal of the petition of Dr. Saha by the Commission.In this judgment delivered on 7 August 2009, in the case of Malay Kumar Ganguly Vs.Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee & Ors.[(2009)9 SCC 221] the medical practitioners were exonerated of the criminal charges but the writ petitioner certain other medical practitioners and the hospital concerned were found to have been negligent while treating Anuradha Saha (since deceased), so far as the proceeding under the Consumer Protection Act was concerned.It was held:-This was communicated to the petitioner by a memorandum bearing no. 211 (2)(190)/2009-Ethics/29866 dated 21 September 2010 (Annexure "P2" to the writ petition).This communication contained a decision of the Ethics Committee dated 3 August 2010 in which the committee opined that the writ petitioner had committed misconduct under the 2002 Regulations.The petitioner informed the concerned officer of the MCI that he had no knowledge of the appeal of Dr. Saha till he received the order directing him to show cause on the question of quantum of punishment.There had been subsequent exchange of communications between the petitioner and the MCI after that, and eventually the petitioner gave his written response to the appeal filed by Dr. Saha.The parties were heard, and main objection of Dr. Mukherjee before the Ethics Committee of the MCI was on the ground of limitation.The petitioner had raised the point of delay before the MCI, and on that issue the said authority invoked the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and proceeded to imposed punishment on the writ petitioner, holding:-"So far as the objection on the ground of delay in filing of an appeal is concerned, we have noted that the matter was pending in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India through out the period.The Ethics Committee has also noted that the appellant is entitled to benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which provides for exclusion of the period from the computing the time limit provided in the Act. The Committee has no doubt that Section - 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable with regard to the Ethics Regulations.The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the various aspects discussed in the said judgment leave no scope of doubt that there was professional misconduct on the part of the treating doctors and we also hold the same and concur accordingly.So far as the quantum of punishment to be imposed on the treating doctors are concerned, the Committee has noted that the treating doctors i.e. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee and Dr. B. N. Halder have acted in good faith.However, they did not follow the standard protocol in treating the patient suffering from TEN.We are also not oblivious of the fact that treating doctors are senior citizens aged about more than 70 years.it is also important to note that one of treating doctor namely Dr. Abani Roy Chowdhary died during the pendency of the case.Both the treating doctors are at an advanced age and ends of justice would be met if their names are removed for a period of three months from the register of concerned State Medical Council."It is this order which has been challenged by the writ petitioner in the first petition on multiple grounds.First, it has been contended that there is provision for appeal against an order of the State Council under Section 26 of the 1914 Act and introduction of a new appellate forum by way of an amendment of a subordinate legislation is impermissible.On this count case of the petitioner is that right to appeal is a substantive right and the forum of appeal which was available on the date of institution of the proceeding, in this case being the complaint before the State Council lodged on 7 July 1999, would be the appellate forum for Dr. Saha, in the absence of lawmakers specifically authorizing the newly constituted appellate forum to deal with pending appeals on making the said provisions retrospective in operation.The MCI and Dr. Saha have contested the writ petition by filing affidavits.Dr. Saha has filed a composite affidavit in both W.P. No. 9757 (W) of 2011 and in this writ petition, and for the purpose of this writ petition, he has made his submissions on the basis of this affidavit.It has also disagreed with Ajay Kumar Singh Vs.State of Bihar and has come to the conclusion that the medical council regulations have a statutory force and are mandatory.The court took note of the observation in State of Kerala Vs.T.P. Roshana (SCC at P.580) to the effect that under the India Medical Council Act, 1956, the Medical Council of India has been set up as an expert body to control the minimum standards of medical education and to regulate their observance.It has implicit power to supervise the qualifications or eligibility standards for admission into medical institutions.Thus the impugned order would have to be implemented within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.The order has been served upon Dr. Mukherjee at Kolkata.But I also find that the issue of possible inconsistency was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in an order passed on 10 October 2001 Malay Ganguly Vs.
|
['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
91,654,380 |
namely Prem Narayan, Manoj Kumar, Vikram Singh and Akhilesh have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 452, 294, 307 or 307/34 and 325 or 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 23/5/04 at about 9 p.m., when complainant Suresh Dangi was sitting in his house, respondent Premnarayan started filthily abusing him.Upon objection of complainant and his associate Bhan Singh, complainant was assaulted by respondent Vikram Dangi with an Axe, by respondents Akhilesh and Manoj with Lathis and by respondent Prem with a Luhangi.As Bhansingh tried to intervene, he was also assaulted and then Rakesh Ahirewar, Jai Singh etc. rescued them.Upon information at Police Station Prathvipur, District Tikamgarh, Crime No. 107/04 was registered and after investigation, charge- sheet was filed.Learned Government Advocate argued that the impugned judgment was passed without proper appreciation of evidence on record and the same deserved to be interfered with.Having regard to the arguments advanced by learned Government Advocate, impugned judgment and record of the trial Court were perused.After considering the evidence of Dr.That apart, the trial Court also found that there were material contradictions, omissions and exaggerations in the evidence of Bhansingh and Suresh Kumar and that contents of First Information Report (Ex.P/7) were also not proved from the evidence of complainant Suresh.Trial Court, in para 12 of its judgment, held that there was previous enmity between the parties as Bhansingh had also admitted in his cross- examination that one criminal case was pending against him with regard to causing injuries to respondent Premnarayan.Seized articles viz. Lathi and Axe were not sent for chemical analysis to Forensic Science Laboratory and there is no evidence on record to suggest presence of blood stains on the seized articles.Moreover, Independent eye-witnesses were also not examined by the prosecution.In the aforesaid premises, the trial Court found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.We agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court.It is well settled that the judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed unless the conclusions drawn on the basis of evidence brought on record are found to be grossly unreasonable or manifestly perverse or palpably unsustainable.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
91,666,164 |
P. C. :1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.The application is filed seeking to quash the FIR bearing CR.The matrimonial disputebetween the parties gave rise to the filing of civil as well ascriminal proceedings by the parties against one another and thepresent FIR is one of them.::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 22:34:41 :::The learned Counsel appearing for the respectiveparties submitted that during the pendency of investigation intoabove FIR, with the help and intervention of family members,friends and well-wishers, the parties amicably settled theirdifferences by way of mutual settlement and pursuant to theunderstanding arrived at between them, present application isfiled for quashing the above FIR, by consent of Respondent No. 2.They further submitted that in a proceeding before the FamilyCourt, at Badnra, Mumbai, namely, Petition No.In paragraph 3 and 4 she has given no objection toquash the subject FIR.On specific query made by us, she submittedthat she has made the said affidavit on her own free will, withoutthere being any pressure or undue influence.She has furtherconfirmed that she has no objection for quashing the subject FIRinitiated by her against the Applicants.::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 22:34:41 :::reported [AIR 2003 SC 1386] has held that in the event ofsettlement of matrimonial dispute, the FIR under Section 498A canbe quashed, even though the said offence is not compoundable interms of Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. The relevant observations of theApex Court are contained in Paras 14 and 15 which arereproduced herein below:There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband.Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry.The hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added.There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier.That is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 22:34:41 :::amicably settled between the parties.::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 22:34:41 :::
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
9,166,871 |
The prosecution case in brief is that the appellant and the victim Nazimuddin are uterine brothers.They lived at Village 'Murhel' under Karandighi P.S. in the district of Uttar Dinajpur.A long standing dispute remained with the brothers with regard to unpartitioned vested land of their late father.On 15th of April 1998 at about 10:00 a.m. the appellant admitted to affixing bamboo poles on the portion of the land that was under the possession of the accused's elder brother.An altercation ensued and abuses were being hurled from each side.The appeal is directed against a judgment dated 19th June 2006, passed by the Addl Sessions Judge Islampur, whereby the appellant was found guilty of an offence under Section 304 (2) of the IPC and was sentenced seven years simple imprisonment.Hearing the commotion the wife of the victim, Bibi Hazera Khatoon, intervened and tried to pacify the parties.It was also stated that one Md. Jabul, Md. Islam, Saleha Khatoon and two others were also present at the place of occurrence (P.O.).In course of altercation which escalated the appellant took a Gupti (a thin long narrow sharp digging instrument) and attacked the deceased.The victim died instantly.The wife of the deceased along with one Farooq went to the Karandighi P.S. and filed a complaint that was registered as an F.I.R. Prior to arrival of the police the body lying on the ground was wrapped in a 'gamcha' (local towel).The body was subsequently tied with the rope and taken to hospital where the deceased was declared brought dead.The Post Mortem report revealed the said Gupti penetrated caused a wound incised the left lateral sternum in a width of 1 inch x inch which finally perforated the left atrium by a wound 1/4th inch x 1/8th inch causing bleeding in the cavity.There was a fracture on the sternum 4th Rib left side of the wound.The blow also hit the pericardium of the heart.The death was caused by shock and wounds and haemorrhage, and were ante-mortem in nature.The facts are primarily undisputed.A charge was registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.As many as nine witnesses were examined by the prosecution.The witnesses include the wife, niece and son of the deceased, the doctor who conducted the post mortem report.The principal evidence, however, was that of the wife and the niece, Saleha Khatoon, and one Aradat Hossain, a resident of a nearby village who was passing by at the time of incident.Learned Junior Counsel Ms Suchismita Datta Advocate, for the appellant made strenuous, dedicated and sincere efforts to dislodge a case of the prosecution, calling for interference with the conviction and sentence.The first point raised was some named witnesses were not examined by the prosecution namely Shahid and Jamiruddin and that unnamed witnesses were examined.In Maqsuddin Vs State of UP reported in (1983) 1 SCC 218 at paragraph 9 the Supreme Court has held that if the evidence of witnesses were reliable non-examination of other witnesses not be fatal of the trial.".......... It is not the number of witnesses examined nor the quantity of evidence adduced by the prosecution that counts.It is the quality that counts.Learned counsel has not pointed out to us that any witness better or more creditable has been omitted by the prosecution.As stated above, the eye-witnesses examined in this case were the best and natural witnesses.Learned counsel also has criticised that during the course of evidence, prosecution alleged that Maqsoodan gave two blows but that fact was not mentioned in the FIR.He has also criticised that the injured witnesses do not say who injured whom.This, on the contrary, shows that the witnesses examined were not tutored and they gave no parrot like stereotyped evidence............"On exact time on which the incident occurred there appears to be some minor discrepancies in this regard.However, one cannot lose the sight of the fact that the trial had taken place eight years after the incident.Another witness is stated to have said that the appellant did not go into the house during the quarrel.The Investigating Officer, who was examined, however, arrested the appellant and found in his house immediately after the incident where he went.While arresting the appellant the murdered weapon was seized in a blood stained condition.The appellant admittedly was digging holes on the grounds to install bamboo poles.There is need for a sharp instrument to disturb the earth and thereby allow the earth to be removed with a Khunti.The appellant himself admittedly was digging a hole and needed both the implements.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
916,693 |
JUDGMENT S.S. Jha, J.Appellants are convicted for an offence under Section 302, I.P.C.According to the prosecution, on 19.11.91 at about 7.00 O'clock in the morning Thakurdas, Sarpanch was returning from the field of Lakhansingh after attending the call of nature; then he saw that appellants Santoshsingh, Karansingh and Mehthansingh had surrounded his brother Meghsingh.Appellant Santoshsingh said that he has murdered his brother Radheshyam and thrown his body in the well of Darua Gadariya; now we will finish you.Accused Santoshsingh gave a farsa blow to Meghsingh which hit him on right mandible; accused Mehthansingh gave a farsa blow which hit Meghsingh on the right temporal region.Accused Karansingh gave another blow which hit him on the upper portion of the head and Meghsingh fell on the ground.Then, Karansingh gave two blows by axe on the head of Meghsingh.In between Complainant Thakurdas's father Dhansingh, Phupha Birje, Uttam Jamadar and other villagers reached the spot and accused ran away.Prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and 30 documents were exhibited.No evidence in defence was filed.P.W.13 Dr. (Smt.) Santosh Dixit has performed autopsy of the deceased Meghsingh.She has written post mortem report Ex.Deceased has suffered following injuries :--(1) Big incised wound on right side of neck 7 Inches big, 4 Inches wide and 3 Inches depth from right angle of mandible to right temporal bone-External ear is cut in between.(2) Right carotid cut.Second incised wound on the left parietal bone 3" big x 1" width x 1" depth, bone cut below Brain matter seen.Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased has suffered only two injuries; whereas eye-witnesses have stated that injuries were caused by appellants Santoshsingh, Karansingh and Mehthansingh.Specific allegation of assault by Santoshsingh and Karansingh is levied, but allegation of assault by Mehthansingh is not levied.Even otherwise, deceased had suffered two injuries only, therefore, conviction of appellant without the aid of Section 34 of Section 302 I.P.C. is bad in law.The trial Court has not considered impact of each injury.Learned counsel further submitted that P.W. 13 Dr. Smt. Santosh Dixit has deposed that the death was caused on account of cumulative effect of injuries.Thus, in the absence of evidence that each injury was sufficient to cause death, conviction under Section 302 simplicitor is bad in law and deserves to be set aside.Learned counsel further submitted that in the absence of any evidence on record about the murder of the brother of the deceased Radheshyam, appellants' conviction is without evidence on record and deserves to be set aside.In the present case, the trial Court has framed the charges against the appellants for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. The language of charges is similar and the appellants were charged for the murder of Radheshyam under Section 302 I.P.C. simplicitor and for the murder of Meghsingh under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C.Learned counsel for appellants then submitted that considering the facts of the case and the evidence on record, unless the act of each assailant under Section 302 I.P.C. is not specified, conviction of appellants is bad in law.The question involved in the ease is whether after the charges were framed under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C., conviction could be only under Section 302 I.P.C.; omission to convict the appellants with the aid of Section 34 I.P.C. is fatal to the prosecution and whether the Appellate Court has power to convict the appellants with the aid of Section 34 I.P.C.?Before entering into the controversy, we shall examine the evidence on record.10. P.W.1 Thakurdas has deposed that deceased Meghsingh was surrounded by Santoshsingh, Mehthansingh and Karansingh.Santoshsingh gave him a blow by farsa which hit him on right mandible; Mehthansingh gave a farsa blow which cut his ear and Karansingh gave a blow by an axe on the head.Thereafter, Karansingh gave two more blows by axe which hit Meghsingh on the head.In para 4 he has deposed that the dispute is on account of some agricultural lands.P.W. 2 Dhansingh has deposed that when he heard the shout of Meghsingh, he ran towards the spot and saw that the accused were assaulting the deceased by farsa and axe.Santoshsingh was armed with farsa and Karansingh and Mehthansingh were armed with axe.Deceased has suffered injuries on the right side of the head, ear and center of the head.Santoshsingh said that they have murdered Radheshyam and has thrown his body in the well of Darua Gadariya.Extra judicial confession about the murder of Radheshyam was also made before P.W. 1 Thakurdas, wherein Santoshsingh told Meghsingh that he has finished Radheshyam and thrown his body in the well of Darua Gadariya.P.W. 5 Birje has deposed that he has heard the shout of Meghsingh, then he along with Dhansingh ran towards the spot and when they reached near Meghsingh he saw accused Karansingh assaulting Meghsingh with an axe and then Mehthansingh and Santoshsingh assaulting Meghsingh with farsa; later accused ran away when he reached near them.P.W. 6 Parvata is the village Chowkidar and P.W. 14 D.S. Kushwah is the Investigation Officer.Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that considering the discrepancies in the F.I.R. and the statements, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.Learned counsel invited attention to F.I.R. Ex. P-1 wherein it is mentioned that when the crime was being committed, at that time Thakurdas, father of Thakurdas, Phupha Birje, Uttam Jamadar and other villagers have reached the spot.Learned counsel submitted that Uttam Jamadar is not examined, but Parvata is examined, therefore, prosecution has not produced important eye-witnesses to the incident.We are satisfied from the evidence of eye-witnesses that the appellants have assaulted the deceased.However, considering the question that there are only two injuries on the body of the deceased, whether the appellants can be convicted for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
91,673,238 |
Brief facts of the case which are relevant for decision of this petition are that non-applicant filed a criminal complaint against applicants and other co-accused Naleen Khandelwal, Vipin Khandelwal and Sanjeev Khandelwal averting that co-accused Naleen Khandelwal, Vipin Khandelwal and Sanjeev Khandelwal informed non-applicant that land Survey No. 17291/1 with an area of 2.801 hectare and Survey No. 1736 having total area of 3.083 hectare situated at Ujjain, is owned by Smt. Suhodra Devi, mother of applicants Virendra Kumar Khandelwal and Satyendra Kumar Khandelwal and introduced applicants to non-applicant / complainant.Applicants showed him order of the Revenue Board dated 06/09/1983 regarding ownership of the land and made the non-applicant believe that they were the owner of the said land and told that the land was an empty plot.Co-accused .Naleen Khandelwal, Vipin Khandelwal and Sanjeev Khandelwal also told the non-applicant that they owned a Company namely Anushka Tradelink Private Ltd. through which they can buy said land from applicants and can sell that land on a higher price thereafter.This way they induced non-applicant to give them loan.Relying on their statement, non-applicant gave a loan of Rs 35 lakh to Anushka Tradelink Private Limited Company.This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 8.6.2015 passed by the learned JMFC Ujjain, in Criminal Case No. 3088/2015 whereby learned Judge on a private complaint filed by the non-applicant taking cognizance against the applicants and three others for the offences under section 420,193,418 and 120-B of IPC.On that Co-accused .Naleen Khandelwal, Vipin Khandelwal and Sanjeev Khandelwal made him Director of the Company.Non-applicant after becoming Director of the Company non-applicant and Co-accused .Naleen Khandelwal, Vipin Khandelwal and Sanjeev Khandelwal bought two parts of land Survey No. 1729/1 from applicants by registered sale deed at Rs. 2,53,92,000/-and Rs. 20,82,000/ on 20.12.2011 and 02/02/12- respectively thereafter respondent came to know that the land Survey No.1729/1 is a government land.So, Applicants fraudulently sold the land stating that it was owned by them.Therefore, action be taken against applicants and Co-accused Naleen Khandelwal, Vipin Khandelwal and Sanjeev Khandelwal.On that complaint learned Trial Court recorded statement of complainant and his witness under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and registered a complaint against the applicant and other co-accused holding that there is sufficient ground prima facie from the complaint to take cognizance against applicant and Co-accused Naleen Khandelwal, Vipin Khandelwal and Sanjeev Khandelwal for the offence under Section,420,193,418 and 120-B of IPC.Being aggrieved from that order, applicants filed this petition.Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that applicants are the owners of said land.Board of Revenue by order dated 06/09/1983 declared them owner of suit land.Again an appeal against that order was filed in Apex Court which also was dismissed by the Apex Court.The order of Revenue Board became final.So applicant is the sole owner of that land and Learned Trial Court wrongly assumed that applicant was not the owner of said land.He further submitted that earlier also some people had filed complaints against the applicants on the ground that they are not the owner of that land and that they had wrongly got the land recorded in their name which were also rejected by the respective Courts.So no case is made out against the applicants from the complaint.Learned Trial Court committed mistake in taking cognizance against applicants for the offences under Section under Section,420,193,418 and 120-B of IPC.So that complaint be quashed.He also filed copies of the said other complaints and orders passed by the Courts regarding those complaints.Learned Counsel for the non-applicant submitted that the proceeding of criminal complaint was only quashed in the case where no offence was made out from the complaint.While from the complaint filed by the non- applicant prima facie offence is made out against the applicants.Even from the document filed by the respondent it appears that applicants were not the sole owner of that suit land.But the offence ought to appear ex facie on the complaint.They also concealed the fact that there were godown and other structures constructed on the land.They showed a different plot while sold some other to the non- applicant the land is yet to be recorded as government land.Non-applicant also filled documents in support of his complaint showing that Tehsildar by order dated 28/02/15 had ordered to delete the name of applicants and Anushka Tradelink Private Limited from the land and an ownership dispute regarding the land was also pending between applicants and their other relatives.Merely on the ground that earlier other complaints filed against applicants regarding suit land were rejected by the Courts, it can not be said that complaint filled by the non-applicant is false because every complaint has to be judged by its pleadings and evidence produced in support by the parties and from the present complaint prima facie offence under section 420 IPC clearly made out .The veracity of the allegations levelled by non-applicant in the complaint cannot be ascertained at this stage by evaluating the evidence on merits and merely on the basis of the points raised by the learned Counsel for the applicants it cannot be assumed, at this stage, that non-applicant filed a false complaint against applicants for harassing them.So the the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3088/2015 pending before J.M.F.C. Ujjain against applicants cannot be quashed.The applicants are at liberty to raise all pleas before the Trial Court at appropriate stage.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
91,674,105 |
Heard on this second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant.The earlier bail application i.e. M.Cr.This second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant in connection with Crime No.410/2017 registered by Police Station Kotwali District Chhindwara (MP) for offences punishable under Section 363/34 of the Indian Penal Code.It is alleged that an unknown lady came there and helped the complainant Shivkumari Bai and given some food item (Daliya) to her.When she had taken it, she became unconscious.On 10/07/2017 when she awakened at about 2.00 am in the mid-night, she found her new born child was missing, therefore, she lodged the report against unknown person.On that basis, Crime No.410/2017 under Section 363 of the IPC has been registered against the unknown person.It is also alleged that during the course of investigation, co-accused Pooja Pahade @ Disha Soni and the present applicant Rajaram have been arrested.It is also alleged that most of the important witnesses have been examined, they have not supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the present applicant Rajaram.In view of the aforesaid, it has been prayed that the applicant be released on bail.Learned Panel Lawyer appears on behalf of the respondent/State opposes the application.The statements of Ravi Mohabe (PW-1), Shivkumari (PW-2), Tofiq Khan (PW-3), Ashok Bhalavi (PW-4) and Deepa Sahu (PW-5) have been recorded.On going through their statements and looking to the period of custody of the applicant (since 21/07/2017), in the opinion of this Court, the applicant deserves to be released on bail.Consequently, this application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant is allowed.It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified copy today.
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
43,135,802 |
This appeal depicts the pathetic case of a mother, having boundlesslove for her son.On 23.10.2007, at about 6.30 a.m., before the house of Poovammal, inChurch Street, in North Agasthiarpuram, near Vikramapurasingapuram (V.K.Puram),in Ambasamudram Taluk, in Tirunelveli District, huge crowd gathered.It wentinside.Poovammal was standing with M.O.1 - Axe.There was blood all over herclothes (M.Os.3 and 4).Near her, her dear son's (Deivendran) dead body waslying with five cut injuries, remaining 6 are defensive in nature (Ex.P.8 post-mortem certificate).Near the dead body, Vijayalakshmi (P.W.1), the wife of thedeceased was crying.Poovammal went inside the room and bolted.Murugan (P.W.3)informed Ramachandran, VAO, V.K.Puram.On his information, Vergin Savio (P.W.8),Sub-Inspector of Police, V.K.Puram came.P.W.1 gave her Ex.P.1 - complaint.Poovammal was taken to V.K.Puram Police Station with M.Os.1 and 2 axe and bill-hook.A case in crime No.257 of 2007 for an offence under Section 302 IPC wasregistered (Ex.P.10 FIR).She was arrested.Sundararajan, Inspector, V.K.PuramPolice Station (P.W.12) took up investigation.At the scene place, in thepresence of witnesses, he prepared observation mahazar (Ex.P.2), site - plan(Ex.P.17).At the Govt. Hospital, Ambasamudram, Dr.Sankara Venkatesh (P.W.7)performed autopsy.P.W.12 recorded thestatement of material witnesses, obtained post-mortem certificate, chemical andserological reports, completing his investigation, filed the Final Report for anoffence under Section 302 I.P.C.Deivendran marriedVijaya Lakshmi (P.W.1).She belongs to Thalaiyuthu.It is far away fromV.K.Puram.Later, Deivendran set up his family in Thalaiyuthu.He was working ina saloon there.Manickam and Poovammal were living alone in their village.She had lost her husband.She has no property.No house.She is living in a rented house.Her only hope oflife is her son.She had boundless love and affection for him.P.1 - complaint).On 22.10.2007, accused renewed her request.But, her son refused.This led to so much frustration in her.She was desperate.She is not willing tospare her beloved son.Then his mother was also present.Again, he went to sleep.Accusedwas seen in an agitative mood.In these circumstances, suddenly she picked up the available M.O.1 axeand assaulted her son killing him on the spot.The helpless mother was put to such a situation to feel that she willbe deserted by her own son soon.She became desperate.She was frustrated.Itwas lingering in her mind.On the night of 22.10.2007, as usual the motherpleaded with the son and the son flatly rejected her request.On the next day,early morning, her son told his wife to get ready to leave the village forThalaiyuthu, that is to say desert/abandon his helpless mother.He told thisright in front of his mother.In the circumstances, she suddenly picked up theavailable weapon, M.O.1 - Axe and with that assaulted him and went into the roomand closed it, wept and inflicted injuries on her abdomen and neck indicatingthat she had also decided to leave the world.It was created by her son.Her immediate postconduct was her attempt to kill herself.What she did was killing of her son.She had lost her husband.On the other hand, Vijayalakshmi lost her husband.Her daughter now 5years old lost her father.(iv) Her remand period shall be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.asvm/sjTo(1) The Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.(2) The District Collector, Tirunelveli.(4) The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli Rural District, Tirunelveli.(5) The Superintendent, Special Prison for Women, Trichy.(6) The Inspector of Police, V.K.Puram Police Station, Tirunelveli District.P.DEVADASS, J.Poovammal was charged under Section 302 I.P.C, before the learnedPrincipal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.During the trial, P.Ws.1 to 12 wereexamined, Exs.P.1 to 20 were marked and M.Os.1 to 7 were exhibited.Whenexamined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, she denied her complicity, she did not let inany evidence.The learned Sessions Judge, upon appreciation of the evidence, on17.11.2008, found her guilty under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced her to lifeand also fined Rs.1,000/- in default, directed her to undergo one year rigorousimprisonment and ordered adjusting of her remand period against the saidsentence vide Section 428 Cr.P.C.In view of the clinching oral, documentary evidence and materialobjects, Mr. S.Jeyasingh, learned counsel for the appellant confined hisarguments only to the nature of the offence established, precisely, he argued onthe sentence aspect.We have also carefully perused the voluminous evidence on record.Weconcur with the view of the learned Sessions Judge that appellant killed herson.In support of his plea to dilute the rigour of the sentence, thelearned counsel for the appellant submitted as under:-(i) After the death of her husband, Poovammal was left alone, none tosupport her, in the circumstances, her only hope is her son.Inspite of hercontinued demand, he had decided to leave her alone, it created anguish,frustration in her.(ii) Even prior to the occurrence, she was continuously demanding him tolive with her.But, he refused.Frustration developed in her.It sustained inher mind.(iii) In these circumstances, on the occurrence day, she lost her mind anddone away with her son and also attempted suicide.(iv) In the circumstances, it will not be murder; it will be culpablehomicide not amounting to murder.Mr.K.S.Durai Pandian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submittedthat the accused having killed her son has been established, in thecircumstances, she has been so sentenced.Now, the question is whether Poovammal's case falls under Section 302IPC or under Section 304 I.P.C, part I or Part II.Manickam and Poovammal are spouses.Their only son is Deivendran.They belong to Maruthuvar (Barber) community.They belong to lower strata ofsociety.They are very poor.They were residing at Door No.80/E3, Church Street,North Agasthiarpuram, near V.K.Puram, Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District.Father and son were working in some saloons in V.K.Puram.On5.10.2007, Manickam passed away due to heart-attack.Deivendran and VijayaLakshmi came to North Agasthiarpuram to attend the funeral rites and connectedceremonies.The accused was then about 55 years old.In thecircumstances, she requested him to stay with her in Agasthiarpuram, work in asaloon in V.K.Puram and support her and if he leaves her alone, she will die.However, he was not for it.Vijalaya Lakshmi was also not for it.They wantedto go to Thalaiyuthu.Discussion on this issue was going on between them forquite some time (See Ex.It was persisting in her mind.On the night, all in thehouse ate and slept.On 23.10.2007, early morning, accused and P.W.1 were cooking.Deivendran told his wife to finish the work early as they have to leave forThalaiyuthu.STATE OF TAMILNADUREP.BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PODANUR POLICE STATION, COIMBATORE DISTRICT [2005-1-L.W. (Cri.) 299].Now, with this background of principles of Criminal Law on the pointwe shall look at the case of Poovammal.On 05.10.2007, Poovammal lost her husband.Suddenly, she was placed in tragic circumstances.She requested him to staywith her in the village.She pleaded with him.But, hewas adamant.He preferred his wife than his helpless mother.He prepared toabandon his mother and settle once for all in his wife's place Thalaiyuthu,which is far away from his mother's house.Every day she pleaded with the son tosupport her.He refused it.It was going on.The mother has been tormentedmentally.As and when glimpses of her deceased husband comesbefore her, we have no words to explain the widow's suffering There is no limitfor it.Considering these extreme ends, to meet the ends of justice,appropriate punishment is required to be imposed upon her.In the result,(i) This Criminal Appeal is allowed in part.(ii) Appellant's conviction under Section 302 I.P.C. and the life sentenceimposed on her in S.C.No.165 of 2008 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge,Tirunelveli on 17.11.2008 are set aside.(3) The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
431,421 |
The appellant herein is aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgmentand order dated 27.05.2008 passed by a learned Single Judge of the HighCourt of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal MiscellaneousNo.12308 of 2001 whereby and whereunder an application filed by thempurported to be under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure forquashing a First Information Report lodged at the direction of Respondent 2No.4 by the respondent No.2 on 23.3.2001 for the alleged commission ofoffences punishable under Sections 420/465/467/468/471 and 120B of theIndian Penal Code has been dismissed.The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.The appellants aremembers of the Managing Committee of Shastri Memorial School, ShivajiNagar, Ludhiana.Indisputably, a proposal wasmoved for lodging of a First Information Report.Appellants sold a part of the land to M/s Everest Girls School.S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.He filed a suit beingCivil suit No.309 against his daughter-in-law wherein a decreeacknowledging a transfer in favour of the latter was passed.The appellantsare said to have made a representation before the concerned authority inrelation to the functioning of the school after passing of the aforementioneddecree came to their knowledge.It is stated that a report dated 14.1.1983was submitted by the then Tehsildar (Sales), Ludhiana showing the school tobe an existing one whereafter the name of the appellants had been recordedin the record of rights.They filed a suit in the year 1990 praying for a decree for possession.By reason of a judgment dated 15.3.1990, the said suit was decreed.In the 3said suit, State of Punjab, Collector Ludhiana as well as the said KahlaSingh were arrayed as defendants.An order of mutation was thereafter passed in their favour which,however, is said to have been cancelled.Allegedly sale proceeds therefrom had been spent on construction of sixteenrooms in the existing school.The vendees of the said premises, i.e., the M/s.A newspaper report to that effect also appeared in`Punjab Kesri'.They filed a civil suit in the court of Civil Judge, Ludhianawherein an order of status-quo was passed in the following terms :"In the meantime defendants are restrained from interfering in possession of the plaintiffs in property comprised in Khasra No.12/9 khata No.23/1571 as per Jamabandi for the years 1992- 93, situated at Village Saidan, Shivaji Nagar, Ludhiana and further restraining the defendants from interfering in the construction being raised by the plaintiffs except in due course of Law till 21.12.1999."It appears that in a meeting held on 24.6.1999, the third respondentraised a question with regard to the purported illegal transfer by the 4appellants before the District Grievance Committee.Theresolution adopted in the said meeting dated 24.6.1999 reads as under:"Item No.15 Sh.Sat Pal Gausain, M.L.A. submitted an application from the residents of Shivaji Nagar, Ludhiana regarding property No.918/4 which is alleged to be under unauthorized possession of some persons.S.S.P. informed that about a year prior to it Managing Committee of Shastri Memorial Model School sold the land for a sum of Rs.9.85 lacs to Everest School.The allegation in the application is that a property has two different members.The matter may be re-investigated after summoning both the parties and complete report be submitted in the case made."The appellants also filed an application before the respondent No.4 on18.9.2000 stating their bona fide in the matter besides pointing out theinterest of the students of the school.The Municipal Corporation, Ludhianaissued notice to the school assessing the house tax.House Tax is being paidby the appellants.In the suit filed by the Everest School, applications were filed by thesupporters of respondent Nos.3 and 5 for their impleadment which weredismissed.However, in a meeting dated 11.9.2000, again a resolution was movedwherein a decision was taken to lodge a First Information Report against theappellants in the following terms :"The Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana informed on the application submitted by Sat Pal Gausain MLA on behalf of certain residents of Shastri Nagar, Ludhiana regarding illegal possession of some persons on property No.918/4 that the land being ownership of Rehabilitation Department no amount on the construction can be spent.The President ordered that accused who exchanged the area, an FIR be registered against them and necessary correspondence be made between Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Ludhiana and the item was deleted from the agenda."Pursuant to the said resolution, a First Information Report was lodged,relevant portions whereof reads as under :Meaning thereby that order of the Court was regarding possession.Whereas the revenue officials vide mutation No.38144 has changed the 6ownership of the above property in favour ofShastri Memorial Middle School Committeeregistered which has been ordered as disputed bythe District Collector, Ludhiana vide his orderdated 15.9.1999 and in compliance with that order,the revenue officer has cancelled the mutation.This land was sold to Pankaj SharmaS/o Rajinder Kumar of Everest EducationalSociety and its President was Rajinder KumarSharma and the land after sale was mutated videmutation No.40762 (0-2-00-300 Sq.Yds), 40763(0-1-17-275 Sq.yds) 40064 (0-2-13 400 Sq.yds)because of cancellation of muatation No.38144their sansity has also come in.Now, ownership ofthis land vests in the Central Govt. Your attentionis invited to letter No.906/IPC dated 11.5.2000 andthe report that now the Central Govt. has beenshown as owner of this land.Jaspal Singh, thethen Halqa Patwari and Circle revenue officerJagdeep Singh are guilty as in order to usurp theGovt.land, with dishonest attention in order togive undue benefit to the members of theManaging Committee of the School, havesanctioned mutation against orders of the Court.Similarly, these members of the ManagingCommittee of the School who in connivance withthe revenue officers, have got the land transferredin favour of the School and have further sold it toSh.Pankaj Sharma of Everest Educational Societyhave cheated the Govt. when they were not lawfulowners of the land.A case underabove said sections be registered and legal actionbe taken.In this connection opinion of the District 7 Attorney, Ludhiana has been obtained and he has opined that case under Sections 420/465/467/468/471 read with Section 120-B IPC can be registered.You are hereby informed that keeping in view order of District Grievance Committee meeting held on 11.9.2000, necessary case be registered against above said accused persons and this office may be informed about the action taken therein."The appellants filed an application under Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure praying for quashing of the said First InformationReport which by reason of the impugned order has been dismissed.(ii) Appellants having obtained a decree in their favour, a criminal proceeding would not be maintainable.(iii) The contents of the first information report, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, do not disclose an offence 8 cognizable far less under Sections 420/465/467/468/471 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code..
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
43,144,247 |
After arguing for some time on the merits of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this application, with liberty to renew his prayer after recording the Court statement of the victim.Accordingly M.Cr.C. No.10830/2020 is dismissed as withdrawn, with the aforesaid liberty.Certified copy, as per Rules.(S.K. AWASTHI) JUDGE sumathi Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 17/03/2020 10:10:06
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
43,145,229 |
Mr.Y.P.Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.Arvind Singh, learned PL for the State.However, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph 15 wherein response to the question put by the defence, the child has stated that it is correct to suggest that her father had taught her what to state in court and thereafter she volunteered to state that she was told on the date on which the statement was made and one day even prior to that, she was tutored by her father as to what to state in Court.In paragraph 16 she has stated that she has said in court as she has been tutored by her father.(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE ss
|
['Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
43,146,436 |
simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision.In a quite number of cases, bedridden grandfathers and grandmothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested.We must, at the outset, state that the High Court's view on jurisdiction meets with our approval and we confirm the view.However, after a careful perusal of the THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 7 MCRC 34507/2020 Devendra Sharma and Ors.vs. State of MP and Anr.THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 7FIR and after taking into consideration the attendant circumstances, we are of the opinion that the FIR lodged by respondent 2 insofar as it relates to appellants 1, 2 and 3 deserves to be quashed.The allegations are extremely general in nature.No specific role is attributed to each of the appellants.Respondent 2 has stated that after the marriage, she resided with her husband at Ahmedabad.It is not clear whether appellants 1, 2 and 3 were residing with them at Ahmedabad.The marriage took place on 9/7/2002 and respondent 2 left her matrimonial home on 15/2/2003 i.e. within a period of seven months.Thereafter, respondent 2 took no steps to file any complaint against the appellants.Six years after she left the house, the present FIR is lodged making extremely vague and general allegations against appellants 1, 2 and
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
43,151,115 |
(in both cases) (Crime No.465 of 2019) Common Prayer: Criminal Original Petitions filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code.The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for alleged offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 307 and 506 (ii) of Indian Penal Code, 1882 in Crime No.465 of 2019, seek anticipatory bail.At that time, A1 and other accused tried to attack the defacto complainant's son and others.They escaped from the house of A1 in the bike.A1 and others chased them in two cars and dashed against the motorbike in which the defacto complainant's son was riding.Co-accused was enlarged on bail on 31.10.2019 in Crl.The petitioners are willing to furnish sureties and abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court.The petitioners will not tamper the witness and hamper the investigation and prayed for granting anticipatory bail.4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Police submitted that due to enmity between the defacto complainant and A1, the petitioners attempted to murder the defacto complainant's son and his friends.On complaint, case has been registered and investigation is pending and prayed for dismissal of both the petitions.5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Police and perused the materials available on record.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest or on their appearance within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this common order before the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpattu, on condition that each of the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent Police or the Police Officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpattu, failing which, the petitions for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:(i)The petitioners and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impressions in the surety bonds and the said Magistrate may obtain copies of their Aadhar Cards or Bank Pass Books to ensure their identities;(ii)The petitioners shall report before the respondent Police once in a week on every Monday at 10.30 a.m. until further orders;(iii)The petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or 5/8http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.Nos.7791 & 7792 of 2020 trial.The petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;(v)If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh First Information Report can be registered under Section 229A of IPC.7.Accordingly, both the Criminal Original Petitions are allowed.
|
['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
43,152,721 |
The proposed accused in C.C.No.32 of 2009 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry, is the petitioner herein.The brief facts which are necessary for determination of the case are as follows:-The respondent herein viz., Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Villianur, in Crime No.2 of 2008, has filed a final report under Section 173 (2) of Cr.P.C. before the trial Court for the offences under Sections 498-A, 494 and 506(ii) r/w.34 of IPC against Thamba @ Tamilarasan (A1) and Thaiyalnayagi @ Visalatchi (A2).The trial Court took up the case on file in C.C.No.32 of 2009, framed charges and proceeded with the trial.On 17.08.2010, the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Villianur, has filed an Additional Final Report under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. before the trial Court against the present petitioner namely, Malathy @ Mahalakshmi.The Inspector of Police has also filed a petition in Cr.M.P.No.2080/2010 to take the Additional Report on file, adding the accused Malathy @ Mahalakshmi as third accused.The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry, after hearing both sides, allowed the said petition in Cr.M.P.No.2080/2010 filed by the Investigating Officer and included the present petitioner as third accused in the case and thereafter, framed charges for the offence under Section 494 of IPC.As against the said order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry, in Cr.M.P.No.2080/2010, whereby, the present petitioner was added as third accused in the above said calender case, the petitioner herein has preferred a criminal revision in Cr.R.P.No.13 of 2011 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry, who after hearing both the parties, had confirmed the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry, in Cr.M.P.No.2080/2010 in C.C.No.32/2009 on 30.06.2011 and dismissed the revision and directed the petitioner to face the trial.Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed this criminal original petition before this Court.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that initially, final report has been filed only as against the first and second accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 494 and 506(ii) r/w.34 of IPC and the same was taken on file and when P.W.1 was in the witness box, the Investigation Officer has filed an additional final report under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. and also filed a petition to include the name of the petitioner herein, the second wife of A.1 as third accused stating that by mistake, the name of the petitioner was not included in the final report and the same is against the principles of Criminal Procedure Code and hence, he seeks to set aside the said order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry.Learned Government Advocate (Pondicherry) made submissions in support of the order of the trial Court.6. Heard both.Perused records.It is seen from the records that Hemalatha is the de facto complainant and she has preferred a complaint before the respondent police alleging that the first accused Thamba @ Thamilarasan, after promising to marry her, had refused to marry her and subsequently, there was a panchayat and they got married and both of them were lived together as husband and wife in Ariyankuppam and begotten a child.Subsequently, at the instigation of the second accused/Thaiyal Nayagi @ Visalachi, who is the mother of the first accused, the first accused harassed the de facto complainant and left her lonely.It is further alleged by the de facto complainant Hemalatha that under the instigation of the second accused, the first accused has illegally contracted marriage with one Malathy @ Mahalakshmi, the present petitioner herein and as the husband/A.1 had refused to live with the de facto complainant, she gave the complaint and it was taken on file in Crime No.2/2008 by the All Women Police Station, Villianur, Puducherry.After investigation, final report has been filed against A.1 and A.2 (mother of A.1) for the alleged offences under Sections 498-A, 494 and 506(ii) r/w.34 of IPC and it was taken on file as C.C.No.32 of 2009 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry.During trial, when P.W.1 was in the witness box, she has narrated the relationship with the first accused and the mental cruelty committed by A.1 and A.2 and also specifically deposed about her complaint made to the police as well as to the family members of the petitioner herein.Thereafter, it appears that despite the complaint, A.1 has contracted second marriage with the petitioner herein Malathy @ Mahalakshmi.On a perusal of the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. as well as the complaint, it is seen that the de facto complainant has specifically stated about the subsistence of her marriage with the first accused.Further, in her statement during the investigation, the de facto complainant has specifically averred that her marriage with A.1 is in subsistence and she gave a complaint and on 17.09.2007, the investigation officer has contacted the family members of the petitioner herein and strictly told that not to contract the second marriage and on 27.11.2007, she lodged the complaint with the police.It is also specifically stated by the de facto complainant Hemalatha on 24.12.2008 in her statement to the police that her husband A.1 has contracted second marriage and the bangle festival for the pregnancy of Malathy @ Mahalakshmi is scheduled on 06.10.2008 and handed over the invitation printed for the said function.Accordingly, the police, laid the final report for alleged offence under Section 494 of IPC, however not arrayed the said Malathy @ Mahalakshmi as one of the accused.It remains to be stated that P.W.1, who is the de facto complainant has specifically averred in the complaint and also in her statement and further statement about the information she dispelled about her marital status as that of the legally wedded wife of A.1 herein to the family members of the petitioner herein and thereafter, she gave a complaint.During the investigation also, she gave a further statement regarding the bangle wearing function for the petitioner herein and also now in the witness box, she has also produced Birth Certificate of the child born to A.1 and the proposed accused, the present petitioner herein.After obtaining necessary permission from the Court, the Investigation Officer has also filed a memo to include the name of the petitioner as third accused.Both the Courts below have concurrently held that in view of the availability of the overwhelming material on record as to the marital status of the de facto complainant and the earlier steps taken by her in preventing the contract of the second marriage between the present petitioner and A.1 and subsequent invitation for the bangle wearing function and also in her statement as a witness in the Court.The petitioner herein has to be arrayed as an accused and as sufficient materials are available to include the petitioner herein as third accused, the trial Court has rightly come to a conclusion and accordingly, allowed the petition.There are sufficient materials available against the petitioner, who is directed to be tried as a third accused and to be tried for trial and the order is found to be factually correct and both the Courts below, on factual appreciation of the case and also on proper application of law, ordered for inclusion of the petitioner herein as third accused and the same is well merited and well considered which does not warrant any interference by this Court.In any view of the matter, the order of the trial Court as confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
|
['Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
43,153,574 |
They were planning to commit robbery of jewelry shops at Kumbakonam.P.W.1-Sub Inspector of Police, Q-Branch, Thanjavur accompanied by other police personnel based on the information received by him, was waiting near Nanjikottai road at Thanjavur to Kumbakonam bypass road and was watching over the movement of vehicles.The information received by Q- Branch was that three Tamil extremists would pass-through the road in question in a motor cycle bearing registration No.At about 1.00 p.m., the police party sighted the said vehicle.The motor cycle was ridden by first accused Rajendran @ Ponparappi Rajendran and the second and third accused were in the pillion.When P.W.1 intercepted them, they tried to escape, but then,http://www.judis.nic.in 3 they were surrounded and overpowered and apprehended.The offending Material Objects, which included Aruval, Knives, Gelatin sticks, detonators and fuse wires were recovered from them.This revision case is directed against the Judgment made in Criminal Appeal Nos.97 and 98 of 2008 by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge (PCR), Thanjavur, confirming the conviction imposed by the learned trial Judge in S.C.No.135 of 2007 and substantially confirming the sentence imposed also.2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent.They were, thereafter, taken to the Q- Branch Police Station and a case in Crime No.01 of 2007 was registered.Since the case was triable by the Sessions Court, the learned Magistrate, after the committal proceedings, committed the same to the file of Sessions Court, which made it over to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thanjavur for trial in S.C.No.4.Charges were framed against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences.The petitioners denied the charges and claimed to be tried.Thereupon, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and marked Exs.On the side of the accused, no defence evidence was adduced.The learned trial Judge, by Judgment dated 17.11.2008 found the petitioners guilty and sentenced them as follows:-5.Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein filed Criminal Appeal Nos.97 and 98 of 2008 before the First Additional Sessions Judge (PCR), Thanjavur.The learned trial Judge by the impugned Judgment dated 14.12.2009, affirmed the conviction passed by the trial Court.The sentences imposed for the offences under Section 120(b) of IPC were confirmed.The sentences of fine imposed for each of the offence for each of the accused were also confirmed.However, the substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonmenthttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 for 7 years was reduced to 5 years.With this modification, the appeal stood dismissed in all other respects.6.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners contended that the entire case has been put up falsely against the petitioners and in fact, the first petitioners were arrested in some other place.He also pointed out that the petitioners herein had already spent about one year and six months in prison.During investigation, they were in custody for a few months.Thus, they had been in prison for more than one year and six months.The learned counsel submitted that even though the petitioners are innocent, for certain reasons they would not seriously challenge the conviction for the offence under Section 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908 and would be satisfied if the conviction for the offence under Section 120(b) of IPC and under Section 25(1-A) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959, alone are set aside.However, as regards the sentences imposed for the offence under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, he wanted the sentences to be reduced from five years to the period already undergone.He wanted this Court to dismiss the revision petition in toto and affirm the Judgment passed by the Court below.I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the entire evidence on record.The prosecution would claim that this information turned out to be accurate, as the petitioners were intercepted when they were coming in that vehicle.After the vehicle was seized, it was P.W.7, who applied for return of the vehicle and got it back.When he was examined during trial, he had brought the vehicle also to the Court.He testified that he was the owner of the vehicle and that the vehicle was lost some time in 2005, when he hadhttp://www.judis.nic.in 7 parked the same in front of his house.He claimed that in that regard, he lodged a complaint before Keelapalur Police Station.He was cross examined as to when he lodged the complaint before the Police.P.W.7 claimed that his vehicle was lost some time in march 2005 and that he searched for the same for two or three days and since it could not be located, he lodged the complaint.He was not aware as to whether any First Information Report was registered.He stated that no receipt was issued and he did not know what were the steps taken by the Police.A specific suggestion was put to him that he never lodged any complaint and that no case was registered and that he was acting at the behest of the Q- Branch Police.Of course, this suggestion was formally denied by the said witness.10.P.W.7 is an agriculturist.If his two wheeler had actually been stolen in the manner suggested by him, he would definitely not have kept quiet and he would have made insurance claim and he would have got an FIR registered and pursued the matter, but nothing had happened.The testimony of P.W.7 appears to be highly artificial and doubtful.It could not have inspired the confidence of any prudent person.I find considerable force in the submission of the petitioners' counsel that P.W.7 is a convenient witness set up by the Police and his vehicle had been procured for the purpose of falsely implicating the petitioner's herein.According to the prosecution, the accused were arrested athttp://www.judis.nic.in 8 around 1.00 p.m. at Trichy to Kumbakonam main road and that the offending Material Objects were seized from the petitioners herein.In order to establish the same, the prosecution examined some witnesses.P.W.1 is the star witness.He is none other than the Sub Inspector of Police, Q-Branch, Thanjavur, who is said to have received the original information about the implication of the petitioners herein.P.W.2-Rajendran, who accompanied P.W.1 is also a Sub Inspector of Police working in the very same Q-Branch.P.W.3-Arjunan, is the Village Administrative Officer of Nanjikottai.He would claim that on 20.03.2007 at about 1.00 p.m., he and his Village Assistant Thatchinamurthy, were going in the said road for Tax collection.He found a small group and when he enquired, he noticed that they were Q-Branch Police.P.W.3-Arjunan claims that he introduced himself and he signed in the relevant mahazars.P.W.4 is the Head Constable working in Q-Branch.Thus, excepting these official witnesses, not even a single independente witness has been examined to prove the prosecution case of the accused and interception of the petitioners herein.It is beyond dispute that it was a busy main road and it was not an odd hour.Therefore, the non-examination of a single independent witness throws a serious doubt on the entire prosecution case.The first petitioner herein had filed two writ petitions before the Madras High Court making serious allegations against some top officials of the Tamil Nadu Police.According to the petitioners, the present case was filed against them as a counter blast.I am not giving any finding on this contention and I am only recording the submission made by the petitioners' counsel.12.As already pointed out, the petitioners counsel had stated that he would be satisfied if the petitioners are not re-sent to prison and they are given substantial relief.Almost, 12 years have elapsed and the petitioners have not come under the adverse notice of the prosecution ever since.They had been in custody well for more than one year and six months.1.The Inspector of Police, Q-Branch, C.I.D., Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 12 G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.R.C.(MD)No.54 of 2010
|
['Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
43,153,627 |
as (Allowed).C.R.M. 11977 of 2019 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 11.12.2019 in connection with Goghat P. S. Case No.303 of 2019 dated 22.10.2019 under Sections 448/354B/506 of the Indian Penal Code.In the matter of : Sanjay Digar....for the Petitioners.This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
43,156,035 |
The applicant, along with one Mohd. Salim (hereinafter referred to as '"co-accused") faced trial being Sessions Trial No. 307/1994 under Section 457 r/w Section 376 (2) (g) of the Indian Penal Code before learned 6th Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as "Trial Judge").Learned trial Judge conducted the trial and acquitted co-accused Mohd. Salim.He convicted the present applicant under Section 457 of the Indian Penal ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:46:20 ::: 2 Code and ordered him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-.it was also ordered that in default of payment of fine he will suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.So far as charge under Section 376 (2) (g), the learned trial Judge convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced the applicant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-.It was also ordered that in default of payment of fine, the applicant has to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.The learned trial Judge ordered that the substantive sentences should run concurrently.::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:46:20 :::The learned Sessions Judge, Nagpur by judgment and order dated 01.04.2008 dismissed the appeal.Against these two orders, applicant has filed present revision application.::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:46:20 :::The prosecution case in brief is as under.Between the night of 14.07.1994 and 15.07.1994 the complainant-prosecutrix Narmada (PW6) was residing in a small hut at Hamid Nagar along with her child aged about 4 years.According to the prosecution, the applicant and co-accused entered the house of prosecutrix Narmada (PW6) and the present applicant raped Narmada (PW6).According to the prosecution, at the relevant time, co-accused Mohd. Salim was very much present over there and he had taken charge of the child of Narmada (PW6) and keeping the guard over the situation.Said Narmada (PW6) filed First Information Report at the Police Station, Panchpaoli Nagpur on 15.07.1994 in the afternoon.Investigation was conducted on the strength of the first information report and ultimately charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court and that the applicant and co-accused faced the trial.In the course of investigation, formalities such as medical examination of Narmada (PW6) and present applicant were followed.Scene of offence panchanama was also recorded at Exh.-22 As it was the case of Narmada (PW6) that soon after the incident she approached her god-brother Khalil to inform him about the incident, statement of said Khalil was recorded.Charandas Patne (PW3) is also a person, whose statement was recorded in the course of investigation.However, he has been declared as hostile.Rajesh (PW4) is a panch, who had participated in Panchanama as regards taking blood sample of Narmada etc. Karuna Sahare (PW5) is the Lady Police Constable, who had taken Narmada (PW6) to the Mayo Hospital for Medical Examination.Maroti Parbat (PW7), is the person, who was then attached to Panchpaoli Police Station as Sub Inspector, who has conducted part of investigation.(PW8) Bhaskar Tidke is another Police Officer, who had conducted part of investigation.::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:46:20 :::::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:46:20 :::I have, with the assistance of learned Advocates of both the sides, perused the entire record.He advanced a similar argument with reference to the evidence of Purvinda (PW3).By drawing my attention to the evidence of these two witnesses, he pointed out that except the bare testimony of Narmada (PW6), there is no evidence on record to support the case of the prosecution.Learned Advocate Mr. Rizvy had, therefore, submitted that it would be unsafe to accept testimony of Narmada (PW6) and base conviction of the applicant for a serious crime punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:46:20 :::Learned Advocate Mr. Rizvy had drawn my attention to the evidence of Narmada (PW6) and submitted that her evidence will have to be treated as unreliable as the manner in which the incident is deposed by her, would not take place so.He also submitted that Narmada (PW6) was not firm about the identity of the persons, who are said to have entered the house because she has stated that she did not know names of the persons, who had entered the house but she knew that they are persons from the same locality.He had pointed out that though Narmada (PW6) argued that a lamp was burning in her house at the time of incident at the scene of offence, while drawing Panchanama, said lamp has not been recovered by the Police.Learned Advocate Mr. Rizvy, therefore, submitted that taking entire evidence on record the words of Narmada (PW6) are required to be disbelieved and the applicant is entitled to acquittal.According to him, the courts below erred in relying upon the evidence and that is how this criminal revision ought to be granted.::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:46:20 :::The learned ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:46:20 ::: 8 A.P.P Mr. Kale had submitted that evidence of Narmada (PW6) that she knew the persons as resident of locality was sufficient so as to fix the identity of present applicant.The learned A.P.P. Mr. Kale submitted that in the absence of contradictions and omissions on record, it is not open for this Court to compare the text of the first information report and evidence and arrive at conclusion contrary to what has been done by the Courts below when the Courts below have appreciated the evidence, as it appears on record, in proper perspective.The learned A.P.P. Mr. Kale had submitted that the argument advanced by learned Advocate Mr. Rizvy is liable to be rejected and the revision should be dismissed.::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:46:20 :::::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:46:20 :::It would be necessary to consider the case of the prosecution as a whole and then decide the matter on merits.The witness namely Khalil (PW1) and Purvinda (PW2) were cited by the prosecution as persons to whom the incident was narrated by Narmada (PW6).These two witnesses had not supported the prosecution inasmuch both Khalil (PW1) and Purvinda (PW2) were declared hostile and their deposition is of no use to the prosecution.It is true that the evidence with reference to Chemical Analyzer's report also does not support the prosecution.What remains on record to be considered is the evidence of Narmada (PW6).::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:46:20 :::Having perused to the evidence of Narmada (PW6), Narmada in her evidence, in no uncertain terms speaks as to how incident took place, as to how applicant and co-accused entered the house, as to how applicant indulged in sexual intercourse with her, as to how co-accused kept situation under control and as to how they ran away after the incident.So far as the question of the identity of the present applicant and co-accused is ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:46:20 ::: 11 concerned, Narmada (PW6) has categorically deposed that, she knew the persons as residents of same locality.::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:46:20 :::She fairly admitted that she does not know their full names.The argument advanced by learned Advocate Mr. Rizvy that there is variance in the first information report, which has been lodged and the oral testimony and on that count evidence of Narmada (PW6) should be discarded.I am not ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:46:20 ::: 12 inclined to accept this argument.In order to show that Narmada (PW6) was not telling the truth and that too with the help of the first information report, it was necessary to bring omissions and contradictions on record so as to create a situation whereby one could look to the evidence of Narmada (PW6) with doubt.Having gone through the evidence of Narmada (PW6), no contradictions or omissions have been brought on record, as a result, evidence Narmada is required to be termed as cogent.::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:46:20 :::It must be mentioned that the ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:46:20 ::: 13 learned trial Judge as well as learned Sessions Judge have rightly appreciated evidence of Narmada (PW6) and have based their findings.::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:46:20 :::On the question of sentence, no doubt the learned Advocate Mr. Rizvy had argued for leniency to the applicant and even it was sought to be suggested that the applicant can be let off on payment of fine.This argument has been rightly objected to by learned A.P.P.::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:46:20 :::Insofar as conviction under Section 457 also he is imposed minimum quantum of punishment and that he has ordered that both these sentences should run concurrently though it was open for him to order that sentence could run consecutively.In my view, the question has been dealt with in a lenient manner on the basis of record and no interference is required on the point of quantum of sentence.For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, revision is required to be dismissed.Hence, the following order.The revision is dismissed.JUDGE kahale ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:46:20 :::::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:46:20 :::
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 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.