id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
431,680 |
(1) The first accused is the son of the accused No.2 and 3 and accusedNo.3 is the wife of the second accused.PW.2 is the wife of the deceased.PW.1is the elder brother of the deceased.The deceased purchased a piece of landfrom the 2nd accused.Even thereafter, possession was not handed over to thedeceased.The 2nd accused went on cultivating the same.When PW.1 questionedabout the conduct of the second accused, he beat him in the last occasion.The deceased questioned the conduct of the second accused incontinuing to retain possession of the land and further asked to divide the landand hand over that part which was sold to him.(iii) On 1.9.2005 at about 9.30 p.m. hearing the noise from the house ofthe deceased, when PW.1 whose house was nearby to that of the deceased, went tothe house of the deceased, the 3rd accused was pushing down the neck of thedeceased and as a result of which, the deceased fell down; the first accusedattacked on his head with a wooden log while 2nd accused attacked the deceasedon his neck.On seeing this, PW.1 raised alarm.At that time, PW.1 was alsoattacked by the accused and he had also sustained injuries in the incident.(iv) The entire occurrence was witnessed by PW.1, PW.2 and others.PW.5and PW.6 saw the accused running away from the place of the occurrence alongwith wooden logs.As a result of attack, the deceased died instantaneously.PW.1 gave Ex.P.1 report to PW.14 Inspectorof Police and on the strength of which a case came to be registered in CrimeNo.205 of 2005 under Sections 302 and 323 IPC.F.I.R. Ex.P.11 was despatched tothe Court and higher officials.(vi) PW.14 took up investigation and proceeded to the place of occurrence,made an inspection and prepared an Observation Mahazer Ex.The dead bodyof the deceased was sent for post-mortem along with a requisition.(vii) The dead body of the deceased was subjected to post-mortem by PW.10Doctor, attached to Kulithalai Government Hospital.After conducting autopsy,he issued a post-mortem Certificate Ex.P.8 wherein he opined that the deceasedwould appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury tovital organ of brain and skull about 18 to 19 hours prior to post-mortem.(viii) PW.1 was examined in the same hospital by Doctor PW.10, who foundinjuries as noted in the Accident Register Copy Ex.P.9, issued by him.(ix) On 3.9.2005 both the accused A.2 and A.3 were arrested in thepresence of PW.8 by the investigator.During the course of investigation, A.2voluntarily gave a confessional statement and the admissible portion of theconfessional statement was marked as Ex.P.3 and pursuant to the confession, heproduced MO.2, which was recovered under the cover of mahazer Ex.(Judgment of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM,J) Challenge is made to the Judgment of the Sessions Division, Karur made inS.C.No.42 of 2006 whereby the appellants 3 in number stood charged, tried andfound guilty as per the charges, and awarded imprisonment for life and a fine ofRs.1,000/- with a default sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment underSections 302 r/w 34 IPC and one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine ofRs.250/- along with default sentence of one month rigorous imprisonment underSection 323 IPC.On comingto know that the first accused was surrendered before the Court, PW.14 Inspectorof Police had taken out the first accused for police custody on 23.9.2005.During the course of investigation in the presence of PW.9, A.1 voluntarily gavea confessional statement and the admissible part of that confessional statementwas marked as Ex.P.5 and pursuant to the confession, he produced a wooden logMO.1, which was recovered under the cover of mahazer Ex.(x) On completion of the investigation, the investigator filed a finalreport against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 r/w 34IPC and 323 IPC.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, theprosecution examined 14 witnesses and relied on 13 Exhibits and 6 MOs.Oncompletion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused wasquestioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating circumstances found inthe evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which were flatly denied on the partof the accused.No defence witness was examined.The trial Court after hearingthe arguments advanced by either side and on considering the materials availableon record, took the view that the prosecution has proved its case beyondreasonable doubts and found the accused guilty of the offence and imposedpunishment as referred to above.Hence, the appeal arose at the instance of theaccused/appellants.Advancing arguments on behalf of the accused/appellants, the learnedcounsel appearing for the appellant, inter alia, would make the followingsubmissions:-According to theprosecution, PW.1 and PW.2 have seen the occurrence and PW.5 and PW.6 have seenthe accused running away from the place of occurrence.But, it is pertinent to pointout that no corresponding injuries were found in the medical certificate insofaras the deceased is concerned.Hence, all these witnesses could not have seenthe occurrence at all.(iii) All these accused were accused of charges under Section 302 r/w 34IPC as if they had got a common intention to share with the crime.But, therewas no common intention at all from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.It is clear that on the previous day, not only a wordy altercation took placebetween the deceased and the accused parties but also scuffling and on the nextday, the occurrence had taken place.(iv) In the instant case, the evidence put-forth through the witnessesare inconsistent to each other and the recovery of Material Objects cannot betrue but false.(v) The medical evidence did not support the case of the prosecution.Thus, the prosecution had no evidence worth mentioning.(vi) Insofar as the Material Objects recovered from A.2 and A.3, they werenot lethal weapons but they were only wooden sticks and only one injury wascaused on the head and it was not intentional.Had it been the real intentionof the appellants, they would have stabbed with deadly weapons but they haveattacked with sticks only.Thus, the act of the accused A.2 and A.3 would notattract the penal provision of murder and hence it has got to be considered bythis Court.Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State onthe above contentions.The Court paid its utmost attention to the submissions and made athorough scrutiny on the entire materials available on record.It is not in controversy that the deceased one Annadurai, brother ofPW.1 and the husband of PW.2 following the incident that took place on the dateof occurrence i.e. on 1.9.2005 at 9.30 p.m. had died.Following the inquestmade by the investigator PW.14, the dead body of the deceased was subjected topost-mortem by the Doctor PW.10 and he has clearly opined in his post-mortemCertificate Ex.P.8 that the deceased would appear to have died of shock andhaemorrhage as a result of injury to vital organ of brain and skull about 18 to19 hours prior to post-mortem.The fact that the deceased Annadurai died out ofhomicidal violence was never questioned by the accused/appellants and it has gotto be recorded so.The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charges levelled againstthe accused, has examined 4 eye-witnesses and out of whom, PW.1 was an injuredwitness.It is true, it is a well settled position of law that in a given caselike this, when a witness happens to be the injured witness, his/her evidenceshould not be discarded without sufficient reason or circumstance.In theinstant case, PW.1 though has sustained 3 injuries at the hands of the accused,and Accident Register Copy issued in respect of PW.1 was marked as Ex.P.9, hisevidence in respect of A.2 and A.3 that they attacked the deceased cannot beaccepted for the simple reason that no corresponding injuries were found.Further, there is nothing to indicate that they had got any common intention toshare with the crime.In the instant case, the Court is unable to notice anycase against A.2 and A.3 and they are entitled to be acquitted of the charges.Insofar as A.1, he has attacked with a wooden log on the head of thedeceased and the deceased sustained fracture on the head and the deceased diedof shock and haemorrhage due to injury to vital organ of brain and skull,according to medical opinion.This part is clearly spoken to by PW.1 and PW.2that A.1 attacked him on the skull and apart from that PW.5 and PW.6 have alsoseen the accused running away from the scene of occurrence along with a woodenlog.The fatal injury caused by A.1 was supported by the medical opinion.To thatextent, the prosecution has proved its case.PW.1 sustained injuries andEx.P.9 Accident Register Copy was issued in that regard and he was giventreatment.PW.1 was the proper and competent witness to speak on theoccurrence.Coming to the act of the accused A.1, as rightly contended by thelearned counsel for the appellants/accused, it would not attract the penalprovision of murder for the simple reason that he had attacked only once thattoo with a wooden log on the head.Taking into consideration all thecircumstances, the act of the accused would only attract the penal provision ofculpable homicide not amounting to murder and it will be appropriate to convicthim under the provision of Section 304 (Part I) IPC and awarding 7 yearsrigorous imprisonment would meet the ends of justice.In the result, the conviction and sentence imposed on A.1 undersections 302 r/w 34 IPC is modified and A.1 is convicted under Section 304 (PartI) IPC and awarded 7 years rigorous imprisonment.Insofar as Section 323 IPC,both the conviction and sentence have got to be affirmed and accordingly, theyare affirmed in respect of A.1 alone.The sentences are to run concurrently.The period of imprisonment already undergone by the first appellant/A.1 shall begiven set off.Insofar, the appellants 2 and 3 / A.2 and A.3, they areacquitted of the charges and the judgment of the trial Court against theappellants 2 and 3 is set aside and fine amount, if any, was already paidby them, it shall be refunded to them.Bail bonds executed by the appellants 2and 3 stand cancelled.The criminal appeal is partly allowed.1.The Sessions Judge, Karur.2.Inspector of Police, Thokamalai Police Station Karur District.(Crime No.205/2005)3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
171,737,801 |
Prakash reached the spot where Sh.CRL.L.P. 48/2020 Page 1 of 15Mahadev Prasad Sahu met him and he gave his statement to the effect that he was permanent resident of VPO Kakardob, PS Loukahi, District Madhubani, Bihar and at present he was residing at G-30, 3rd floor, JJ colony, Shakurpur, Delhi as a tenant at the house of Gopal.He was working as a driver at Hisariya Transport, Lawrence Road, Delhi.His co-villager Surat Lal Sahu aged about 55-60 years used to reside at H. No. G-7, 2nd Floor, Shakurpur, Delhi and he was in the business of lending money in small amounts.He and some other persons resident of his village and his neighbouring village used to visit Surat Lal Sahu for sending money to their family members residing at their native villages.They used to give money to Surat Lal Sahu and in turn Surat Lal Sahu used to send money to their family members and their family members used to collect that amount from the native house of Surat Lal Sahu at Bihar.On 07.12.2012 at about 10pm, he received a phone call of BechanSahu S/o Surat Lal Sahu and he informed him that he is unable to contact his father on telephone and asked him to go to the house of his father to see him.He informed BechanSahu that at that time, he was at Rai Sonepat.BechanSahu telephonically contacted him number of times that night but his transport vehicle could not be unloaded in the night at Rai Sonepat as such, he returned Delhi and reached home next day morning i.e. on 08.12.2012 at about 09.30am.Thereafter, he called his landlord Gopal and then he and Gopal went to the house of Surat Lal Sahu i.e. G-7, 2nd floor, Shakurpur, Delhi.There they found a lock on gate of balcony and when they peeped through the main gate, they saw that the door of room was found bolted from outside and one pair of shoes belonging to Surat Lal Sahu were lying outside the gate of room and one mobile phone was also lying outside the gate of the room.After seeing this, landlord Gopal broke open the lock of the gate of balcony and also opened the bolt (Kundi) of the room and then they saw that Surat Lal Sahu was lying dead on the cot which CRL.L.P. 48/2020 Page 2 of 15 was there in the said room and one towel of red color was found tied around his neck and specs were there on his eyes.Some coins and currency notes were lying near Surat Lal Sahu.The learned Trial Courtin reference to the last seen theory has held as under:".... In order to substantiate this circumstance, the prosecution has examined Pintu Kumar Yadav as PW6 who has deposed that he used to send money to his parents and family members at his place of Bihar through deceased Surat Lal Sahu.On 06.12.2012 at CRL.L.P. 48/2020 Page 4 of 15 about 7:30 pm, he reached the residence of Surat Lal Sahu i.e. H. No. G-7, 2nd floor, JJ Colony, Shakarpur, Delhi and handed over Rs. 20,000/- cash to him to deliver the same to his family members at his native place.When he reached the room of the deceased Surat Lal Sahu, accused Om Prakash was already present there.After delivering Rs. 20,000/- to Surat Lal Sahu, he made call on the mobile number of BechanSahuS/o Surat Lal Sahu and BechanSahu then had a talk with Surat Lal Sahu during the said call.On 07.12.2012, he again telephonically contacted Bechan Prasad Sahu and asked him if the said amount of Rs. 20,000/- has been delivered to his family members or not to which Bechan Prasad Sahu realized that his father's mobile phone is switched off and he is unable to contact his father.On 09.12.2012, when he reached the PS, he came to know that someone had killed Surat Lal Sahu by strangulating his throat.The testimony of PW6 with regard to making call to Bechan Prasad Sahu after delivering cash of Rs. 20,000/- to deceased finds corroboration from testimony of PW7 who deposed that on 06.12.2012 at about 7:30pm, one Pintu Kumar resident of district Madhubani, Bihar telephonically informed him on his mobile number 9661932245 from his mobile number 7428963029 that he had given Rs 20,000/- to his father.He also made him talk with his father on his said mobile and his father informed him that Pintu had given Rs. 20,000 to him.PW6 was cross-examined by the ld. Defence counsel but nothing could be elicited from him to shake his creditworthiness.It has been proved on record that after 06.12.2012 deceased was nether seen alive nor contacted by any person.PW7, son of the deceased has proved that on 07.12.2012, he tried to contact his father, but he could not contact him as both of his mobile phones were found to be switched off."When I reached at the room of Surat Lal Sahu, accused Om Parkash Yadav present in the court today (correctly identified) was already present at the room of deceased Surat Lal Sahu and he introduced himself to be resident of MansapurBalwa.After delivering Rs.20,000/- to Surat Lal Sahu, I made a call on the mobile number of BechanSahu s/o Surat Lal Sahu and BechanSahu then had a talk with Surat Lal Sahu during said call.I do not remember the complete telephone number of BechanSahu.In his cross-examination, PW-6 has deposed that:He was known to me being the resident of a village near to my village.Earlier, I used to deliver money to Surat Lal Sahu for sending the same to my family members at Kalu Hotel, Lawrence Road after telephonically contacting him as he used to roam in the area of Lawrence Road."11. PW-7 in his examination-in-chief has deposed as under:"On 06.12.2012 at about 7.30pm, one Pintu Kumar Yadav s/o Amrender Yadav r/o Village SiswaBadahi, PS Phul Paras, District Madhubani, Bihar contacted me on my mobile bearing No. 9661932245 from his mobile number 7428963029 and informed me that he had given Rs.20,000/- to my father which my father will deposit in my account and further asked me to hand over the said amount to his family members after withdrawing the same from my account.He also made me talk with my father on his said mobile and my father informed me that Pintu had given Rs.20,000/- to him.I was driving motorcycle at that time, as such, I told my father that I CRL.L.P. 48/2020 Page 6 of 15 will talk to him later.After reaching home, I took dinner and thereafter, I went to sleep.CRL.L.P. 48/2020 Page 6 of 15Next day i.e. on 07.12.2012, I tried to contact my father on his above mentioned two mobile phones but his both the mobile phones were found switched off, as such, I could not contact him."The perusal of the testimony of PW-6 reflects that the accused was present at the room of deceased Surat Lal Sahu and he introduced himself to be resident of MansapurBalwa.The said fact finds corroboration from the testimony of PW-7 who has deposed that"he also made me talk with my father on his said mobile and my father informed me that Pintu had given Rs.20,000/- to him.The next contention of the learned APP for the state is related to the recovery of the Aircel SIM (Ex. 18/P1), mobile phone Nokia 1280 (Ex. 18/P2), Mobile Phone Nokia 1200 (Ex.18/P3), Samsung mobile phone 5302, cash of Rs. 15,000/- and bag (Ex.19/P1) at the instance of the accused on which,the learned APP has argued that the recoveries have been duly corroborated by the prosecution witnesses.In this regard, we deem it necessary to refer to the testimony of PW- 40 (ASI BholaPaswan) who is a witness to the recovery at the instance of the accused.PW-40 in his examination-in-chief has deposed as follows: -"On 24.12.2012, I was posted at PS Town Chhapra, Bihar as ASI.On that day, SI M.P. Saini along with CRL.L.P. 48/2020 Page 7 of 15 police staff of Delhi police and accused Om Prakash Yadav came to PS Town Chhapra.I joined the investigation with SI M.P. Saini and we all went to H.No.294-L. Village Karim Chak, where one lady namely Afreen @ NaistaParveen met us and she had produced one SIM card to SI M.P. Saini.The same is already Ex.18/P-1."CRL.L.P. 48/2020 Page 8 of 15In his cross-examination he has stated:"From the house of Afreen, one SIM card and one black colour bag containing mobile phones, cash and invoice were recovered at the instance of accused.We had remained at the house of Afreen for about 2-2 hours.It is incorrect to suggest that I have no knowledge about this case or that I have not joined the investigation of this case.Four-five police officials of Delhi police had come to PS Chhapra Town.I along with said Delhi police officials left PS Chhapra Town at about 5.00 pm for going to the house of Afreen.My statement was recorded by the IO at the house of Afreen.IO had recorded the statement of other witnesses regarding the investigation conducted at the house of Afreen at Chhapra.We had visited the house of Afreen only once.HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, JBy the present Leave Petition filed under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') the State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 25.09.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-04, North West District, RohiniCourts, New Delhi, whereby the respondent (accused before the Trial Court) was acquitted of the offences punishable underSections393/302/411of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC').The brief facts of the case, as stated by the learned Trial Court are reproduced as under:"...that on receiving of DD No.12A, SI Umesh Rana along with Ct.On the basis of said statement, the present case vide FIR No. 478/12, u/s. 302 IPC was registered at PS Subhash Place."CRL.L.P. 48/2020 Page 2 of 15After completion of investigation, charge sheet was prepared under Section 392/302/411 IPC against the respondent.After hearing arguments on charge, vide order dated 21.05.2013, charge under Section 393/302/411 IPC was framed against respondent, to which the respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.He had not made any disclosure statement and he never led the police to any place at any point of time.He was not having any money transaction with the deceased.Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, learned APP for the State contends thatthe impugned judgment dated 25.09.2019 was based on imagination, conjectures and surmises; that the view taken by the learned Trial Court is contrary to the facts of the present case and the established principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and that the prosecution had successfully proved its case against the respondents for the charged offences beyond any reasonable doubt.CRL.L.P. 48/2020 Page 3 of 15The Ld.APP further contends that perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that the evidence; circumstantial and last seen theory coupled with recovery of case property and the scientific evidence in form of CDR and CAF, as surfaced during the trial has not been properly evaluated and appreciated and there is no contradiction in testimony of PW-40/ BholaPaswan , regarding recovery of case property at the instance of the respondent.We have heard the learned APP for the State at length and carefully examined the impugned judgment alongwith the material available on record.It is settled law that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the respondent.Hence it is imperative to refer to the circumstances which have been dealt by the learned Trial Court.LAST SEEN THEORYThis is an important link which points towards the guilt of the respondent.PW7 telephonically contacted his co- villagers Mahadev/PW5, Ramdev/PW-12, Vishnu Dev/PW13 and one Pramod who could not contact the deceased.In view of the above discussion, it has been CRL.L.P. 48/2020 Page 5 of 15 proved on record that deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused Om Prakash on 06.12.2012 at about 7:30pm."CRL.L.P. 48/2020 Page 4 of 15CRL.L.P. 48/2020 Page 5 of 1510. PW-6 in his examination-in-chief has deposed as follows:IO prepared the pulanda of said SIM card and sealed it and thereafter seized the pulanda vide seizure memo Ex.PW18/A, bears my signature at point C. IO recorded the statement of Afreen.Thereafter, accused led us to the house of Maulvi at ImliMohalla, Karim Chak, where one lady namely AjmeriKhatoon met us who handed over one mobile phone make Nokia 1200, to the IO.IO prepared pulanda of said mobile phone, sealed the same with the seal of MPS and seized it vide seizure memo Ex.PW19/C. IO recorded the statement of AjmeriKhatoon.Thereafter, from the said house, accused Om Prakash took out one mobile phone make Nokia 1280 from a black color bag.IO checked the bag and it was found containing one mobile phone make Samsung and cash worth Rs.15,000/- and invoice of Samsung mobile phone.IO prepared the separate pulandas of said articles, sealed the pulandas with the seal of MPS and seized them vide seizure memos already Ex.PW19/A, Ex.PW19/B, Ex.PW19/D and Ex.PW19/D, all signed by me at point C. The invoice of Samsung mobile is already Ex.PW3/A. IO recorded my statement.Accused Om Parkash Yadav is present in the court today, (correctly identified).I can identify the case property if shown to me.CRL.L.P. 48/2020 Page 7 of 15The SIM is shown to the witness and witness correctly identifies the same, which was handed over by Ms.Aafreen @ CRL.L.P. 48/2020 Page 8 of 15 NaistaParveen to the IO in his presence.We remained at the house of AjmeriKhatoon for about 15-20 minutes.Thereafter, we left for PS."A perusal of the examination and cross-examination of PW-40 (ASI BholaPaswan), we are of the view that there exists material contradiction in his testimony which have been reproduced below: - S. No Examination in Chief Cross- Examination1. Went to H.No.294-L. Village From the house of Afreen, Karim Chak, where one lady one SIM card and one namely Afreen @ black colour bag NaistaParveen met us and she containing mobile phones, had produced one SIM card to cash and invoice were SI M.P. Saini.recovered at the instance of accused.We had remained at the house of CRL.L.P. 48/2020 Page 9 of 15 Afreen for about 2-2 hours.CRL.L.P. 48/2020 Page 9 of 15Thereafter, accused led us to We had visited the house of the house of Maulvi at Afreen only once.We ImliMohalla, Karim Chak, remained at the house of where one lady namely AjmeriKhatoon for about AjmeriKhatoon met us who 15-20 minutes.Thereafter, handed over one mobile phone we left for PS." make Nokia 1200, to the IO.from the said house, accused Om Prakash took out one mobile phone make Nokia 1280 from a black color bag.IO checked the bag and it was found containing one mobile phone make Samsung and cash worth Rs.15,000/- and invoice of Samsung mobile phone.Hence, in terms of the above discussion, we are of the view that the recovery of the Aircel SIM (Ex. 18/P1), Mobile Phone Nokia 1280 (Ex. 18/P2), Mobile Phone Nokia 1200 (Ex.18/P3), Mobile Phone Samsung 5302, cash of Rs. 15,000/- and bag (Ex.19/P1)effected at the instance of the accused are highly doubtful and the prosecution has failed to prove the same beyond reasonable doubt.It is pertinent to note that the present case is based on circumstantial evidence and therefore the chain of circumstances so formed should be unhindered, i.e. the chain of circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap in the chain of evidence.The case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances and the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negate the CRL.L.P. 48/2020 Page 10 of 15 innocence of the accused and bring the offences home beyond any reasonable doubt.CRL.L.P. 48/2020 Page 10 of 15
|
['Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
171,744,784 |
Brief facts giving rise to the petition are that on 23/12/2010 Sheel Kumar (son of the deceased) got registered Dehati Nalishi (Marg) that his father Chandrabhan Singh on 20/12/2010 had gone to the residence of his sister Sushilabai at village Ikodiya on a motorcycle bearing registration No. MP08 L-6846 but has not come back yet and today he (complainant) has received information that the said motorcycle was found lying next to village Gazipur and the dead-body of his father was lying on the road.Thereafter, the said Sheel Kumar had informed that he alongwith Santosh arrived at the spot where police registered Dehati Marg vide Ex.P/16 followed by preparation of Naksha Panchnama (Ex.P/18).It was found that the dead-body had various antemortem injuries.During investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded and spot map was prepared.The motorcycle of the deceased was seized by seizure- memo Ex.P/20 and during seizure blood stains were found on the handle and petrol tank of the motorcycle.On 27/12/2010 shirt pant and muffler of the deceased were recovered from one Hazrat Singh in presence of witnesses Balram Singh and Hariram vide seizure- memo (Ex.P/44).During investigation, statements of witnesses, Sheel Kumar (complainant), Rekhabai, Hazrat Singh, Balram Singh and Hariram were recorded.Dead-body of the deceased was sent for postmortem.Autopsy conducted by Dr. Sudhir Rathore (PW-2) opined cause of death to be coma due to head injury.& ASHOK KUMAR JOSHI, J.*** (Misc.Case No. 6508/17) State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.Chhatar Singh and othersShri Pramod Pachori, Public Prosecutor for the petitioner- State.None for the respondents.Order (Passed on 22/8/2017) SHEEL NAGU, J. -Though vide order dated 17/7/2017 time was granted to the State to file an application for condonation of delay but considering the fact that petition for leave to appeal was filed on 19/6/2017 and the judgment under challenge was passed on 8/3/2017 and thereafter 6 days elapsed in between applying and receiving certified copy of the impugned judgment, the instant petition seems to be filed within the prescribed period of limitation.Accordingly, the State counsel is heard on the question of grant of leave.The present petition filed by the State u/S. 378(3) Cr.P.C., seeks leave to file appeal against the judgment dated 8/3/2017 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Guna (M.P.) acquitting 2 Mcrc.6508/17 the respondents-accused of the offences punishable u/Ss. 302, 201 and 120-B of I.P.C.Statements of the witnesses u/S. 161 Cr.P.C. which were recorded during investigation by the police disclosed the motive as accused Vimlabai having illicit relationship with accused Chhatar Singh and Shankar Singh and accused Chhatar Singh having taken possession of the agricultural land of Hazrat Singh, brother of the deceased.This motive was linked with call details collected during investigation.After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the 3 Mcrc.6508/17 court of competent jurisdiction.On committal to the court of Sessions Court, charges punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B of I.P.C. were framed.The respondents abjured guilt and sought trial.The prosecution in support of it's case examined various witnesses whose details are mentioned in para 5 of the impugned judgment.However, no evidence was produced by the accused in defence.After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this court noticed that the entire prosecution case hinged upon circumstantial evidence with no eye-witness and the motive of the illicit relationship and taking over of possession of agricultural land of the brother of deceased Hazrat Singh by the accused Chhatar Singh.The testimony of the prosecution witnesses did not corroborate each other and there were number of contradictions, embellishments and improvements.As such, the learned trial court found the witnesses produced by the prosecution to be untrustworthy and the chain of circumstantial evidence to be incomplete.The seizure of mobile did not precede following of prescribed procedure for seizing the article.There was no verification of the call-details relied upon.FSL report, Ex.P/6 opined human blood on the spot but the blood group was not mentioned.The blood stains found on the motorcycle as per the inquest report were not sent for chemical analysis.More so, the trial court found that both the seizure witnesses did not belong to the village where the incident took place.The story regarding motive arising out of illicit relationship of respondent-accused Vimlabai with another person, despite the said Vimlalabai continuing to stay with her husband Hazrat Singh, was found untrustworthy being against normal human behaviour that the said Hazrat Singh could not have continued to stay with his wife even after coming to know about her illicit relations with another 4 Mcrc.6508/17 person.8.1 More so, there was no cogent and reliable piece of evidence to support the story of illicit relationship.The other story projected in support of the element of motive that respondent-accused Chhatar Singh got transferred in his favour land of Hazrat Singh, which was being tilled by accused Shankar Singh was also disbelieved due to absence of any cogent documentary evidence.8.2 The trial court also found total absence of evidence in regard to the exact place where the murder took place.Himachal Pradesh (AIR 1973 SC 2773) and Worke Josef Vs.State of Kerala (AIR 1993 SC 1892) found that the evidence produced by the prosecution was not only insufficient but also untrustworthy to hold the respondents guilty of the offence of murder beyond all reasonable doubts.After going through the evidence recorded and assessed by the trial court and hearing the learned counsel for the State on the question of admission, this court does not find any illegality or impropriety in the findings recorded by the impugned judgment.
|
['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,717,499 |
The accused appeared and continued to participate in the proceedings.ORDER O.P. Jain, J.This is an application for leave to appeal in a case of acquittal under Sections 468, 469 and 471 IPC.Applicant Ram Surat Duvedi is a Lecturer in an Educational Institution and accused Ram Kumar Trivedi is the Principal of the institution.The first complaint was filed by Ram Surat Duvedi in 1978 alleging that the Principal, Ram Kumar Trivedi, has fabricated a resignation letter purporting to be signed by Ram Surat Duvedi.It was alleged by the complainant that the resignation letter is a forged one and therefore the Principal should be punished for forgery.The first complaint was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. on 16-1 -1979 with the observation that the complainant's counsel pleaded no instructions and the complainant himself is absent.As there was no evidence under Section 202 Cr.P.C. the Court dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. on 9-4-1979 the complainant Filed the second complaint and his statement was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. After examining two witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. the case was registered and the accused was summoned.The complainant examined all his witnesses who were duly cross-examined by the accused.The statement of the accused was recorded and he also led evidence in defence.On 7-9-1981 the Court ordered that the application dated 18-8-1981 will be considered at the time of final arguments because by that time the defence evidence was also over.The accused took time to file a revision.After taking some adjournments the accused filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court which was application No. 5495 of 1981 Ram Kumar Trivedi v. Ram Surat.Under these circumstances the present application for leave to appeal has been filed by the complainant.
|
['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
171,765,524 |
Heard on admission.Perused the record.Applicants have filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the charge-sheet against them for committing the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 336, 506-B read with 34 of I.P.C. in Crime No.92/2015 registered at Police Station Teharka, District Tikamgarh on the grounds that on the date of incident, the respondent no.2 along with some other persons forcibly entered in their house and started marpeet.They also destroyed Government laptop and other articles because the applicant no.2 is the Gram Rojgar Sahayak of the village of Jikhangaon.Therefore, on the report of applicant no.1 police has registered Crime No.93/2015 against the respondent no.2 and other under Sections 492, 294, 323, 506-B, 147 and 148 of I.P.C. after investigation.It appears that a counter case has been lodged by the police on the complaint lodged by both the parties.Copies of MLC reports of the applicants, respondent no.2, Lallu, Harishankar and Shashi Prabha show that both the parties were injured.Hence, with the aforesaid view, this petition is hereby dismissed.(SMT.ANJULI PALO) JUDGE rj Digitally signed by RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Date: 2018.07.20 15:52:17 +05'30' 2 MCRC-27294-2018
|
['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
171,769,072 |
Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.(Delivered by Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.These appeals have been preferred on behalf of the appellants, namely, Sangram Singh, Meher Sagar, Meher Sahai and Khalak Singh as well as Mohan Birthare, Jagbir Singh, Hari Singh @ Babli and Mahesh Yadav against the judgment and order dated 12.12.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhansi in Sessions Trial No.156 of 1996 State Vs.Sangram Singh and others, arising out of case crime no.88 of 1993, Police Station Barua Sagar, District Basti whereby all the appellants have been convicted under Section 302/149 IPC for life imprisonment with fine of Rs.2000/- each, in default of payment of fine, one year simple imprisonment, under Section 148 IPC two years simple imprisonment to each of the appellants.Both the sentences u/S 302/149 and 149 IPC were directed to run concurrently.The prosecution case in a short conspectus is that an FIR was lodged by Gulzari Lal Rai (P.W-1) stating therein that he is a resident of Mohalla Khadi Qasba, Police Station Barua Sagar, District Jhansi.When he along with his son, Sunil on 26.9.1993 were sitting in front of the house of his brother Kamlapat Rai at about 3.45 P.M. Sangram Singh, Meher Sagar, Meher Sahai and Khalak Singh, Mohan Birthare, Jagbir Singh, Hari Singh @ Babli and Mahesh Yadav came in two trucks and two motorcycles from the station road and stopped their vehicles in front of the house of his brother.Meher Sagar, Sangram Singh and Meher Sahai were armed with countrymade pistol, Khalak Singh was armed with rifle, Mahesh was carrying bomb, Mohan Birthare was allegedly carried a bag containing some article, Jagbir was armed with iron rod and Hari Singh @ Babli was armed with hockey came near to them.Accused Sangram Singh asked the complainant that he poses himself leader and used to issue fictitious MM-II receipts and interfered in their contract.At this, the complainant asked the accused persons that they have some misconception, at this all the accused persons had started hurling abuses and vituperative words.When the complainant and others refrained them from doing so, Meher Sagar stated that they have met luckily today hence they should be killed.When the complainant and others tried to run away, accused Khalak Singh, Meher Sagar, Sangram Singh and Meher Sahai fired with their respective weapons i.e. rifle and countrymade pistol, which hit complainant's son Sunil who fell down and died on the spot.On the noise of fire as well as hue and cry, Kamlapat Rai, Surendra Rai, Prakash Ahirwar, Raj Kumar Jogi and Smt. Rataniya Kushwaha, who were present near by came at the spot.They had tried to nab the accused persons by surrounding them.There was ruckus amongst accused persons and they started firing indiscriminately here and there to create terror and ran away.Accused Sangram Singh was apprehended along with loaded countrymade pistol by the neighbours near lane of post office.The dead body of Sunil, the son of the complainant, was lying on the spot.The trucks and motorcycles were also standing at the site of incident.Sangram Singh).After lodging of the FIR, the investigation was handed over to D.L. Sudhir (P.W-5).During the course of investigation, on 26.9.2013 3 live bombs in a bag recovered from the possession of Mahesh Yadav and 2 bombs in a bag from Mohan Birthare as such a case was registered against them punishable u/S 25 of the Explosive Act. A hockey was recovered from accused Babli @ Hari Singh.All of them were arrested.The recovery memo was prepared of the seized articles which were sealed and signed at the spot.The site plan was prepared by the investigating officer which was marked as Ext. Ka-3, memo of bomb marked as Ext. Ka-4, inquest report of the deceased marked as Ext. Ka-5, memo of slippers marked as Ext. Ka-6, sample of blood and plain earth marked as Ext. Ka-7, Form no.13 marked as Ext. Ka-8, Sample of seal marked as Ext. Ka-9, Photo lash marked as Ext. Ka-10, report of RI marked as Ext. Ka-11, report of CMO marked as Ext. Ka-12, memo relating to taken into custody of rifle marked as Ext. Ka-13, certified copy of the register marked as Ext. Ka-14, sanction for prosecution marked as Ext. Ka-15, charge sheet against Sangram Singh u/S 25 of the Arms Act marked as Ext. Ka-16, charge sheet submitted against all the accused persons marked as Ext. Ka-17, chik report marked as Ext. Ka-18, G.D. Entry marked as Ext. Ka-19, G.D. Entry of arrest memo of Mahesh Yadav and other accused persons marked as Ext. Ka-20, report regarding weeding out of G.D. Entry marked as Ext. Ka-21, copy of the FIR no.38 in respect of incident of dated 26.9.1993 at 11.05 P.M. marked as Ext. Ka- 22 and FIR against accused Mahesh and Mohan Birthare u/S 5 of Explosive Act marked as Ext. Ka-23 were produced in evidence.Besides this deceased's pant marked as Ext.1, shirt marked as Ext.2, underwear marked as Ext.3, Vest marked as Ext.4, watch marked as Ext.5, slippers marked as Ext.6 and pen exhibited as Ext.7 were filed.Sangram Singh asked the complainant that he poses himself as a big leader and used to issue fake receipt of MM-II and also interfere in their work.At this the complainant said that they have misconception hence the accused persons started hurling abuses to him and at his son Sunil.When they refrained from uttering vituperative words, Meher Sagar exhorted that they have got the opportunity today to kill them by firing.At this, Khalak Singh fired with rifle upon his son Sunil who was standing at the door of Kamlapat Rai from a distance of 8-10 paces at the platform nearby road.Sangram Singh, Meher Sagar and Meher Sahai also fired with their countrymade pistol which hit to his son Sunil on the right side of neck behind ear who fell down at the spot and on account of firearm injury died instantaneously.This incident was witnessed by Kamlapat Rai, Surendra Rai, Raj Kumar, Rataniya Kushwaha and Prakash Ahirwar and many other persons who exhorted the accused persons, then they took to their heels towards lane of post office.Accused Sangram Singh was arrested after overpowering him by public near the lane of post office.Sangram Singh was having loaded countrymade pistol which was forcibly taken by Chhannu, Maniram, Ghaniram and Narayan in the presence of the complainant.The complainant asked his neighbour to take Sangram Singh to the police station.Thereafter he went to his house where an FIR was written by Bhagwan Das on his dictation and thereafter he put his signature signed and on the basis of which the FIR was lodged.The neighbours, namely, Chhannu, Maniram, Narayan and others had taken away Sangram Singh on a trolley to the police station where he had given the report to the head moharrir.The head moharrir had prepared memo of countrymade pistol and cartridges and had put the seal thereupon.It was stated by P.W-1 in his examination-in-chief that for the year 1992-93 the contract of barua nala was given to accused Mahesh Yadav who is the son of Sangram Singh's aunt.For the year 1993-94 the said contract was obtained by his brother Kamlapat Rai by giving higher bid from Sangram Singh and Mahesh Yadav.The land was also wet where Sangram Singh was apprehended and water was flowing.The complainant further stated that he knows about all the accused persons personally who are known to him since before.He had stated that 26.9.1993 was the date of incident.He was sitting at his door in front of his house, his brother Gulzari Lal Rai and his son Sunil were also sitting there.On hue and cry several other persons of the locality, namely Surendra Prakash Narayan, Raj Kumar and others arrived their and tried to nab the accused persons, yet the accused persons ran away hither and thither firing in the air to panic.Sangram Singh was apprehended by the mob after overpowering him and from his possession a loaded country made pistol along with cartridge was recovered.Thereafter he went near the dead body and his brother Gulzari Lal Rai left from the place to lodge the FIR.On account of this, accused persons were bearing enmity and in the forthcoming contract they could not give highest bid, hence this incident occurred.He has reiterated about the relationship of the accused persons with each other as stated by the P.W-1 Gulzari Lal Rai in his examination-in-chief.P.W-2 was also put for lengthy and searching cross-examination by the defence counsel.Dr. S.M. Agarwal was examined as P.W-3 who had conducted autopsy of the deceased Sunil on 27.9.1993 at 2.30 P.M. He had stated that Constable Ram Ratan Gupta and Constable Chhavi Nath had brought the dead body in a sealed cover.He had conducted the postmortem of the deceased.According to his opinion, the body of the deceased was average built.No piercing body found inside.Lacerated wound of size 2.5x 2cm x 1cm deep circular in shape on the top of right shoulder.Margins inverted and tattooed .No dissection.No foreign body found inside.Cause of death in the opinion of the Doctor was shock and haemorrhage due to anti-mortem firearm injury.On internal examination, the lungs were found congested.Both the chambers of heart were empty.The duration of death was one day earlier.According to the Doctor, the victim died on account of injuries of rifle and countrymade pistol.He had handed over the clothes and electronic watch taken from the body of the deceased to the Constable along with sealed dead body.P.W-4 Chhavi Nath deposed that on 26.9.1993 he was posted at Police Station Barua Sagar.The papers were given to S.I. Lajja Ram.After conducting the postmortem the dead body was handed over to the family members and relevant sealed bundles were handed over at the police station.Inspector D.L. Sudhir was examined as P.W-5 posted as U.P. Vigilance, Lucknow, who had conducted the investigation of the case had stated that he was posted as S.O. Barua Sagar in September 1993 the case crime no.88 of 1993 was registered in his presence who was entrusted with the investigation.He recorded the statement of the complainant and at his pointing site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared.He had recorded the statement of Surendra Rai, Prakash Ahirwar, Raj Kumar Jogi and Smt. Rataniya Kushwaha and scribe of the FIR Bhagwan Das.He had arrested on 27.9.1993 the named accused persons, namely, Mahesh Yadav, Mohan Birthare and Babli.From the possession of Mohan Birthare and Mahesh Yadav he had recovered explosive articles and bombs.From the bag of Mahesh Yadav three live bombs and from the bag of Mohan Birthare two bombs were recovered, of which memo was prepared and the same was deposited in the malkhana.The memos which were prepared by the investigating officer have already been discussed in the preceding paragraphs.After arresting the named accused persons their statement were recorded.The statement of accused Sangram Singh was recorded at medical college, Jhansi.On 1.10.1993 the statements of accused Jagbir, Meher Sagar and Meher Sahai were recorded.On 11.10.1993 the statement of accused Khalak Singh was recorded.On 15.10.1993 statement of S.I. Lajja Ram, Constable Chhavi Nath and Ram Ratan Gupta, the driver of the truck Munna and the Doctor who had conducted the postmortem of the deceased were recorded.The trucks and motorcycles were taken into custody from the spot and were lodged at police station.After perusal of the register of M/s Khhachu Ram Ojha, Arms Dealer Sheopuri the witness had signed on it and photocopy of the same was taken into custody.The investigating officer had stated that the firearm was deposited by the owner of the shop earlier whereas weapon was deposited after the incident.Thus the arm was deposited in back date.All the appellants were acquitted of the charge under Section 147 IPC.Appellant Sangram Singh was acquitted of the charge under Section 25 of the Arms Act Sessions Trial No.157 of 1996 (State Vs.Sangram Singh) arising out of case crime no.89 of 1993, .Mahesh Yadav and Mohan Birthare were acquitted of the charge under Section 5 of the Explosive Substance Act in Sessions Trial No.25 of 1998 (State Vs.Since both the abovementioned appeals are arising out of judgment and order dated 12.12.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Jhansi against the conviction of the appellants under Sections 148, 302/149 IPC hence both the appeals are being decided by a common judgment.All the appellants were read over the charges in Hindi who had abjured the charges and claimed to be tried.It was at about 3.45 P.M. when he was sitting in front of his brother's house Kamlapat Rai (P.W-2), his son Sunil was sitting there, at that juncture, two trucks and two motorcycles came from station road and stopped in front of the house.Sangram Singh, Meher Sahai, Meher Sagar, Khalak Singh, Mahesh, Mohan Birthare, Jagbir and Babli @ Hari Singh alighted from the trucks and motorcycles.Sangram Singh, Meher Sahai and Meher Sagar were armed with countrymade pistol, Babli @ Hari Singh having hockey, Khalak Singh was armed with rifle, Jagbir was armed with lathi, Mahesh was carrying bomb and Mohan Birthare was having a bag.Another contract of border of Madhya Pradesh was in the name of Siyaram which was given by Sangram Singh and others.At the time when the incident taken place the auction bid of barua nala was again to take place and hence this incident had occurred to deter the complainant to give higher bid in the forthcoming auction bid.It was further stated that his contract was coming to an end on 30.9.1993, his rate of sand was less than the accused persons and hence no customer used to come at the latter's shop.On account of this the accused persons were bearing enmity.A power of attorney was got executed from Siyaram by the accused persons for not raising higher bid only with intent to cause annoyance to the complainant.Jagbir was partner in the said contract along with Sangram Singh and Babli @ Hari Singh who are brothers.Meher Sagar and Meher Sahai are also brothers.Khalak Singh, Meher Sagar and Meher Sahai used to keep their licensee rifle.Mahesh Yadav who is the son of Sangram Singh's aunt was also a partner.Jagbir's house and shop were in the name of Ram Sahai and Jaswant and on this account they had committed the incident after consultation and meeting.On the day of incident his son Sunil was wearing dark colour paint and printed shirt.He was also having electronic watch.He had stated that at the time of incident the land was wet where the victim fell down as water was flowing.He had identified Meher Sagar, Khalak Singh, Mohan Birthare and Sangram Singh in court while other accused persons were not present in court when his statement was recorded.It was further stated by the complainant that the deceased Sunil was lying at the place of occurrence where the floor was wet and water was flowing.However, from where the accused Sangram Singh was arrested place was not wet as no water was flowing.It was about 3.45 P.M. when two trucks, one motorcycle (hero honda) and one TVS moped arrived from the station road.The number of trucks were URY 525 and MPT 9203, in which 8 persons, namely, Sangram Singh, Meher Sahai, Meher Sagar, Khalak Singh, Mohan Birthare, Mahesh Yadav, Jagbir Singh, Hari Singh @ Babli were sitting.Khalak Singh was armed with licensed rifle, Meher Sagar, Meher Sahai and Sangram Singh were armed with countrymade pistols, Mahesh Yadav having bomb, Mohah Birthare was carrying something in his bag, Jagbir was having iron rod and Babli @ Hari Singh was having hockey.Sangram Singh had stated that the complainant poses a big leader and have issued fake M.M.-2 receipts and used to interfere in giving contract.At this, Sunil and Gulzari Lal Rai had stated that they have misconception but Sangram Singh started hurling abuses and vituperative.When Sunil asked him not to utter vituperative words Meher Sagar exhorted that they have met today luckily hence they should be killed.When Gulzari Lal Rai asked his son Sunil to run away to home.At this Khalak Singh had fired upon Sunil with rifle which hit him on his right side neck from back side and in the meantime, Meher Sagar, Meher Sahai and Sangram Singh had also fired with their respective countrymade pistols, which hit to Sunil and also hit to the wall.Sunil succumbed to his injuries on the spot on account of firearm injuries.Rigor mortis was passed from head and neck.Abdomen was of greenish colour.The body was redish.The following ante-mortem injuries were found on the body of the deceased.Wound of entry:There is a wound of entry size 5.5cm x 2cm tissue track deep on the right side back of neck 7cm transversely behind the right ear lobule oval in shape, above down direction track leading to injury no.II through muscular and trachea part of wind pipe of the neck.Margins are inverted ecchymose;Wound of Exit: Lacerated wound 11x 10cm x track deep towards injury no.1 on the right lateral frontal side of neck with showing off all the deep tissues and laceration of trachea at thyroid cartilage level with fracture of right mandible and maxilla bone edges of wound are ragged torn out.It is in a fashion of wound inverted and irregular.Also big vessels of neck damaged.Lacerated wound of size 2.5 x 2cm x 1cm deep circular in shape on the top of right shoulder.Margins of the wound inverted and tattooed.No dissection.It was stated by the investigating officer that in the repairing arm register one Topidar Bandook was deposited by Hira Lal on 10.9.1993 at serial no.16 and below the same the rest of the part was found blank in which any arm can be shown to have been deposited on any date.The deposit of the firearm in question has been shown in a fraudulent manner as paper No. 70 A. Nothing has been transcribed even no signature of person who had deposited the firearm was mentioned.After chemical analysis of the bomb it was destroyed.Sangram Singh was brought in an injured condition on a trolley at the police station Barua Sagar and his countrymade pistol and live cartridges were deposited.Sangram Singh was sent to the government hospital on jeep in custody of police at medical college, Jhansi.DW-1 Dr. Prem Behari Manocha had examined the injuries of Sangram Singh on 26.9.1993 at 4.30 P.M. The following injuries were found on the person of Sangram Singh:Circular lacerated wound ½cm in diameter v depth kuo (adv-xray), on lower end of right upper arm on postero lateral aspect 5cm away from elbow, blood clot and fresh bleeding present;Lacerated wound 1.5cm.X ½cm x muscle deep vertically situated on postero lateral aspect of right upper arm 7cm away from elbow blood clots present, on cleaning fresh bleeding from wound.Redish contusion 5cm x 1 cm transcursually present on upper end of right forearm on lateral aspect;Redish contusion 6cm x 1 cm with swelling obliquely situated postero lateral aspect of right forearm middle third part kuo;Redish contused swelling 2.5cm x 1cm on back of right forearm 6cm away from right wrist with ½cm x ½cm skin deep abrasion on it, on cleaning oozing of blood kuo;Redish contused swelling on back of right hand 4cm x 3cm kuo;Lacerated wound 2cm x 1/2cm x scalp deep 5cm away from right ear on left side of head, blood clot and fresh bleeding present kuo;Lacerated wound on right side of head 1cm medial to the injury no.1, 2.5cm x1/2cm x scalp deep blood clot and fresh bleeding present kuo;Lacerated wound on right side of head 7cm away from right ear obliquely present, measuring 3.5cm x ½cm x scalp deep blood clot and bleeding present kuo;Lacerated wound 1cm x .3cm x muscle deep on outer side of left ankle fresh bleeding present kuo;Redish contused swelling left ankle inner side with abrasion 1/2cm x 1/2cm skin deep, on cleaning oozing of blood;Abrassed red contusion 3cm x 2cm with abrasion 1cm x ½ cm x skin deep on posterior side of left wrist, oozing of blood on cleaning kuo.Inference:- Injury nos.2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 & 12 are caused by hard and blunt object.Injury no.1 kept under observation for nature and cause.2,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12 kept under observation.Advised X-ray.forearm with hand AP/Lat right.Left ankle AP/Lat.Left wrist with forehand AP/Lat.Injury No.3 simple in nature.All injuries are fresh in duration.D.W-1 denied that he has falsely shown the condition of Sangram Singh.D.W-2 Khhachu Ram Ojha who was examined in defence had stated that in 1987 he used to repair guns which were usually deposited.On the appraisal of the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial court arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants, hence convicted them to undergo sentence of life imprisonment.Heard Sri Gopal Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Prem Shanker, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri A.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Syed Ali Murtuza, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State.The main thrust of the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the entire prosecution case has been concocted to falsely implicate all the appellants.The witnesses are highly partisan and interested.No independent witness was examined, though several persons have been named in the FIR.All the appellants belong to different places and their presence at the spot to commit the offence was highly improbable.At least four persons who have been named in the FIR have not been assigned any specific overt act and hence Section 149 IPC will not apply to fasten the guilt of offence under Sections 302/149 IPC against them.Mere presence does not make a person, a member of an unlawful assembly unless it is shown that he had done something or omitted to do something which would make him a member of an unlawful assembly.The test applied by the trial court in convicting the appellants is mechanical.No motive is established against second set of accused persons.According to prosecution case, four persons have not been assigned any specific role, except others, hence they have no common object with those who have been specified specific role.Two persons who were allegedly carrying bombs have already been acquitted for the charge under Section 5 of the Explosive Act which also creates dent in the prosecution case with respect to the manner of incident.Learned counsel Shri Prem Shanker appearing on behalf of accused Mohan Birthare has emphasized that no specific role has been assigned to Mohan Birthare who was allegedly carrying bag.It was also pointed out that neither the truck nor any motorcycle were seized during the course of investigation.The statement of the witnesses are inconsistent, yet the learned trial court has committed manifest error in recording conviction against them for the offence under Sections 147,148,149,302 IPC.Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have supported the findings recorded by the learned trial court and contended that the eyewitness account of the prosecution witnesses cannot be disbelieved, even if the motive is not proved though it has been elaborately stated by both the prosecution witnesses in their statement.They are natural witnesses who were present at the time of incident when the son of P.W-1 was killed by firing indiscriminately by the accused persons who were carrying firearm weapons.Some were armed with firearm weapons and others were having iron rod, bomb and hockey with which they have eliminated the son of the complainant on the exhortation of Sangram Singh and Meher Sagar.The incident had taken place in a brought-day-light assigning weapons and their specific roles with which the accused persons have committed ghastly murder.The enmity was deep rooted in respect of mines and election rivalry.The fire was made by four accused persons who were armed with rifle and countrymade pistol.It is not necessary to count the injuries caused to the deceased by several persons or that the injuries were less than accused persons who really hit the victim.The presence of those who had not been assigned any specific role itself shows the truthfulness of the prosecution case with regard to the presence of the appellants along other persons in sharing the common object.It is absolutely wrong to say that in the absence of overt act of other accused persons, their conviction with the aid of Section 149 IPC cannot be sustained as the law is well settled that a member of an unlawful assembly cannot be acquitted for lack of corroboration as to their participation.Their presence at the place of occurrence has not been disputed hence sufficient to hold them guilty even if no overt act is imputed to them.Learned A.G.A. has placed reliance upon the decisions of Hon'ble the Apext Court in Masalti vs State of U. P. 1965 AIR 202 as well as the decision of Lal Ji Vs.State of Uttar Pradesh 1989 Law Suit (SC)26, Yunis alias Kariya v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2003 SC 539 and Hardhan Das Vs.The abovenoted decisions will be dealt with at the appropriate stage.One of the accused Sangram Singh who had fired at the deceased was overpowered by the local resident after thrashing and was taken to the police station.The recovery memo of countrymade pistol recovered from the possession of Sangram Singh was prepared at the time of lodging of the FIR who was also taken into custody which do not create any suspicion about the incident.No doubt that the appellant Sangram Singh had sustained injuries who was also examined by Dr. Prem Bihari Manocha, except injury nos.7 and 8 all injuries were on hand and leg which shows that while he was caught at the spot he was beaten up by the public.In the FIR this fact was also mentioned that he was overpowered by the local resident after putting some assault.The defence has tried to make false story which does not fit with the prosecution case.The learned trial court has appraised the evidence on record in correct perspective and arrived at the conclusion that all the accused persons formed unlawful assembly and committed ghastly incident eliminating the son of the complainant in a devilish manner.Hence the conviction of the appellants is liable to be sustained.We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State and the counsel for the complainant and have also perused the entire record of the case.The FIR was lodged at 4.25 P.M. on 26.9.1993 in respect of the incident which had occurred at 3.45 P.M.. The distance from police station to the place of occurrence was about ½ Km which clearly shows that the FIR has been promptly lodged i.e. within 45 minutes of the incident.Contrary argument that the FIR was not lodged as shown in the record, but it was lodged subsequently which is anti-timed cannot be accepted, as the prompt lodging of the FIR diminishes the chance of false implication.The FIR has been lodged assigning specific role to all the accused persons who were involved in the offence.At the time of conducting of inquest of the deceased, it mentions about the crime no.88 of 1993 and the reason of cause of death was shown as on account of firing.So far as motive is concerned it has been mentioned that in order to deter P.W-2 Kamlapat Rai to get the contract of barua nala accused persons were bearing enmity as for the year 1992-93 the contract of barua nala was given to the accused appellants, namely, Sangram Singh and Mahesh Yadav by giving highest bid from Kamlapat Rai.Another contract of border of Madhya Pradesh was taken in the name of Siya Ram by Sangram Singh.When the incident had taken place the date of auctioning of barua nala was fixed.On 30.9.1993 the contract of Kamlapat Rai was to expire and hence not to allow Kamlapat Rai to participate in the auction, all the accused persons arrived at his house there and exhorted the P.W-1 and exchange of heated words with regard to issuing receipts of M.M.-II and interfering in the contract of mining which converted into firing by the accused persons in which the son of the complainant has lost life.In this regard the statement of P.W-2 which fully supports the prosecution case is reproduced here as under:मुल्जिमान ने यह घटना इसलिये की क्योंकि यू०पी० का ठैका जो बालू का था सन् 91-92 का संग्राम सिंह व महेश के पास था सन् 92-93 की अधिक बोली बोलकर ठेका मैने ले लिया था इसी बात से मुल्जिमान हमसे रंजिश मानते थे अगले साल हम बोली न बोल पाये इसलिये यह घटना की। मेहेर सागर मेहेर सहाय दोनो भाई है। संग्राम सिहं महेश की बुआ के लड़के है। व जगवीर बबली उर्फ हरी सिंह दोनो भाई है। खलक सिंह मेहेर सागर, मेहेर सहाय के 1-1/2, 2 साल से बॉडीगार्ड थे। व मोहन बिरथरे इन लोगों के मित्र है। मेहेर सागर व मेहेर सहाय के पिता जी की जगवीर सिहं के साथ साझे में दुकान है। मुल्जिमान संग्राम सिंह, महेश यादव, मेहेर सागर व जगवीर नें एक पावर आफ अटार्नी जो सियाराम से लिखा ली थी। यह जिला टीकमगढ़ से संबंधित बाबू के ठेके की है।The same is also quite evident from the statement of P.W-1 that the contract for the year 1992-93 was in the name of accused Mahesh Yadav, who is the son of aunt of Sangram Singh.Meher Sagar, Jagbir, Mahesh Yadav and Sangram Singh had taken a power of attorney from Siya Ram in respect of contract of border of Madhya Pradesh.They all were co-partners in the said contract.The accused Jagbir was also partner with Sangram Singh.Accused Babli @ Hari Singh is the brother of Jagbir.Meher Sagar and Meher Sahai are also brothers.Khalak Singh, Meher Sagar and Meher Sahai were having licensed rifle.Meher Sagar and Meher Sahai were the bodyguard of Khalak Singh.Accused Mohan Birthare was also the friend of the abovementioned accused persons.Thus all the accused persons were known to each other and were together in company when the incident had taken place.Therefore, it is a case of deep routed business rivalry which has been proved by the two prosecution witnesses in their deposition who have faced searching cross-examination of the defence, but nothing could be elicited to create doubt or disbelieve their testimony in any manner.On account of indiscriminate firing by the accused persons who were carrying firearm weapon, the son of the complainant had sustained injuries over the vital part on the right side of neck upon ear and on account of receiving firearm injury he fell down and died on the spot instantaneously.The postmortem report of the deceased shows three injuries.Injury nos.1and 2 were caused by one fire which were entry and exit wound.The entry wound was behind the neck with dimension of 5.5 x 2cm.It is not necessary if injuries are less than the accused persons who opened fire at the victim, to create doubt about the manner of incident and involvement of the accused persons.It is also not possible to count the number of firing made by each of the accused persons at the time of incident.If there is any lapse on the part of the investigating officer with respect to showing the presence of the accused persons making target at the complainant or the deceased which will not effect the fabric of the entire prosecution case.It was also argued that the eyewitness account cannot be relied upon because there is conflict with medical evidence.According to the prosecution case, four accused persons had fired indiscriminately, but the injuries found on the body of the deceased were only three, out of which, one injury is entry and exit wound.The deceased had suffered firearm injury which is consistent with the testimony of eyewitness that four of the assailants were armed with firearm weapon and as soon as they reached they started firing after exchange of heated words with the complainant.It was argued by the defence counsel that the injuries could not have been caused by rifle.As per the medical jurisprudence entry wound is always smaller than the size of exit wound.According to the dimension as mentioned in the postmortem report of the deceased, the exit injury is the back of the ear and the Doctor has opined that the injury could have been caused by rifle.All the accused persons were exhorting to kill him and to shoot him.At this Khalak Singh who was having rifle had fired at the deceased.The injury no.2 is the exit wound of the injury no.1 which shows that the injury was caused from behind.The exit wound is on the trachea thyroid cartilage mandible bone.On account of injury trachea at thyroid, cartilage and mandible bone maxilla were got fractured which was the impact of firing made by the rifle.The injuries were sufficient to cause death.The medical evidence is fully corroborated with the statement of both the prosecution witnesses.The Apex Court in the case of Thaman Kumar vs State Of Union Territory of Chandigarh reported in 2003(47) ACC 7 has held as under:"The conflict between oral testimony and medical evidence can be of varied dimensions and shapes.There may be a case where there is total absence of injuries which are normally caused by a particular weapon.There is another category where though the injuries found on the victim are of the type which are possible by the weapon of assault, but the size and dimension of the injuries do not exactly tally with the size and dimension of the weapon.However, in the second and third category no such inference can straightway be drawn.The manner and method of assault, the position of the victim, the resistance offered by him, the opportunity available to the witnesses to see the occurrence like their distance, presence of light and many other similar factors will have to be taken into consideration in judging the reliability of ocular testimony."Much has also been argued by the defence counsel that it has not been mentioned in the site plan as to from which place the accused persons, namely, Sangram Singh, Meher Sagar and Meher Sahai were firing with their respective weapons.If the investigating officer has not described the place from where the accused persons fired at the deceased could not be sole basis to reject the cogent and reliable testimony of the eyewitnesses.In this regard the statement of P.W-1 who is the father of the deceased and brother of the P.W-2 with regard to the manner of incident is delineated here as under:जब मुल्जिमान आये थे तो हाथों में कट्टा राईफल आदि लिये हुये थे। मुल्जिमान सुनील के पास दो कदम की दूरी पर आकर रूक गये थे। मैं यह नहीं बता सकता हूं कि चारों मुल्जिमान जो कट्टा व राईफल आदि लिये हुये थे उनलोगों ने सिर्फ सुनील को निशाना बनाया था, या मुझे व अन्य को भी निशाना बनाया था अज खुद कहा कि चूंकि सुनील मुल्जिमानो से 4-5 कदम आगे गया और कहा कि गाली मत दो तो मुल्जिमानों नें कहा कि इनलोगों को खत्म कर दो तो सुनील मुड़कर वापस भागा तो कमलापति से चबूतरे से गोली लगनें के कारण 4 कदम पीछे गिर गया था। सुनील को गोली पीछे से लगी थी। अज खुद कहा थोड़ी तिरछी साईड से दक्षिण से उत्तर की तरफ लगी थी। जिस मुल्जिम ने गोली चलाई थी उसका चेहरा उत्तर पूर्व के त्रिकोण साईड में था और मेरे लड़के सुनील का चेहरा गोली लगते समय पूर्व उत्तर की दिशा मे था। यह बात सही है कि चारों मुल्जिमानों नें फायर किये थे। सुनील को दो गोलियां एक राईफल व एक कट्टे की लगी था बाकी गोलियां। छर्रे दीवाल में लगे थे। दोनों गोलियां एक ही दिशा में चलाई गयी थी। छर्रे छक्की अमित की दीवाल में लगे थे। छर्रे से दीवार में निसान पड़े थे दीवार उखड़ीन ही थी। दीवार में छर्रे लगनें वाला स्थान मैंनें दरोगा जी को बताया था। मुझे नहीं मालूम है कि दरोगा जी नें दीवार की मिट्टी व छर्रे कब्जे में लिये थे या नहीं। सुनील को तमंचे का फायर दायें कन्धे पर लगा था। मुझे नहीं मालूम है कि तमन्चे के फायर के छर्रे सुनील की कमीज में घुस गये थे अथवा नहीं। मैंनें सुनील के मरनें के बाद उसकी कन्धे की चोट नहीं देखी थी कि कितनी गहरी चोट है। मुझे ध्यान नहीं है कि मैंनें दरोगा जी को यह बात बताई थी अथवा नहीं कि मेरे लड़के सुनील को दो फायार तमंचा व राई फल के लगे थे, मुझे यह भी ध्यान नहीं है कि यह उक्त बात अपनी रिपोर्ट में लिखाई थी अथवा नहीं। तमंचा जब चलाया गया था तो सुनील व चलाने वाले के बीच 2''-4'' की ऊँचाई निचाई थी। चलाने वाला ऊँचाई पर था। राईफल चलानें वाला सुनील से ऊँचाई पर था लगभग 1-1/2,2 फुट ऊँचाई पर था राईफल की नाल नीचे की ओर थी। मुल्जिमानों ने सरिया, हथ गोला, हाकी आदि हथियार नहीं चलाये थे। मैं नहीं कह सकता हूं कि सुनील के शरीर में गोली धस गयी थी या बाहर निकल आयी थी। मुझे नहीं मालूम है न मुझे ध्यान है कि मौके पर पुलिस को कोई गोली मिली थी या नहीं। घटनास्थल घनी आबादी में है।The aforesaid statement of P.W-1 is fully corroborated by the P.W-2 who is the uncle of the deceased.There is no scope for any confusion about the place of occurrence by picking up some portions from the evidence of the eyewitnesses.The postmortem report and the site plan prepared by the investigating officer coupled with the statement of the eyewitnesses clearly show that the deceased had sustained injuries over his neck and shoulder and mark of pellets were also found on the walls.The court will act upon the substance of the case rather than delving into technicalities.The defence has tried to prove that Khalak Singh had not fired at the deceased.In this regard Khhachu Ram Ojha was produced as D.W-2 who had proved the entry no.17 showing that the rifle was deposited at M/s Khhachu Ram Repairing Shop on 20.9.1993 signed by Khalak Singh and it was to be returned on 15.10.1993 after repair.Khhachu Ram had stated that polish of the rifle butt and repair of magazine were performed.He had deposed as he has many work in his shop and he has only one labour for doing repairing work hence it takes 2-4 days to complete repair work.On 30.10.1993 Shri D.L. Sudhir, P.S. Barua Sagar had taken away.From perusal of the register the gun which was deposited on the same day was returned after 5-7 days but he has not put forth any explanation as to why the rifle was kept at his shop when its delivery was shown on 15.10.1993 which clearly shows that when the gun was deposited there was no other work to D.W-2 and on 10.9.1993 a gun at serial no.6 had already been returned.Thus there was no other weapon for any repair then there was no justification to keep the weapon in question for a long period.It clearly shows that fake entries were made in the register and in order to create defence, the plea was taken that the rifle was already deposited in the shop of Khhachu Ram on 20.9.1993 .The signature of Khalak Singh as mentioned in the register was also not tallied with various other documents signed by him during trial, which shows that a gun was deposited after committing offence on an anti-date.In the cross-examination of P.W-1 the suggestion was made by the defence that Kamlapat Rai and others were surrounding the truck and when Sangram Singh and Mahesh Yadav were present at the spot, Kamlapat Rai had assaulted Sangram Singh with sariya on account of which he fell down on the spot.This suggestion itself shows the presence of Sangram Singh and Mahesh Yadav at the time of the incident.The suggestion that Kamlapat Rai, Sunil and Ram Babu were standing around the truck and they were demanding money and Sangram Singh had assaulted Kamlapat Rai.Gravel (Bajri) was not taken from him.Hence when they were demanding money and on account of this dispute incident had taken place in which Kamlapat Rai had assaulted Sangram Singh with sariya.This story has been set up by the accused appellant in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and evolved a different story that on 26.9.1993 he was coming towards nala at about 3.30 P.M. Kamlapat Rai, Sunil and Gulzari had stopped him and started assaulting, on account of which Sangram Singh had sustained injuries and fell unconscious.According to him, the truck was standing in front of house of Kamlapat Rai which was also found during investigation, hence it is evident from the statement of the investigating officer that motorcycle and the truck were also taken into custody and deposited at police station which was entered in the Diary no.38, dated 26.9.1993 at 23.05 hours.The suggestion put forth by the accused persons are self contradictory with their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and hence the defence has miserably failed to dislodge the prosecution case.The testimony of eyewitnesses cannot be disbelieved to be untruthful witness merely because no independent witness was examined.In the case of Seeman @ Veeranam vs State 2005(52) ACC 502 SC, the Hon'ble Apex Court had observed that the prosecution's non-production of one independent witness who has been named in the FIR by itself cannot be taken to be a circumstance to discredit the evidence of the interested witness and disbelieve the prosecution case.Moreover, we cannot ignore the reality that many eyewitnesses shy away from giving evidence for obvious reasons."It is also well settled that proposition of law while appreciating the evidence of eye-witnesses, minor discrepancies on trivial matters without affecting the core of the prosecution case, ought not to prompt the court to reject evidence in its entirety.When the incident had occurred various persons arrived there and indiscriminate firing had taken place and they chased accused persons.They ran towards the post office lane 72-80 paces and thereafter only Sangram Singh could be apprehended by them.These injuries could not be said to be during the course of incident when the accused persons were trying to escape.The fact that Liyaquat was a member of the unlawful assembly is sufficient to hold him guilty.The presence of Liyaquat has not been disputed.All the appeals are accordingly dismissed."
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
171,776,083 |
This matter was called on 14.1.2020, and since the petitioner was not represented, the matter was posted today, for passing a dismissal order.Today, the learned Advocate for the contesting respondent No. 1 has chosen to remain absent.Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have been served and have chosen not to enter an appearance.I have heard the extensive submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner and with his assistance, I have gone through the petition paper book.There is no dispute that the petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are the trustees of Shri Maroti Sansthan, Bhilori, Tahsil Daryapur, Dist.Amravati, which is a registered trust bearing PTR A-321/Amravati.Since inception, there were five trustees.Subsequently, as three trustees passed away and the trust was operated by the family members of the Hole family, a Resolution was passed ::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 18:28:21 ::: 2 wp7809of17.odt by the petitioner and respondent No. 1 to incorporate respondent Nos. 2 to 4 as the trustees.This appears to be the flash point.Respondent No. 1 was dissatisfied as his son Raju was not incorporated as one of the trustees.The petitioner, being a reporting trustee, had preferred change report bearing No. 188/2017 (wrongly typed as 18/2017 in the impugned judgment) accompanied by several documents which indicated that a meeting was held on 15.12.2016 and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were inducted as trustees.The ACC considered the change report.::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 18:28:21 :::He obtained signatures of these four persons on various blank pages and a printed Vakalatnama which did not carry the name of the advocate, on the pretext of settling the dispute.This petition does not contain the date and the time when Raju purportedly visited the house of the petitioner for securing their signatures on blank papers as well as on the Vakalatnama.The said written say dated 21.8.2017, was produced before the::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 18:28:21 ::: 3 wp7809of17.odt learned Joint Charity Commissioner (JCC), Amravati in the said appeal.::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 18:28:21 :::After perusing the written say, which carries four signatures above their names, carries a verification under the signature of the petitioner and the Vakalatnama of Advocate Shri Nishant N. Berad carrying four signatures, the learned JCC arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have confessed that no meeting was held on 15.12.2016 and fictitious documents were prepared to show that a change has occurred.Based on the said written say, the learned JCC delivered the impugned judgment on 24.11.2017 and passed the following order:The application is allowed.The impugned order dated 15.5.2017 passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Amravati in change report No. 188/2017 is set aside.The change report No. 188/2017 stands rejected.The Assistant Charity Commissioner, Amravati is directed to file a criminal complaint against the respondent No.1 trustee for his acts mentioned in the judgment.The Assistant Charity Commissioner, Amravati is further directed to immediately initiate suo-motu proceeding for framing of scheme for the trust and appoint the new board of trustees till then the recorded trustees shall not take any policy decision.Copy of the order be immediately forwarded to Assistant Charity Commissioner, Amravati along with record of change report No. 188/2017 for compliance".::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 18:28:21 :::impugned judgment on the following grounds:(d) The petitioner had never engaged Advocate Berad.The petitioner relied upon the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Amarsang Nathaji::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 18:28:21 ::: 5 wp7809of17.odt as himself and karta and Manager vs.Hardik Harshadbhai Patel and Ors, (2017)1 SCC 113, and submits that paragraph Nos. 6,7,8,9 and 10 support the case of the petitioner.Said paragraphs read as under:::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 18:28:21 :::I have perused the written say and the verification clause as well as the Vakalatnama which the petitioner contends to be bogus.Appeal No. 47/2017 shall stand restored to the file of the learned JCC, Amravati Region Amravati.::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 18:28:21 :::
|
['Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,717,767 |
JUDGMENT R.S. Sarkaria, J.The appellant in this appeal was Accused No. 2 in the trial Court.He was a Head Constable (Jamadar) posted at the relevant time in Police Station, Zinzuwada.His co-accused (No.1) was a Police Sub Inspector posted in the same station.One Bai Sati, was alleged to have been abducted by Ghanshyamsinh alias Ghanuba.Accused 1 recorded her statement and thereafter asked one Fateh Singh (P.W. 7) to bring and produce his cousin Ghanshamsinh.Accused 1 directed the appellant to take charge of Ghanshamsinh.The appellant did likewise and told Ghanshamsinh that if he wanted to get rid of the charge, he should gratify the Sub-Inspector.The appellant backed up the suggestion with a threat to handcuff Ghanshamsinh and put him in the police lock up.The apellant further demanded a bribe of Rs. 2,000/-.At first Ghan shamsinh expressed his inability to pay the amount.Ultimately at the intervention of Accused 2, the demand was scaled down to Rupees 1,000/- and it was agreed that out of the amount, a sum of Rs. 500/-would be paid on the following evening at the latest.Ghansham sinh was then allowed to go.He then talked about this deal to his cousin, Fatesinh.On the following day, Ghanshamsinh went to Ahmedabad and contacted Shri R. R. Desai (P.W. 8), Inspector of the Anti-Corruption staff of Police and made a complaint which was recorded.Shri Desai then in the presence of Panchas, supplied a sum of Rs. 500/- in five currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/- each to Ghanshamsinh for use in the trapping the accused persons in the act of taking the bribe.The notes were smeared with anthracene powder and Ghansham sinh was directed to hand over the same on demand to the accused, and then signal to the raiding party.After settling the plan, the party came to Zinzuwada on July 12, 1968, Ghanshamsingh was sent ahead with the tainted money to the Police Station.On seeing Ghanshamsingh along with Panch Mahendra going to the residence of Accused 1, the appellant called him and took him to his office room in the Police Station.The appellant told him that Accused 1 being away, he was the acting Station House Officer and the money should be paid to him, adding that he would, in turn, pass it on to Accused 1 on his return.Ghanshamsingh then handed over those five currency notes to the appellant who accepted the same and placed them in the drawer of his table.All the three persons then came out of the room.The appellant locked the room.On receiving the agreed signal from Ghansham singh, the police party rushed in and caught hold of the appellant by the hand.With the key found on the person of the appellant, Inspector Desai unlocked the room and recovered the currency notes from the drawer of the appellant's table.The hands of the complainant Ghansham sinh, Panch Mahendra and the appellant were examined in the light of an ultra-violet lamp.Such examination revealed anthracene powder on the hands of the appellant and Ghanshamsinh; but no such powder was seen on Panch Mahendra.He replied to me that he was the agnate of P.S.I., Joshi, and that he had come to hand over money to him as his son was sick and that, the said money was sent by his family from Ahmedabad.I instructed him to approach his wife and give money to her.He told me that if he met her, he would have to stop for the night, so that he would not be able to attend the H. L. College in the morning.He told me to take the money and give it to P.S.I. Joshi, and that, I should arrange for his transport to Ahmedabad in some motor truck proceeding there.I offered them tea and asked them to wait outside.Shri Desai prepared the Panchanama.Certain police papers on the demand of Inspector Desai were produced by the Writer-Constable, Karsanbhai.The Inspector seized these records.After completing the investigation, the police sent both the accused under a charge-sheet for trial before the Special Judge, Surendranagar on charges under Section 161 read with Section 34 and Section 165A of the Penal Code and under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The trial Judge acquitted both the accused of all the charges leveled against them.On appeal by the State, the High Court of Gujarat reversed the acquittal of the appellant and convicted him on two counts, namely, one for an offence under Section 161, Penal Code and the other under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to ' suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years on the latter count.No separate sentence under Section 161, Penal Code was inflicted.Hence this appeal by special leave.The mainstay of the prosecution case is the testimony rendered by Ghansharnsinh (P.W. 1) and Panch Mahendra (P.W. 4) and Police Inspector Desai.Inspector R.R. Desai, P.W. 8, was the Head of the raiding party who recovered the tainted notes.Examined under Section 342, Cr.P.C., the appellant while denying the demand of the bribe on the 11th July, 1968 from Ghansharnsinh, gave this account of what happened on the 12th July, 1968:...the complainant Ghanubha Champubha and his companion came up to me.I asked Ghanugha as to why he had come....He informed me that his companion was related to the P.S.I., and that he had some work with him.He told me that he had accompanied him to show him the police station.I offered them seats, and gave them water.I questioned the above person about his relationship with the Sub-Inspector.I also told him that I would arrange for his lift in the motor truck carrying salt to Ahmedabad.So saying, we came out of the police station.I locked my room because in it, are placed arms and ammunitions.I was leaving the Police Station and going to the hotel for placing an order for tea, when two men held me by my two hands.They brought me in the compound of the Police Station.Other 3, 4 men turned up, and one Saheb from amongst them asked me to produce the money.I exclaimed, "What money": I told him if the money, that was required, was the same, which the cousin of P.S.I. Joshi had handed over to me.The officer insisted that the money must be produced.I was then perplexed.He took the key from one of my hands and opened my room and took out the money.The Officer asked from me the papers of investigation against Ghanubha.I said that I had no such papers, and that I had not made any such investigation against him.He then attached some papers from the Writer Constable Karsan Talshi.Thus, the appellant had admitted the acceptance of the tainted currency notes which were not his legal remuneration.In variance with the prosecution case, he, however, alleged that this money was handed over to him by Mahendra P.W. 4, with the representation that he was a cousin of P.S.I. Joshi (who was then away) and the money was to be passed on to Mr. Joshi.The appellant, further, admitted that after the recovery of the money, when his hands were examined in the light of the ultra violet lamp, shining powder was found thereon.He expressed ignorance if the hands of Ghanshamsinh and Mahendra were also similarly examined.He expressed a desire to appear in the witness box and make a statement on oath.Subsequently, however, he did not do so, but examined one Naruba Dosubha (D. W. 1) in defence, who more or less supported the version of the appellant with regard to the receipt of Rs. 500/- by the appellant from P.W. Mahendra.The conclusions reached by the trial Judge had no foundation in evidence.They belonged to the realm of pure speculation.We have examined the evidence of Mahendra and are satisfied that the High Court rightly found him a truthful and trustworthy witness who had no axe of" his own to grind.The defence version to the effect, that it was Mahen dra who had actually passed on the tainted money to the appellant by holding himself out as a relation of the Sub Inspector was falsified by the circumstance that no anthracene powder was found on Mahendra when immediately after the recovery of the tainted notes, his hands were examined in the light of ultra-violet lamp; while such powder was admittedly found on the hands of the appellant, and Ghanshamsinh.This circumstance was deposed to by Inspector Desai (P.W. 8) whose, version on this point was not challenged in cross-examination.Thus, while DW 1 told a lie on this point, this uncontroverted circumstance could not.The presence of Mahendra (P.W. 4) at the time of the receipt of the tainted notes was admitted by the appellant himself.Our attention has been drawn to the statement of Bai Sati, which is said to have been recorded by Accused 1 on the 11th January in which it is recorded that she had not been kidnapped or abducted by any person but had gone away from her father's house of her own accord.Nor does the acquittal of Accused 1 have the effect of exonerating the appellant of the demand of bribe on the 11th and again on the 12th.Secondly, this demand for payment and acceptance of the money by the appellant on the 12th July had to be appreciated in the context of the representation made by the appellant on the preceding day, to the effect, that if Ghansham sinh would not pay the gratification, he would be arrested, handcuffed and paraded for the offence of abducting Bai Sati.The proof of the foregoing facts was sufficient to establish the charge under Section 161, Penal Code.
|
['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
171,778,931 |
Thus, in order to reach a conclusion either way, the following broad facts are required to be noticed.The record shows that HTML (which had on its board at one point in time, one, Mr. Anil Shah as the managing director), secured a loan from State Bank of India.In lieu of the loan offered by State Bank of India, the following seven properties were offered as security:(i) Flat no. 1209 & 1210, 12th Floor, 26, Kailash Building, K.G. Marg, New Delhi-110001 (hereafter referred to as "K.G. Marg Property no. 1");5.5 Insofar as the remaining two properties are concerned, i.e. properties referred at serial No. (vi) and (vii), these were owned by, one, Mrs. Sangeeta Shah, wife of Mr. Anil Shah.EX.P. No. 79/2014 Page 4 of 365.6 It may also be relevant to note that along with Mrs. Bibha Ranjan, Anil Shah and P.K. Srivastava were apparently appointed as directors on the board of ACPL and YTPL apart from HTML.5.7 What is however important to note at this stage is that properties referred to in serial nos. (i) to (v) are subject matter of the award.While properties in serial no. (i) to (iv) are subject matter of the Execution Petition, the property referred to in serial no. (v) though part of the award is curiously, not included in the execution petition.5.8 Thus, the properties mentioned in the award will be collectively referred to as the "award-properties" while the remaining three properties (the details of which are given in serial no. (v) to (vii) in Paragraph 4 above), would be collectively referred to as "non-award" properties.EX.P. No. 79/2014 Page 5 of 36EX.P. No. 79/2014 Page 5 of 36It appears that HTML defaulted in payment of its dues.This led to SBI filing a recovery action i.e. O.A. 127/2002 in the concerned Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT).In this recovery action not only the borrower company i.e. HTML was arrayed as a defendant but even the guarantors and the mortgagors of the properties referred to hereinabove which formed the security for the loan advanced to HTML were made part of the recovery action.The record seems to suggest that Mr. Anil Shah and his wife Mrs. Sangeeta Shah at some point in time acquired a Non-Resident Indian ("NRI") status and were located in the USA.It appears that while the recovery action filed by SBI was pending adjudication, it assigned the debt owed to it by HTML and its guarantors to Standard Chartered Bank (hereafter referred to as "SCB").9.1 The SCB, thereafter, entered into a "One Time Settlement" (OTS) with HTML and its guarantors.EX.P. No. 79/2014 Page 6 of 36Apparently, in order to garner funds, a Memorandum of Understanding dated 4.5.2008 (in short 2008 MOU No. 1) was executed between HTML, ACPL, YTPL and Ms. Bibha Ranjan on one side and Ghadia on the other."a) pass ex-parte ad interim injunction restraining the respondents, their servants, agents etc. from in any manner creating any third party rights in the properties detailed in para 1 of this petition;" EX.P. No. 79/2014 Page 8 of 36EX.P. No. 79/2014 Page 8 of 36Evidently, on 20.1.2009 the court appointed a Retired Judge of this Court as an arbitrator in the matter qua persons and entities who were parties to the Section 9 petition.In the SOC, Ghadia adverted to the 2008 MOU No. 1 and prayed that an award be passed in his favour in terms of the said MOU.EX.P. No. 79/2014 Page 9 of 36The learned arbitrator, accordingly, after noting the fact that the parties had arrived at a settlement passed an award on the terms agreed to between the parties.14.1 Pertinently, in the award, the learned arbitrator noted the fact that Ghadia had paid at the time of execution of the 2008 MOU No. 1, Rs.60 lacs out of a total amount of Rs.6.35 crores.14.2 The learned arbitrator also recorded, that at the time of rendering the award, out of the balance amount of Rs.5.75 crores, Ghadia had paid a further amount of Rs.3.75 crores to SCB and that what remained to be paid at that point in time, was an amount of Rs.2 crores.Insofar as Ranchi Property No. 3 and Tri Nagar Property No. 3 were concerned, under the addendum, the consolidated value was pegged at Rs.1 crore.EX.P. No. 79/2014 Page 11 of 36At this juncture, it may be important to note that Mrs. Sangeeta Shah and family had appointed, one, Mr. Manohar Meshram as their power of attorney.It is also pertinent to note that Mrs. Sangeeta Shah, on 01.03.2009, revoked Mr. Manohar Meshram's power of attorney.16.1 The record shows that Mr. Manohar Meshram received an e-mail dated 15.3.2009 from Mrs. Sangeeta Shah informing him about revocation of the power of attorney executed in his favour.16.2 On 19.3.2009, Mr. Manohar Meshram sent an e-mail to Ghadia informing him that his power of attorney had been revoked by Mrs. Sangeeta Shah.This was preceded by a letter dated 1.8.2009 which was also addressed by SCB to HTML.This letter was EX.P. No. 79/2014 Page 12 of 36 issued in anticipation of the demand drafts handed over towards OTS being encashed.EX.P. No. 79/2014 Page 12 of 3617.1 Interestingly, all this while Ghadia did not take any steps for the execution of the award.What makes it even more curious, is that, Ghadia thereafter entered into another Memorandum of Understanding dated 21.10.2010 (2010 MOU) with Mrs. Sangeeta Shah.EX.P. No. 79/2014 Page 29 of 36On that very date, Ghadia executed another MOU i.e. 2008 MOU No. 2 with Mrs. Sangeeta Shah concerning three properties i.e Hauz Khas Property, Ranchi Property No. 3 and Tri Nagar Property no. 3(as mentioned in EX.P. No. 79/2014 Page 30 of 36 10.1 above).These are properties which are, apparently, owned by Mrs. Sangeeta Shah and her family.EX.P. No. 79/2014 Page 30 of 36There was otherwise no good reason for Ghadia to enter into 2010 SA with Mrs. Sangeeta Shah concerning the properties which were already the subject matter of the award.Provided that such additional directors shall hold office only up to the date of the next annual general meeting of the company.Provided further that the number of the directors and additional directors together shall not exceed the maximum strength fixed for the Board by the articles.EX.P. No. 79/2014 Page 33 of 36 31.6 That being said, it also emerges from the record that Ghadia has paid monies to SCB.This execution petition has been filed by one Mr. Jayant Ghadia (in short, "Ghadia").Via this application Ghadia has sought a direction to summon documents from the concerned Debt Recovery Tribunal.In the execution petition, Ghadia seeks enforcement of the award dated 28.1.2009 (in short "award") passed by the Learned Arbitrator in the matter titled "Jayant Ghadia versus Hindustan Tradex & Manufacturing Private Limited and Ors." 1.1 The execution of the award is opposed by four persons who have filed separate applications in this behalf.1.2 EA 833/2015 has been filed by one Mr. V.P. Gupta (hereafter referred to as "objector No. 1").EA 837/2015 has been filed by Amna Bi (hereafter referred to as "objector No. 2").EA 1122/2015 has been filed by a person by the name Kuldeep Singh Dalal (hereafter referred to as "objector No. 3").EA 167/2016 has been filed by judgment debtor No. 1 i.e. Hindustan Tradex Manufacturing & Private Limited (hereafter referred to as HTML).EX.P. No. 79/2014 Page 1 of 36(ii) Flat no. 309, 3rd Floor, Kanchanjunga Building, 18, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi -110001 (hereafter referred to as "Barakhamba Road Property");(iii) Property No. 2139, Old Bus Stand, Ganesh Pura-B, Tri Nagar, New Delhi (hereafter referred to as "Tri-Nagar Property no. 1"); EX.P. No. 79/2014 Page 3 of 36EX.P. No. 79/2014 Page 3 of 36(iv) Property no. 1211, Kailash Building, 26, K.G. Marg, New Delhi-110001 (hereafter referred to as "K.G. Marg Property No. 2");(v) Sub-Plot No. 1480/1, Holding No. 116(D), Ward No. 17, Village Konka, S.K. Sahai Road, Circular Road, Ranchi (hereafter referred to as "Ranchi property No. 1");(vi) Sub-Plot No. 1480/2, Ward No. 17, Village Konka, S.K. Sahai Road, circular Road, Ranchi (hereafter referred to as "Ranchi property No. 2"); and(vii) Property No. 2134, Old Bus Stand, Ganesh Pura, Tri Nagar, New Delhi (hereafter referred to as "Tri Nagar Property No. 2")There are claims and counter claims concerning the ownership of some, if not, all the properties referred to above.5.1 Ghadia claims that HTML owned K.G. Marg Property No. 1 and Barakhamba Road Property.5.2 Likewise, it is claimed by Ghadia that Tri Nagar Property No. 1 is owned by a company by the name Aqua Cross Enterprises Private Limited (in short "ACPL").5.3 It is also the claim of Ghadia that K.G. Marg Property No. 2 is owned by a company by the name Yogi Trading Company Private Limited (in short YTPL).EX.P. No. 79/2014 Page 4 of 36 5.4 Insofar as Ranchi Property No. 1 is concerned, it is claimed by Ghadia that the same is owned by an individual by the name Ms. Bibha Ranjan, who as per the record at one point in time was apparently appointed as an additional director in HTML, ACPL and YTPL.Pertinently, HTML, ACPL and YTPL executed the 2008 MOU No. 1 via Mr. P.K. Srivastava based on three separate board of directors' resolutions dated 3.5.2008, all of which, have been attested by Ms. Bibha Ranjan.10.1 Parallelly, Ghadia had on the very same date i.e. 4.5.2008 entered into another Memorandum of Understanding (in short 2008 MOU No. 2) and an addendum with Mrs. Sangeeta Shah and her family (which included her children and her father) in respect of the following properties:(i) X-6B, Hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi (hereafter referred to as "Haus Khas Property")There is no clear indication in the record as to whether EX.P. No. 79/2014 Page 7 of 36 Ranchi property No. 2 and 3 are the same properties or are separate properties]EX.P. No. 79/2014 Page 7 of 36There is once again no clarity in the record as to whether Tri Nagar Property No. 3 is a separate property or a combination of Tri Nagar Property No. 1 and 2]The substantive prayer made in the Section 9 Petition was as follows:The respondents who were also represented on 22.1.2009 before the learned arbitrator conveyed to him that they would require a short accommodation to seek instructions, although, they had almost settled the disputes with Ghadia.13.2 On 23.1.2009 the respondents filed a written statement admitting Ghadia's claim.This disagreement have been resolved, led to the passing of the award based on the compromise arrived at by the parties.EX.P. No. 79/2014 Page 10 of 36 14.3 Significantly one of the terms of the compromise which formed part of the award required Ghadia to pay the balance amount of Rs.2 crores to the SCB within ten (10) days of the passing of the award.EX.P. No. 79/2014 Page 10 of 36Insofar as Ghadia's 2008 MOU No. 2 was concerned, it required Ghadia to pay a total sum of Rs.5.50 crores in the following manner:(i) Rs. 2 crores to be paid directly to SCB on behalf of Mrs. Sangeeta Shah and her family.15.1 The addendum, to the 2008 MOU No. 2, to which I have made a reference above, only adverted to the fact as to how the persons who are parties to 2008 MOU No. 2 valued the properties comprised therein.Thus, as per the addendum, out of the total consideration of Rs.5.50 crores, an amount equivalent to Rs.4.50 crores was ascribed as consideration for the EX.P. No. 79/2014 Page 11 of 36 Haus Khas property.This MOU was followed by of a Settlement Agreement dated 10.11.2010 (in short "2010 SA") being executed between himself and Mrs. Sangeeta Shah.A perusal of the recitals contained in the 2010 SA would show that it not only refers to the seven immovable properties referred to in paragraph 4 above, i.e. the award and non-award properties but it also refers to the award which was passed in favour of Ghadia based on the 2008 MOU No.1. 18.1 Furthermore, the 2010 SA not only adverts to the company petitions filed by Mrs. Sangeeta Shah i.e. Company Petition no. 18 (ND) of 2009 and two other company petitions pertaining to 2010 but also to the FIR No. 207/2010, registered at P.S. C.R Park, which was registered based on Ghadia's complaint against Mrs. Sangeeta Shah.Interestingly, both Mr. P.K. Srivastav and Ms. Bibha Ranjan were confirming parties to the 2010 SA.EX.P. No. 79/2014 Page 13 of 36EX.P. No. 79/2014 Page 13 of 36In furtherance of obligations undertaken under the 2010 SA, Mrs. Sangeeta Shah has, admittedly, withdrawn her company petitions which were filed at the relevant point of time in the Company Law Board.19.2 Insofar as FIR No. 207/2010 was concerned, there is on record an order dated 31.3.2017 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, South-East District, New Delhi (in short "M.M.").Via this order Mrs. Sangeeta Shah was discharged by the Learned M.M. The Learned M.M. in this order concluded, that no offence of criminal breach of trust or cheating under Section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short "IPC") was made out against Mrs. Sangeeta Shah.19.3 However, contrary to the terms of 2010 SA whereunder Ghadia was required to assist Sangeeta Shah in having the said FIR quashed, she had to go through the full rigor of law for seeking a discharge qua the aforementioned offences.As would be evident from the narration of events set forth hereinabove, in the interregnum, i.e. in and about 4.03.2014, Ghadia moved this Court for execution of the award.EX.P. No. 79/2014 Page 14 of 36 20.1 On 7.3.2014, in the Execution Petition, an interim order was passed qua the judgment debtors, (i.e. HTML, ACPL, YTPL and Ms. Bibha Ranjan) whereby they were injuncted from dealing, in any manner, with the following four properties:EX.P. No. 79/2014 Page 14 of 36(iv) K.G. Marg Property No. 2Via this order on account of non- appearance of the judgment debtors warrants of attachments were issued vis-a-vis the four properties referred to above, which formed part of the Execution Petition.The record also shows that fresh warrants of attachment were, once again, issued on 6.2.2018 as it was not clear as to whether or not the warrants of attachment issued on 21.4.2015 had been executed.22.1 The record also shows that since process fee was not filed, on 6.4.2018, for the third time, fresh warrants of attachment were issued.In the interregnum, objections to the Execution Petition were filed by various persons; an aspect which I have referred to hereinabove.EX.P. No. 79/2014 Page 15 of 36 Submissions of the Counsel:EX.P. No. 79/2014 Page 15 of 36The submissions made by Mr. Ankit Jain can, broadly, be summed up as follows:(i) The award was based on a compromise arrived at between Ghadia, on one side, and the judgment debtors, on the other, which included HTML, ACPL, YTPL, and Ms. Bibha Ranjan and therefore, it was binding on those who were parties to the consent-award.Furthermore, while objections have been filed by HTML, no objections have been filed by ACPL and YTPL.EX.P. No. 79/2014 Page 16 of 36EX.P. No. 79/2014 Page 16 of 36The 2010 SA refers to Ghadia as the decree holder which is suggestive of the fact that since the award had not been challenged by HTML, despite having acquired knowledge of the same, it had morphed into a decree.(iv) Clause (viii) of the terms of agreement of the 2010 SA clearly provides if the properties referred to therein were not sold within nine months, then they shall vest in the decree holder (i.e. Ghadia), and thus, the objections of HTML are untenable.(v) The objection raised by HTML that the 2008 MOU No. 1 was executed on its behalf by persons who were not vested with the requisite authority is a contention which ought to be rejected as the application filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC with this Court was accompanied by Board of Directors resolution of not only HTML but other two judgment debtors as well i.e. ACPL and YTPL.(c) The plea raised on behalf of HTML i.e. non-payment of Rs. 2 crores within the time prescribed in the award was self-destructive of the other plea that the award was passed without its consent.(d) The 2010 SA to which, Mrs. Sangeeta Shah is a signatory clearly adverts to the fact that Ghadia had made payments and obtained a NDC.Mrs. Sangeeta Shah being a majority shareholder in HTML would, in a sense, bind HTML as well.24.1 Insofar as the submissions that Mr. Jain made on behalf of the decree holder i.e. Ghadia qua the issues raised by Objector no. 1 and Objector no. 3 are concerned, the same can be summed up as follows:None of these documents can convey title.Reliance in this behalf was placed on Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs.EX.P. No. 79/2014 Page 18 of 36(iv) The aforementioned documents in favour of objector No. 3 have been executed by one, Mr. Jitendra Mishra, whose wife Mrs. Neelam Mishra was a witness to the 2010 SA.The documents, thus, executed in favour of objector No. 3 were fraudulent.(v) Objector No. 1 who claims to be a tenant has no standing in the eyes of law as his right in the subject property can only arise if the right of EX.P. No. 79/2014 Page 19 of 36 Objector No. 3 in the Barakhamba Road property is sustained.EX.P. No. 79/2014 Page 19 of 36(i) In respect of this property, objector No. 2 claims a right based on a sale deed dated 18.3.2013 executed in her favour by, one, Mohd. Sajjad Ahmed Khan.A perusal of the said sale deed would show that Mohd. Sajjad Ahmed Khan claims right in the Tri Nagar property No. 1 based on a power of attorney.Power of attorney, in law, cannot confer ownership rights.EX.P. No. 79/2014 Page 20 of 36EX.P. No. 79/2014 Page 20 of 36(iii) Furthermore, Tri Nagar property no. 1 was mortgaged by its owner ACPL after SBI had carried out a title search.Therefore, the objections sought to be raised are both, factually and legally, unsustainable.25.1 The other submissions made on behalf of HTML can be summed up as follows:These officers could not have even consented to the appointment of an arbitrator in the matter.EX.P. No. 79/2014 Page 21 of 36 25.4 In this context, it was emphasised that the counsel i.e. Mr. N.N. Aggarwal, who represented Ghadia before the learned arbitrator was also holding out himself to be the authorized representative of HTML before SCB.On this score, reliance was placed on letters dated 30.1.2009 and 9.8.2008 exchanged between SCB and HTML.EX.P. No. 79/2014 Page 21 of 3625.5 HTML had not authorized any person or director to enter into the 2008 MOU No. 1 with Ghadia.The appointment was made without the shareholders resolution which had to be passed either at an AGM or an EGM.In other words, sales deeds should be executed EX.P. No. 79/2014 Page 23 of 36 in his favour by the judgment debtors i.e. HTML, ACPL, YTPL and Ms. Bibha Ranjan.Therefore, attachment and sale of properties would not satisfy the award which according to Ghadia, has morphed into a decree.EX.P. No. 79/2014 Page 23 of 36Mr. Sandeep Sharma, who appeared on behalf of objector No. 1 made the following submissions:26.2 It was also contended that objector No. 1 had entered into a lease agreement qua the Barakhamba Road property and a hire agreement vis-- vis the furniture and fixtures placed therein.These agreements were executed between Objector No. 1 and Mrs. Sangeeta Shah.The lease was executed between Hindustan Polychem Private Limited, the predecessor-in-interest of HTML EX.P. No. 79/2014 Page 24 of 36 while the hire agreement was executed between Objector No. 1 and Mrs. Sangeeta Shah.28.4 In any event, the 2010 SA has been acted upon by Mrs. Sangeeta Shah as she had withdrawn the company petitions filed by her.Furthermore, Mrs. Sangeeta Shah stood discharged by the concerned court vide order dated 31.3.2017 in respect of the proceedings which emanated from FIR No. 207/2010, dated 28.9.2010, which in turn, was based on a complaint filed by Ghadia.Although the 2010 SA required Ghadia to assist Sangeeta Shah in having the said FIR quashed, she was needlessly required to go through the rigour of law as Ghadia refused to extend the necessary assistance.I have heard contentions of the counsel for the parties and also perused the record.The narration of facts and events as noted hereinabove would show that the transaction with regard to award and non-award properties and two properties belonging to Sangeeta Shah are entwined.29.4 The 2010 SA has been executed between Ghadia and Mrs. Sangeeta Shah and the confirming parties to the said agreement are Mr. P.K. Srivastava and Ms. Bibha Ranjan.30.1 Under the award, which was pivoted on the 2008 MOU No. 1, Ghadia was required to pay a total amount of Rs. 6.35 crores to SCB.There was, admittedly, a delay as Mr. N.N. Aggarwal, Advocate, who represented Ghadia in the arbitration proceedings, acted as the authorized representative of HTML and sought extension of time for making the deficit payment to SCB.SCB via this very letter also communicated that the amount already paid towards OTS would stand forfeited and that the liability of HTML and its guarantor(s) as per the loan agreements would stand restored.30.3 The record shows that, thereafter, on 01.8.2009 SCB issued a letter which, effectively, demonstrated that towards the loan taken by HTML a total amount of Rs.10.75 crores had been paid.EX.P. No. 79/2014 Page 31 of 36 30.5 The aforementioned letters i.e. letters dated 1.8.2009 and 13.8.2009 were marked to Mr. P.K. Srivastava in his capacity as the director of HTML.EX.P. No. 79/2014 Page 31 of 3630.6 Ordinarily, Ghadia should have been satisfied with this outcome, as the amounts under the OTS had been paid, as per his assertion, entirely by him, and therefore, the properties referred to in the award should have come to him.However, Ghadia chose to execute the 2010 SA with Mrs. Sangeeta Shah and as alluded to above, with regard to not only the award properties, non-award property but also two properties owned by Mrs. Sangeeta Shah.It appears that because the Shah's were not, perhaps, based in India at the relevant point of time, the affairs of HTML were somehow being managed by Mr. P.K. Srivastava and Ms. Bibha Ranjan.31.1 It is quite obvious that there were legal lacunas in the 2008 MOU No. 1 as it was based on an authority given to Mr. P.K. Srivastava by Ms. Bibha Ranjan when she was in law, not a director on the Board of HTML.Therefore, the 2008 MOU No. 1 could not have been executed by Mr. P.K. Srivastava based on a resolution, to which, Ms. Bibha Ranjan was a party.31.2 It is not Ghadia's case that Mrs. Sangeeta Shah was either present or her consent was taken when the Board of Directors resolution was passed authorizing Mr. P.K. Srivastava to act on behalf of HTML.31.3 It is, perhaps, for this reason that Ghadia entered into the 2010 SA.EX.P. No. 79/2014 Page 32 of 36Additional directors.-Nothing in section 255, 258 or 259 shall affect any power conferred on the Board of directors by the articles to appoint additional directors.Consequently, Execution Petition No. 79/2014 is dismissed.Resultantly, EA No. 363/2017 and 68/2017 shall stand closed.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
171,779,178 |
Shri V.K. Rishi, Advocate for the appellant.Shri Ramesh Kushwaha, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.(J U D G M E N T ) Delivered on: 06th of May, 2015 This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374 (2), Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.03.2000, delivered by the Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, in Sessions Trial No.164/1996, convicting the appellant under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500/-, with default stipulation.The case of the prosecution is that on 14.12.1995 at about 09:30 pm Raj Kumar, nephew of the applicant on Egg shop of complainant Rajesh Kumar received injury in his hand, when he was cleaning the Egg shop.Raj Kumar reached at his home.The allegation against the applicant Munna is that he immediately came to his Egg shop and caused simple injury on the neck of the complainant Rajesh Kumar.2 Cr.A. No.1001 of 2000In order to bring home the charges against the appellant the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and exhibited the documents vide Exh.The learned Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur after marshalling of evidence of prosecution witnesses acquitted the appellant from the charge punishable under Section 307, IPC but, found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324, IPC and sentenced him as mentioned above, hence this appeal.Shri V.K. Rishi, learned counsel for the appellant challenged the conviction on the ground that the learned trial Court grossly erred while passing the impugned judgment.The evidence of complainant (PW-3) is full of contradictions and omissions.Even the FIR is concocted, hence, need not to be accepted, therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondent- State submits that after due appreciation of prosecution evidence, the learned trial Court has found the offence proved against the appellant which requires no interference.After perusing the impugned judgment and statements of prosecution witnesses particularly statement of complainant Rajesh Kumar (PW-3) as well as the record of the trial Court, I am of the view that no error has been committed by learned Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in recording the guilt of the appellant and convicting and sentencing him for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC.3 Cr.A. No.1001 of 2000Now the question arises that as to how a balance should be struck and maintained in regard to the sentence.More than 19 years have been elapsed from the date of incident.It is pertinent to mention here that during trial the the appellant has already suffered the jail sentence of about 7 days w.e.f. 17.12.1995 to 23.12.1995 and after conviction the appellant has suffered the jail sentence of about 36 days w.e.f. 14.03.2000 to 19.04.2000 i.e. total 43 days.4 Cr.A. No.1001 of 2000Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that in the instant case, more important sentence should be that the appellant should be sentenced to the period already undergone by him as against the aforesaid awarded sentence.In the result upholding the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, I reduce the jail sentence awarded to the appellant to the period already undergone by him.The appeal, to that extent, is allowed and the impugned judgment is modified.
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,718,576 |
SETHI,J.Leave granted.Aggrieved by the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Deeg bywhich charges were framed against them for offences punishable underSections 147, 148, 323, 324, 149, 427 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code,the respondents filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") praying forquashing the aforesaid order.Holding that the Magistrate, being thecourt of committal, had no power to add four respondents as accused-persons without adopting procedure as prescribed under Section 203 ofthe Code, the High Court allowed the petition of the respondents andset aside the order the court by which cognizance of offence underSection 395 of the Indian Penal Code was taken.The case has beenremanded back to the learned Magistrate to hold inquiry as per theprovisions of Section 203(2) of the Code with direction that if hefinds that a case under Section 395 IPC is made out, he will passnecessary orders against the accused persons and commit the case to theSessions Judge, if necessary.The facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal are that on10.3.1988 when the appellant-informant was sitting at his shop in thecompany of his brothers, the accused persons, namely, Chhaju Khan,Bannu Khan, Nasru Khan, Zakir Khan, Mumrej Khan, Razak Khan, Kallu,Nannu, Ramesh Mishtri and four others came there and assaultedHotilal, one of the brothers of the appellant with intention to killhim.The other brothers of the appellant were also assaulted as aresult whereof they received injuries.Accused persons took away a sumof Rs.600 along with some papers from the shop of the informant.Theshowroom (shop) was also damaged resulting in loss to the property.Acase was registered against the accused persons under various sectionsand after investigation charge-sheets were submitted against them.Asthe charge under Section 395 IPC was not added against the accused-persons, the appellant-complainant submitted a protest petition seekingthe addition of the aforesaid offence against them.By anotherapplication the appellant-complainant sought the addition of fouraccused persons, namely, Babu, Bashir, Sultan and Rajjal as their nameswere allegedly wrongly dropped from the list of accused persons by theinvestigating agency.The committal Magistrate allowed theapplications and committed the case to the court of Sessions whereafterthe learned Additional Sessions Judge being the trial court framed thecharges against the respondents including the charge under Section 395IPC.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant made a two-foldsubmission to assail the judgment of the High Court.Firstly, hecontended that as the earlier revision petition filed by the accusedpersons under Section 397 of the Code had been rejected by the HighCourt vide order dated 13.7.1990 (Annexure P-6), they had no right tofile the petition under Section 482 of the Code with prayer forquashing the same order.The order of the High Court dated 13.7.1990 shows that 13respondents - accused persons had filed the revision petitionchallenging the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance for theoffence under Section 395 IPC and for impleading respondents 10 to 13as accused persons.After the commitment, the Magistrate as well asthe Sessions Judge had issued non-bailable warrants against the accusedpersons.When the High Court directed accused persons to appear beforethe trial court and furnish their bail bonds, the learned counsel forthe accused did not press his petition so far as taking of cognizanceagainst them was concerned."Petitioners before me have challenged the order of theMagistrate, Deeg looking cognizance for the offence underSection 395 IPC and for other offence against thepetitioners 10 to 13 after some time there have contendedthere petitioners 1 to 9 were on bail granted under section436 Cr.P.C. and after adding a non bailable offence vizsection 395 IPC.The Magistrate and the Sessions Judgeboth have directed for issuance of non-bailable warrantsboth this is not proper, as the petitioners 1 to 9 havealready been granted bails.For petitioners 10 to 13 it isstated that they will also appear before the court andfurnish their bail and bonds.As far as the first part ofthe plea about taking cognizance is concerned the learnedcounsel for the petitioner does not press the same."
|
['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
171,857,624 |
Form No. J(1) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. K. Bag CRR No. 3644 of 2011 Saumya Ghosh & Ors.The State of West Bengal & Anr.The petitioners have preferred this criminal revision for quashing the criminal proceeding being G.R. Case No. 1506 of 2009 arising out of Siliguri Police Station Case No. 487 of 2009 dated 13th October, 2009 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Siliguri.The police investigated the case and submitted charge sheet against the petitioners on 30th March, 2010 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioners have challenged the said criminal proceeding on the ground that learned Magistrate at Siliguri does not have territorial jurisdiction to try the said case.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
171,858,463 |
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the First Information Report in FIR No.982 of 2009 dated 04.09.2009 on the file of the first respondent, now, pending investigation before the second respondent under Sections 417, 418 and 420 read with Section 34 IPC.2 On the complaint lodged by Balasubramanian, the third respondent herein/de facto complainant, the Inspector of Police, S-15 Selaiyur Police Station registered a case in Crime No.982 of 2009 for offences under Sections 417, 418 and 420 read with Section 34 IPC on 04.09.2009 against one Rajendran (A1), Krishnan Kailasam (A2) and Selvam (A3).Subsequently, the said FIR was transferred to the file of the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Team 23, Chennai.Now, Krishnan Kailasam (A2) has filed this Criminal Original Petition seeking quashment of the FIR on the ground that the parties have arrived at a compromise.3 Today, Krishnan Kailasam (A2) and Balasubramanian (de facto complainant) are present and they are identified by Mr. G. Selvaraj, SSI/CCB, Team 23, who is also present before this Court.4 Krishnan Kailasam (A2) and Balasubramanian (de facto complainant) have filed a joint memo of compromise, wherein, it has been averred as under: Thiru.Resultantly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.18.10.2016cadP.N. PRAKASH, J.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
171,866,477 |
Arguments heard, case diary perused.The prosecution case in brief is that the dead body of the deceased Atul S/o Mangilal Rathore was found in the field of Indrajeet Sardar which was being tilled by the informant Ram Prasad Choudhary.During the investigation, the statement of the wife of the deceased Shobha Rathore was recorded.Case diary is available.This is fourth bail application filed by the applicant under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail.His third application was dismissed on merit in M.Cr.--- 2 ---HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE Ravishankar Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh This repeat application is filed on the ground of delay in conclusion of trial.The present applicant is under custody since 29.06.2014 and therefore a report was called from Sessions Judge, Indore.According to the report, out of 25 witnesses, statements of 8 witnesses have been recorded.The accused/applicant was arrested by Police Station Lasudiya, district Indore in Crime No.626/2014 for offence under section 302/34 of IPC.She informed the police that the deceased was last seen with the accused Ravi Dhakad who took him in motorcycle and the son of the present applicant Atul Rathore.Subsequent to this, the dead body of the deceased was found.During investigation, the mobile phone was also recovered, on information being given by the present applicant and his son Atul.It was also found that the location of the mobile phone of the present applicant and other accused was found to be near the place of incident.Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the application.From the report of the Sessions Judge it is apparent that inspite of lapse of period of three and half years, there is hardly any progress in the trial and according to the report, it will take one and half years to conclude the trial.This apart, the present applicant was arrested only on the basis of circumstantial evidence and as such in the opinion of this Court it is a fit case for grant of bail on the ground of delay in conclusion of trial.The application filed under section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed.It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard during trial.He is further directed that on being so released on bail, he would comply with the conditions enumerated under section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously.Certified copy as per rules.On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has not disputed the aforesaid order, however, she has argued--- 3 ---HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE Ravishankar Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh that there is evidence of last seen together against the applicant.However, the evidence of last seen together was also available against co-accused Omprakash Rathore and he has been enlarged on bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court.She has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail.This Court has carefully gone through the statement available in the case diary and especially the order dated 17/11/2017 passed in M.CR.C.No.Applicant Ravishankar is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.1.00 lac with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the said Court on the dates fixed in this behalf.Certified Copy, as per Rules.(S. C. SHARMA) JUDGE KR Kamal Rathor 2018.01.22 11:03:31
|
['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.
|
171,870,383 |
The present applicant is said to be armed with Lathi.Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.In retaliation of lodging F.I.R. against Rinku and Nikkulal the accused persons and their associates attacked on the house of the complainant to cause hurt to Dinanath and also causing injuries to five other persons with Lathi and Garasa.Eight persons including the applicant were named in this case.The counsel for the applicant also submit that in case the applicant is admitted to bail he undertake not to visit or harras the complainant or any members of his family.Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for grant of bail with certain conditions :I. The applicant-Kaptan, involved in the aforesaid case, shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda.
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 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 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
171,875,514 |
Law laid down The victim of rape cannot be compelled to give birth to a child of the rapist.If conditions enumerated in the Act of 1971 are fulfilled, the pregnancy of victim can be terminated.The petitioner being guardian has given his consent for terminating the pregnancy.-:- 5 -:-Deputy Advocate General.The pregnancy can be terminated if conditions mentioned in Section 3 or Section 5 of the Act are satisfied.(Order) 06.12.2017 In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents for terminating the pregnancy of his minor daughter who is allegedly a rape victim.In addition, petitioner has prayed for grant of suitable compensation.The case of the petitioner is that he lodged a report before Police Station Mundi, District Khandwa on 15.10.2017 stating that his minor daughter has been kidnapped.The respondent No.6, in turn, investigated the matter and arrested the-:- 2 -:-W.P. No. 20961 of 2017 accused.The offences under Section 363, 366, 376 of IPC read with Section 4 & 6 of POCOS Act were alleged against the accused.The police authority secured custody of the minor daughter (herein after called as "victim") of petitioner from the accused and she was handed-over to the petitioner by Supurdginama dated 31.10.2017 (Annexure-P/2).The police authority by communication dated 31.10.2017 informed the petitioner that the victim is having pregnancy of about 16 weeks.Per-contra, Mr. Yadav, learned Deputy A.G. produced the documents dated 04.12.2017, 05.12.2017 and the consent letter of petitioner whereby he has given consent for examining the victim relating to pregnancy.By letter dated 04.12.2017 the SHO, P.S. Mundi, District Khandwa requested the Gynaecologist, District Hospital Khandwa to examine and give report on following points: (i) the duration of pregnancy of the victim; (ii) whether the victim's pregnancy can be terminated; and (iii) any other opinion which is justifiable.In the bottom of this letter, the Gynaecologist, Dr. Laxmi (the complete name of doctor is not legible in the document) has given her opinion: viz (i) that the victim is having pregnancy of a period of five months; (ii) upto five months (20 weeks), the pregnancy can be terminated; & (iii) NIL.-:- 3 -:-W.P. No. 20961 of 2017-:- 7 -:-W.P. No. 20961 of 2017 Suchita Shrivastava (supra)].The Committee shall be constituted within 24 hours from the date of receipt of this order and shall examine the victim within 24 hours therefrom.Needless to emphasis that in the event of difference of opinion amongst medical practitioners, the majority view will prevail;-:- 8 -:-Shri Yadav is requested to communicate this order to all the respondents immediately.
|
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,718,775 |
JUDGMENT R.K. Batta, J.The appellant alongwith three others was tried for murder of Mahadoji Ramble under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also assault on others for which separate charge was framed besides other charges.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim, by Judgment dated 21.2.97, convicted the appellant of the charge of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life.He was acquitted of other charges.The other co-accused were acquitted of all the charges.The appellant challenges his conviction in this appeal.The prosecution case, as revealed from evidence on record, is that there was litigation pending between the deceased family and the family of the appellant and in that connection the son of the deceased alongwith his wife and his mother had gone to Washim Court on the previous day of the incident.In that case, statement of Vimal (P. W. 1), daughter of the deceased was recorded.The appellant, alongwith others, gave threats to Vimal (P.W. 1), her husband Prakash (P. W. 2) and Jijabai (P. W. 3), on account of which they had to halt for night at the house of their relative at Washim.On the next day morning, they returned home and at about 10.00 a. m. the appellant came alongwith other co-accused and questioned the deceased as to how his daughter had lodged false report and had given false evidence.The deceased told him to forget the past events and begged pardon by folding hands, upon which the appellant took out an axe from his back side and gave axe blow on the head of the deceased, as a result of which, he fell down and later died.The prosecution had examined three eye witnesses of the incident namely P. W. 1 Vimal Prakash Khandare, daughter of the deceased, P. W. 2 Prakash Pundlik Khandare, son-in-law of the deceased and P. W. 3 Jijabai Mahadu Kamble, wife of the deceased.The fourth eye witness P. W. 7 Gangadhar Mahadu Kamble, did not support the prosecution case.On the basis of evidence of eye witnesses and other evidence on record, the Trial Court recorded finding of conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant.The other co-accused were ordered to be acquitted since the evidence against them was not found sufficient.The learned Advocate for the appellant took us through the evidence on record and more particularly the evidence of eye witnesses and urged before us that one of the eye witnesses has not supported the prosecution case and the other eye Witnesses are closely related to the deceased and being interested witnesses, their evidence cannot be accepted.He also pointed out that in any case the version of the eye - witnesses cannot be accepted since according to them the blow of axe was given by the appellant while standing in front of the deceased, on account of which the blow could never fall on the occipital region of the deceased.He also contended that the appellant is said to have inflicted only one blow, as a result of which, the bone of the occipital region had fractured which was brittle on account of the age of the deceased who was 70 years of age.He, therefore, contends that the appellant be acquitted of the charge or at any rate the offence in question does not fall under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code but may, at the most, come under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code.The learned A. P. P., on the other hand, urged before us that the incident took place in the background of previous litigation and on the previous day of the incident, P. W. 1 Vimal had deposed in the Court at Washim against the appellant and the appellant alongwith other had threatened Vimal (P. W. 1), her husband Prakash (P. W. 2) and the wife of the deceased Jijabai (P. W. 3).He further argued that the appellant came with an axe to the house of the deceased and questioned him as to why P. W. 1 Vimal had deposed against him and, thereafter, inflicted the fatal axe blow on the head of the deceased, as a result of which, he died.The prosecution has examined three eye witnesses, who are, no doubt, closely related to the deceased, on account of which their testimony requires close scrutiny.P. W. 1 Vimal has stated that on the previous day of the incident she alongwith her mother Jijabai (P. W. 3) and husband Prakash (P. W. 2) had gone to Washim Court, where her statement was recorded in the Court in a case against appellant Manik and others.She has further stated that Manik and others had given threat on the day of her evidence, on account of which they had to halt at the house of her relative at Washim.She has also stated that on the next day morning when they came to the house, their father namely deceased Mahaduji informed that Manik was taking rounds during the night time near their house.This evidence of P. W. 1 has not even been challenged during the cross-examination.The testimony of this witness on this aspect is fully corroborated by her husband Prakash (P.W. 2) and also Jijabai (P. W. 3).Both of them have stated that they alongwith Vimal (P. W. 1) had gone to the Washim Court for evidence on the previous day and the accused had given threat, on account of which they had to stay at Washim for the night.P. W. 3 Jijabai has also stated that her husband had informed her that the accused persons were taking rounds at the house.The statements of these witnesses were also not challenged during the cross-examination.The facts prove motive for the assault by the appellant.P. W. 1 Vimal has further stated that at about 10.00 a. m. appellant came to their house and told her father that she had lodged a false report and has given false evidence.Her father told him to forget it and forget the past events and her father begged pardon by folding hands.At this stage, the appellant took out an axe from the back side and gave axe blow on the head of her father.There has been no cross-examination on this material particulars, except for bare suggestions which have been denied.It was suggested to this witness that in a scuffle the axe of her husband namely, Prakash (P.W. 2) hit on the head of the deceased, which was denied by her.It was also suggested to her that at the time of the incident, Manik had taken the axe from the hand of her husband and whirled it, and thus, sought to explain the blow by Manik on the head of the deceased.The learned Advocate for the appellant has urged before us that when the blow was given by the appellant Manik from the front side of the deceased, it is not possible that the blow would fall on the occipital region of the deceased.The evidence of P. W. 1 Vimal, P. W. 2 Prakash and P. W. 3 Jijabai shows that the deceased begged pardon with folded hands, told the appellant to forget what had happened and in such situation as it happens normally, it appears that deceased had bent while begging pardon by folding hands and the appellant Manik took out an axe from the back side and gave blow on the head of deceased due to which he fell down.The testimony of this witnesses on this aspect is fully corroborated by her husband P. W. 2 Prakash and also her mother-in-law P. W, 3 Jijabai.P. W. 3 Jijabai has stated that appellant Manik came to her husband and said that her daughter had lodged false case and had given false evidence and her husband namely deceased told her let us forget the past and begged pardon with folded hands and at this stage, Manik had taken out an axe from his back side and gave axe blow on the head of her husband.P. W. 2 Prakash came to the spot after hearing the shouts and he saw the injury on the head of his father and the appellant was having an axe and he was trying to run away.The evidence of these three eye witnesses, therefore, duly establishes involvement of the appellant, P. W. 7 Gangadhar Kamble, who was another eye.witness, did not support the prosecution case.He stated that Vimal daughter-in-law of the deceased was his step sister; due to discord with them, he shifted to another locality; his relations are cordial with the accused which shows the reasons as to why this witness has not supported the prosecution case.This witness has tried to suppress the truth from the Court when he said that though he found Mahaduji lying down, he did not even know whether blood was oozing from his head.The appellant had one injury on his forehead, which according to P. W. 8 Nagorao Thorat, was possible with a sharp edged weapon.There is no doubt that the prosecution has not given any explanation for the injury on the appellant but the appellant has also not attributed this injury to the deceased.P. W. 1 Vimal has denied that her husband had given the axe blow on the head of Manik.She has also denied that her father had given stick blow to Manik which hit on his thumb.It was initially suggested to P. W. 2 Prakash that he came out of the house with a stick in his hand, but subsequently it was suggested to him that he and Gangadhar had assaulted Suresh and appellant Manik with an axe.If as per the defence case the said witness Prakash initially came with a stick in his hand, it is not explained any where as to how axe came into the hand of P. W. 2 Prakash, for the purpose of giving suggestion that he alongwith Gangadhar had assaulted Suresh and the appellant Manik with an axe.He denied that while assaulting Manik, his axe hit his father-in-law.P. W. 3 Jijabai has also denied that Prakash was having an axe.Though she was questioned about the injury to Manik, the appellant, and others, but she was not cross-examined on the question as to who had caused the said injuries nor any suggestion was given to her.She denied the suggestion that her husband was having a stick.The appellant/ accused in his statement u/s 313 of the Cr. P. C. does not also attribute injury on his person to the deceased.In addition to the eye-witnesses account, the shirt Exh. 6 of appellant which was attached by the police had innumerable blood stains ranging from 0.1 to 10 cms.diameter spread all over.The blood was of human origin.Surprisingly the report of Chemical Analyser does not at all speak of blood grouping in respect of the same, but innumerable blood stains ranging from 0.1 to 10 cms.spread all over shirt (Exh. 6) is incriminating circumstance against the appellant, in addition to the eye witness account of the witnesses which could not be shakened during the course of cross-examination.The appellant and others threatened them as a result of which they had to stay over night at Washim.The appellant was seen making rounds near the house of the deceased.Ultimately he not only came to question the deceased but he also brought an axe alongwith him and he assaulted the deceased with the sharp edge of the axe on the vital part of the body namely 'Head'.Beside that he found other two injuries.According to him, injury No. 1 could be caused by hard and sharp object and was possible by axe in question.He also stated that the injury No. 1 was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
171,877,879 |
The petitioner, an Executive Engineer, has been placed under suspension bythe Government in G.O.(D) No.379 Public Works (E1) Department, dated 10.11.2011under Rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,following his arrest, at 13.00 hours on 19.10.2011, alleging demand andacceptance of bribe of Rs.20,000/- from one Thiru.A.Pandian, for issuance of acheque for the works executed by him.A case in Crime No.10 of 2011 has beenregistered against the petitioner under Section 7 of the Prevention ofCorruption Act 1988, by the Madurai Detachment of the Directorate of Vigilanceand Anti Corruption.The petitioner has been remanded to judicial custody.Subsequently, the criminal prosecution has been withdrawn and thatthe same is substantiated in the reply dated 27.05.2013 given by theSuperintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department, Chennai-28,to a query made by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act. Lateron,the Chief Engineer (Buildings), Chief Engineer, Chennai Region and ChiefEngineer General (PWD Chennai) has framed a charge memorandum inNo.The charge framed against the petitioner under Rule 17(b) of the TamilNadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules is as follows:"That Thiru K.S.Abdul Rashid, Executive Engineer (under suspension), PWD.In his former capacity as the Executive Engineer, PWD, WRD, Periyar Main CanalDivision, Melur, Madurai actuated by corrupt motive and abuse of his officialposition has demanded and accepted an amount of Rs.20,000/- from ThiruP.Pandian, S/o.Alagappan, A.V.Sala Street, Melur, Madurai District and a Statelevel contractor in Public Works Department, on 19.10.2011, as illegalgratification, being the 5% of total bill amount of Rs.3,94,482/- for issuanceof cheque to him, has committed official misconduct and misdemeanor and thus,failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion of duty as warranted underRule 20 of Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973."The statement of allegations contained in Annexure-II in respect of thecharges framed against the petitioner is extracted hereunder: "Thiru K.S.Abdul Rashid, Executive Engineer (under suspension), PWD wasformerly working as Executive Engineer, PWD, WRD, Periyar Main Canal Division,Madurai Region, Madurai during the period from 02.102009 to 19.10.2011 A.N.Thiru K.S.Abdul Rashid, in his former capacity as the Executive Engineer, PWD,WRD Periyar main Canal Division, Melur, Madurai, was the authority to sanctionand pass the bills for payments to the contractors, on completion of respectiveworks.Thiru A.Pandian, S/o.Alagappan, A.V.Sala Street, Melur, Madurai Districtis a District and State level contractor in Public Works Department.Thecontract for the work of Renovation of Koolapandi Kanmai was taken up by ThiruA.Pandian, under the jurisdiction of Executive Engineer, PWD, WRD, Periyar MainCanal Division, Melur on 04.07.2011 at a contract value of Rs.3,97,561/-.Thiru E.P.Vigneswaran, Assistant Engineer,WRO, PWD, Periyar Main Canal Section, Mettupatti, had recorded the measurementsfor the works on 04.08.2011 in Measurement Book No.2011 and the part bill wasforwarded to the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD, WRD, Periyar Main Canal SubDivision 1, Melur.The above work was check measured by Thiru N.Anbuselvam, AssistantExecutive Engineer, WRO, PWD, Periyar main Canal Sub Division, Madurai and partbill was countersigned by him on 10.08.2011 and forwarded to the ExecutiveEngineer, PWD, WRD, Periyar Main Canal Division, Melur for passing of bill.On knowing that, the part bill for the work of "Renovation of KoolapandiKanmal" was passed by the Executive Engineer, PWD, WRD Periyar Main CanalDivision, Melur, Thiru.A.Pandian, Contractor, had met Thiru K.S.Abdul Rashid,Executive Engineer (under suspension), and Thiru N.Anbuselvam, AssistantExecutive Engineer, PWD at Public Works Department office in Thallakulam,Madurai, on 16.08.2011 regarding the payment for the said work.Thiru K.S.AbdulRashid, Executive Engineer (under suspension), PWD and Thiru N.Anbuselvam,Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD had informed him that, the funds were notallotted for the issuance of cheque and he might get payment only after theallotment of funds.Again after two months, Thiru A.Pandian, Contractor went to the PublicWorks Department office Thallakulam, Madurai on 14.10.2011 and enquired abouthis cheque to Tmt.Shanthi, Superintendent, Periyar Main Canal Sub Division,Madurai and she asserted that the cheque was ready to issue and asked him tomeet Thiru K.S.Abdul Rashid, Executive Engineer (under suspension), PWD andThiru N.Anbuselvam, Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD.On 18.10.2011, Thiru.A.Pandian, Contractor alongwith Thiru Gunasekaran,Secretary, Contractors Association has met Thiru K.A.Abdul Rashid, ExecutiveEngineer (under suspension), PWD, WRO, at his office at Melur and asked aboutthe cheque.Thiru A.Pandian, Contractor had contacted Thiru K.S.Abdul Rashid,Executive Engineer, PWD, over mobile phone on 19.10.2011 at 11.10 hours ThiruK.S.Abdul Rashid, Executive Engineer (under suspension), asked Thiru A.Pandian,Contrctor to meet him at Vai-Ka-Si, Illam at Public Works Department Complex,Madurai.Thiru A.Pandian alongwith Thiru S.Sivakumar, Assistant Inspector Generalof Registration, Jawan Bhavan, 2nd Floor, Madurai went into the Room No.2, inthe ground floor of Vai-Ka-Si Illam in Public Works Department, PWD was sittingin a Sofa and enquired about Thiru S.Sivakumar.For that, Thiru A.Pandian,Contractor had replied that, his name was Sridharan and doing Conractor work atThiruppathur.A.Pandina, Contractor had asked about his cheque.ThiruK.S.Abdul Rashid, Executive Engineer (under suspension), PWD had reiterated hisearlier demand to Thiru A.Pandian, Contractor, to pay the commission amount asusual and to get the cheque.Thiru A.Pandian took out the amount from his shirtpocket and about to hand over to Thiru K.S.Abdul Rashid, Executive Engineer(under suspension), Public Works Department, he without receiving the bribeamount directed Thiru A.Pandian, Contractor to keep the amount under his diarywhich was on the Tea-Poi.From the above narrated incident, it is evident that Thiru K.S.AbdulRshid, Executive Engineer (under suspension), PWD, in his former capacity as theExecutive Engineer, WRD, PWD, Periyar Main Canal Division, Melur actuated bycorrupt motive had demanded and accepted an amount of Rs.20,000/- as bribe fromThiru A.Pandian, Contractor, for issuing the cheque to him, towards the partbill of Rs.3,94,482/- for the work of "Renovation of Koolapandi Kanmai"sanctioned and passed by him.Charge 1:According to Rule 20 of Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules 1973,"Every member of the service shall at the time maintain absolute integrity anddevotion to duty and he shall do nothing which is unbecoming of a member of theservice"But in this case, Thiru K.S.Abdul Rashid, Executive Engineer (undersuspension), PWD, in his former capacity as the Executive Engineer, WRD, PWD,Periyar Main Canal Division, Melur, Madurai actuated by corrupt motive and abuseof his official position has demanded and accepted an amount of Rs.20,000/- fromThiru A.Pandian, Contractor on 19.10.2011 as illegal gratification, being the 5%of total bill amount of Rs.3,94,482/- for issuance of cheque to him, hascommitted official misconduct and misdemeanor and thus failed to maintainabsolute integrity and devotion to duty as warranted under Rule 20 of Tamil NaduGovernment Servants Conduct Rules."The list of documents, on the basis of which charges have been framedand proposed to be marked in the departmental enquiry, contained in Annexure-III, are as follows:No.10/11 prepared at the O/o.the DeputySuperintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Madurai.No.10/2011 prepared at Thirumangalam Taluk Officer,Thirumangalam, Madurai District.5.House Search Slip.6.Rough Sketch in Cr.7.Diary (2011) of Thiru K.S.Abdul Rashid, Executive Engineer, PWDSanthi, Superintendent, Public Works Department (WRO), Periyar Main Canal,sub Division No.1, Madurai.Xerox Copy of cheque memo register containing pages 1 to 4 attested byTmt.Santhi, Superintendent, Public Works Department (WRO, Periyar Main Canal subDivision No.1, Madurai.11.Xerox copy of cheque No.11450504048 in the name of Thiru A.Pandian,attested by Tmt.J.Santhi, Superintendent, Public Works Department (WRO), PeriyarMain Canal Sub Division No.1, Madurai.Xerox copy of attendance register of O/o the Assistant ExecutiveEngineer, PWD, WRO, Periyar Main Canal sub Division No.1, Madurai attested byTmt.J.Santhi, Superintendent, Public Works Department (WRO), Periyar Main Canalsub Division No.1, Madurai.13.Xerox copy of cheque memo register dated from 12.08.2011 to 20.10.2011of the O/o.the Assistant Executive Engineer, WRD, PWD Periyar Main Canal subDivision No.1, Madurai.Xerox copy of the cheque memo Register for the year 2011-2012, O/o.theExecutive Engineer, WRO, Public Works Department, Periyar Main Canal Divison,Melur, Madurai.Xerox copy of the Contractor Bill Register dated from 06.07.2011 to09.09.2011 of the O/o.the Executive Engineer, WRD, PWD, Periyar Main CanalDivision, Melur, Madurai.16.Xerox copy of the LOC letter received from the PAO to Bank.17.Xerox copy of the cheque drawn particulars.18.Xerox copy of the Letter of credit Register.19.Xerox copy of the Call details between Thiru K.S.Abdul Rashid,Executive Engineer, PWD and Thiru A.Pandian, Contractor & Thiru Anbuselvam,Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD and Thiru Gunasekaran, Secretary, ContractorsAssociation, Madurai on 17.10.2011 and 18.10.201120.Chemical Report in Chem No.664/201021.FIR Xerox Copy of Melur P.S.Cr.Recommendation letter of Thiru K.S.Abdul Rashied, Executive Engineer,PWD, WRO, Periyar Main Canal Division, Melur, Madurai to Chief Engineer, PWD toblack list the complainant.Court order to include the complainant name in the PWD Contractorlist.List of witnesses proposed to be examined during enquiry, as containedin Annexure-IV are as follows:-Thiru A.Pandian, S/o.Azhagappan, D.No.10, A.V.Sala Street, Melur,Madurai District.2.Thiru S.Sivakumar, Assistant Inspector of General of Registration, javanBhavan, Second Floor, Madurai.M.Sarojini, Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department,Madurai.4.Thiru Arul Santhiappan Jeevanthra Durai, Deputy Executive Engineer,Periyar Main Canal Division, PWD, Thallakulam, Madurai.5.Tmt Santhi, Superintendent, Public Works Department, Periyar Main CanalDivision, Thallakulam, Madurai.6.Thiru D.Mubarak Ali, Driver, PWD, Periyar Main Canal Division,Thallakulam, Madurai.7.Thiru E.P.Vigneshwaran, Assistant Engineer, WRO/PWD, Periyar Main CanalDivision, Mettupatti.8.Thiru R.Sorai Kumar, S/o.P.A.R.Ramasamy, Assistant Executive Engineer,Periyar Vaigai Basin Sub Division No.1, Thallakulam, Madurai.9.Thiru Anbarasan, S/o.Arumugam, Assistant Engineer, Periyar Vaigai BasinSub Division No.II, Thallakulam, Madurai.10.Thiru Kallanai, Watchmen, Vai-Ka-See-Illam, PWD Complex, Madurai.11.Thiru Gunasekaran, S/o.Swamithevar, 3A, Gunamahal Illam, BharathithasanNagar 1st, Rup/School Road, Palanganthan, Madurai.12.Thiru P.Sanjeevimalai Ayyappan, S/o.R.Angammal, W/o.14.Thiru Kalarani, Assistant Chemical Examiner, Deputy Director, Tamilnadu Forensic Sciences Laboratory, Chennai.16.Thiru Krishnamoorthy, Sub-Divisional Engineer (Vigilance), O/o.theGeneral Manager, BSNL, Madurai.17.Thiru Raveendiran, HC 787, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Madurai.18.Thiru Sekar, HC 1399, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Madurai.19.Thiru Thirunavukarasu, PC 220, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Madurai.20.Thiru R.Tamilselvan, Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Madurai.21.Thiru Manisekran, Assistant Executive Engineer, Periyar Main CanalDivision, PWD, Madurai.22.Thiru Jeyakumar, Inspector of Police, Thallakulam (L & O) PS, MaduraiCity.23.Thiru Krishnan, Sub Inspector of Police, Melur P.S. Maduai District.Kalavathi, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance andAntiCorruption, Maduai.25.Thiru Ramesh, Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption,Madurai.Alleging inter alia that the charge memorandum has been actuated withmalice and it is the contractor who had indulged in unlawful activities, even tothe extent of assaulting the petitioner, for which a criminal case has beenregistered against the contractor and further contending that the ContractorAssociation has also passed a resolution dated 12.07.2011 condemning the actionof the complainant, Thiru.A.Pandian S/o.8.Final Bill No.23/2011 containing pages 1 to 109.Xerox copy of Measurement Book 2011 containing pages 1 to 4 attested byTmt.No.582/2010, u/s, 341, 353, 506(i) IPCagainst the Complainant.FIR Xerox copy of Tallakulam PS Cr.No.2116/2010, u/s 448, 323, 506(ii)IPC on 25.06.2010 against the Complainant.Hence, on the date of the order, when 'no enquiry was pending'against the petitioner into grave charges, the first error apparent on the faceof the order having occasioned, the impugned order deserves to be set aside."We could see from the above extract, learned Judge held that by the mere issuingof a charge memorandum, enquiry could not be stated to be pending and ifexplanation called for an submitted is found to be satisfactory, then enquirywould not be ordered.As already noted, framing of grave charges, need notnecessarily and always culminate in the holding of an enquiry.W.P. No. 304 of 1982 was to quash thecharge memorandum and W.P. No. 391 of 1982 was filed for a MANDAMUS to theauthority concerned to consider the servant for promotion.The common order of thelearned Judge was taken on appeals.A Bench of this Court, consisting ofRamanujam and Ratnam, JJ.Thus weconclude that R. 17(b) of the Rules prescribes the grounds on which it isproposed to take action.Those grounds shall be reduced to the from of definitecharge or charges.Thereafter, the member of the Service is required to submit awritten statement of defence to the charge or charges.When no charges were framed by the competent authority, he filedanother writ petition.This court while entertaining that writ petition, by aninterim order revoked the suspension order.The short order contained only three paragraphs.Thereafter, thesuspension was revoked.There was objection for restoration of service on theground that this court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the suspensionwhich was rejected.The allegation was made only against the SubInspector of Police.But revocation of suspension pending trial into corruption charges,cannot be claimed as a matter of right, as it would defeat the purpose of theStatutory Rules, which empower the authority to suspend and continue the same.The petitioner has alleged malafide as against the contractor,Mr.From the perusal of the averments made in the supporting affidavitand material on record enclosed, this Court is not inclined to accept thecontentions of malice, against the Secretary to the Government, Public WorksDepartment, Chennai, who has passed the order of suspension, after the arrest ofthe petitioner on 19.10.2011, for demand and acceptance of bribe of Rs.20,000/-from a contractor and pursuant to the registration of crime No.10 of 2011 underSection 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered by the MaduraiDetachment, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption.No motive can beattributed against the Secretary to the Government, Public Works Department,Chennai.
|
['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
171,879,029 |
C.R.M. 5413 of 2018 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 27/07/2018 in connection with Onda P.S. Case No. 49 of 2018 dated 02/05/2018 under Sections gd 147/148/149/341/325/307/379 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of: Sakiyar Rahaman Mondal & Ors.....petitioners.Mr. Samiran Mandal ...for the petitioners.The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Onda P.S. Case No. 49 of 2018 dated 02/05/2018 under Sections 147/148/149/341/325/307/379 of the Indian Penal Code.The State opposes the prayer and says that the second petitioner appears to have been the principal assailant.The charge-sheet has been filed.
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
172,133,102 |
While coming back from Nirman Bhawan to his office, when he reached at the crossing of Rajpath and Janpath near the National Museum while coming from the side of the National Museum on his left side of the road, he found the traffic signal light as green.On this, he crossed the green light signal and MAC App.No.341 of 2008 Page 2 of 16 turned towards his right leading to India Gate and had almost crossed the road, when all of a sudden a car bearing no. DIE-505, being driven by Appellant no.1 came there at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, hit his two wheeler scooter from left side.Due to impact, he fell on the road and sustained grievous injuries.MAC App.It was also observed that ".....at that time, as per the system of light signals at crossings on green signal, the traffic could have proceeded straight from both the sides and towards left and right turns.In this system of green light, the person who is taking the right turn has to take care of traffic coming from opposite side whereas, MAC App.No.341 of 2008 Page 5 of 16 the person coming from straight has to take care about the traffic coming after taking right turn....".Another reason is that it is undesirable to let things slide till memories have grown too dim to trust."MAC App.No.341 of 2008 Page 13 of 16Respondent in his examination-in-chief before the Tribunal deposed that he remained admitted in RML Hospital for about 12 days and was kept in the Hospital in simple plaster and his left eye was stitched during this period.Since his left leg did not fully joined, on 13/14th May, 1996 he was again admitted in MAC App.The present appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short as the "Act") has been filed by Appellants against the award dated 07.02.08 passed by Sh.Suresh Chand Rajan, Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short as the "Tribunal").No.341 of 2008 Page 2 of 16Consequently, the Respondent filed a claim petition under section 166 & 140 of the Act claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- along with the interest @ 18% per annum.Appellant nos.1 & 2 filed their written statement separately, in which both denied the factum of accident and involvement of vehicle in accident.Vide impugned judgment, the Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs.1,02,380/- along with the interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the MAC App.No.341 of 2008 Page 3 of 16 petition till its realization, payable by the Appellant nos. 1 & 2 to the Respondent.MAC App.The Respondent himself has placed on record certified copy of charge sheet filed against Appellant no.1 under section 279/338 of the Indian Penal code, certified copy of FIR, site plan, mechanical inspection report, seizure memo of the offending vehicle and superdarinama.The first point which arises for consideration is as to whether the accident took place due to rash and MAC App.In MAC App.No.341 of 2008 Page 7 of 16The relevant findings of the Tribunal on the point of negligence are as under:-"The petitioner deposed on oath that 09.04.1996 at about 12 noon he was on his way back to his office in C.R. Building from Nirman Bhawan on his two wheeler scooter bearing no. DBI- 6690 and reached at Rajpath and Janpath crossing and crossed the intersection when the signal was green and he was on the left side of the road, when a car bearing no. DIE-505 Toyata came from the side of Connaught place on Janpath and struck against the rear left side of his two wheeler scooter.Due to impact petitioner fell on the road along with scooter.Petitioner suffered injuries on his left eye, forehead, and also suffered fracture both bones left leg and became unconscious.I have perused the entire cross- examination.MAC App.No.341 of 2008 Page 8 of 16The respondents have not been able to bring anything on the record so as to prove that there was any negligence on the part of the petitioner.R-1 did not come forward so as to disprove that there was no negligence on his part.Though the petitioner discharged his initial onus but the respondents did not discharge the onus placed upon them.In these circumstances I hold that petitioner sustained injuries in the accident caused by R-1 while driving offending vehicle bearing no. DIE-505 in a rash and negligent manner."In the present case, during the course of trial, both the Respondents (Appellants herein) filed their written statement.Later on, they absented and vide order dated 03.09.03, they were proceeded ex-parte.Thereafter, they moved an application under Order IX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for setting aside ex-parte order.Vide order dated 06.01.04 ex-parte order was set aside.Subsequently, Appellants herein were given various opportunities to lead their evidences but inspite of various opportunities granted to them they did not produce any evidence as such, the Trial Court MAC App.No.341 of 2008 Page 9 of 16 vide order dated 1.10.04 closed the evidence of Prem Shankar (Appellant no.1 herein) whereas, on that day Appellant no.2 herein, absented and was proceeded ex- parte and his evidence was also closed.MAC App.No.341 of 2008 Page 9 of 16However, written submissions have been filed on behalf of Appellant no.1 herein, in the Trial Court.The Respondent deposed the manner of the accident before the Tribunal.In a compensation case, the claimants have to prove their case that accident took place with a particular vehicle.Since the Respondent has proved his case and therefore, Appellants are liable to pay compensation.MAC App.No.341 of 2008 Page 10 of 16MAC App.No.341 of 2008 Page 10 of 16On 27.09.07 ,the Respondent examined Sh.Surender Singh, Record Clerk, RML Hospital as PW2 who has proved the permanent disability certificate of the Respondent as Ex.No.341 of 2008 Page 14 of 16 the Govt. Hospital, Pusa Road, where his leg was operated upon and one external fixator was fixed and after three days he was discharged from the Hospital.He further stated that at the time of accident, he was a Govt. servant and was earning Rs.6,600/- per month and remained on leave from his office without pay for 10/11 months and suffered monetary loss of Rs.55,000/- to Rs. 60,000/-.He also stated that though he remained hospitalized from 09.04.1996 till 20.04.1996, but he remained bed ridden till date.MAC App.No.341 of 2008 Page 14 of 16With regard to disability, the Tribunal vide impugned judgment held as under;"The perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner had suffered 10% disability on account of the injuries suffered in the accident.The disability certificate Ex.PW2/A indicates that petitioner suffered fracture in both bones of both legs without shortening with mild restriction of ankle motion.Even thereafter, the petitioner remained under treatment for a long period."MAC App.No.341 of 2008 Page 15 of 16So, from the perusal of record, it is clear that the Respondent had filed his disability certificate and the same was allowed by the Tribunal on 15.09.07, moreover Appellants have not adduce any evidence contrary to it.Under these circumstances, no infirmity can be found with the impugned judgment of the Tribunal and thus, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.No order as to costs.Trial Court record be sent back forthwith.MAC App.No.341 of 2008 Page 16 of 16
|
['Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,721,350 |
M.P.No.80 of 2007 in S.C.No.140 of 2006 by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, whereby the prayer of the petitioner for recalling the P.T.Warrant and releasing him from judicial custody and also for setting aside the remand order was rejected.The facts in a nutshell are as under :On 06.07.2002, at about 08.20 p.m., at T.Nagar, Chennai Thiyagaraja Road, in front of Andhra Bank, one advocate, by name, Madanagopal was brutally shot dead by the accused by name Iqbal Mansuri from Madhya Pradesh, in pursuance of a conspiracy among the accused involved in the case.The said advocate was stated to have been defending the offenders, who were booked under the N.D.P.S.Act, in Madhya Pradesh.Totally, seven accused were on the array, who were reported to have hatched a conspiracy to physically eliminate the said Madanagopal.This revision is filed against the order, dated 14.08.2007, passed in Crl.The present petitioner was originally ranked as third accused, who was said to have played an important role in hatching and implementing the conspiracy to silence the said Madanagopal.On the strength of a complaint lodged by one Arthi, daughter of the said Madanagopal, a case in Crime No.1234 of 2002 came to be registered on the file of the respondent Police station, for the offences under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC read with Section 27 (1) of The Arms Act, read with Section 109 IPC.In the meanwhile, the petitioner was released on bail by the said Magistrate.Since A-2, A-4 and A-7 were continuously absconding and they could not be secured in spite of NBWs, the case was split up as regards them and the remaining case with the available accused inclusive of A-3, petitioner herein, was committed to the Principal Sessions Court, Krishnagiri, and the same was taken on file in S.C.No.140 of 2006, which has been made over to I Additional Sessions Court, Krishnagiri, and the same is pending disposal.While the petitioner was on bail, he was stated to have involved in the commission of offences under Sections 302 and 120-B read with 34 IPC in Maharashtra in Crime No.4 of 2005 on the file of Kolhapur Police Station and he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced copies of the docket orders in P.R.C.No.1 of 2005 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate No.On 26.12.2005, the fact of arrest of the petitioner was intimated to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri, by means of a telegram sent by his advocate in Maharashtra.On 03.01.2006 and 06.01.2006 also, telegrams were sent on behalf of the petitioner, indicating the registration of Crime No.4 of 2005 and his being lodged in Kalamba Central Prison at Kolhapur (Maharashtra) by the jail authority.The respondent filed a report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri, stating that since the petitioner was lodged in Kalamba Central Jail, Kolhapur, a P.T.Warrant might be issued to cause production of the accused, namely, the petitioner, before the Court.The respondent also requested the Superintendent of Central Prison for production of the accused.Ultimately, on 06.06.2006, the petitioner was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri, who remanded him till 12.06.2006, and from the said date, the petitioner has been in jail.He observed in his order that when the accused was produced before the committal Court and the said Court remanded him to judicial custody, automatically, the P.T.Warrant ceased to exist and once an NBW was issued and subsequently the accused was arrested and remanded, the bail already granted stood cancelled automatically, because he committed breach of his undertaking executed at the time of his being released on bail.The Additional Sessions Judge also touched the merits of the case and the nativity of the petitioner i.e. to say, he hailed from Madhya Pradesh and opined that if the prayer was granted and he was released on bail, there was every possibility for him to abscond and as per the directions of the Supreme Court and the Madras High Court, the trial could not be completed expeditiously.
|
['Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
172,139,546 |
Let affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be kept with record.It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that she had been driven out of the shared household by the private respondents no. 9 and 10 shortly after the demise of her husband.Learned Counsel appearing for the State submits that dispute relates to sharing of common property.Learned Counsel appearing for the private respondents denies and disputes such allegations and submits that his clients have not, in any way, interfered with the right of the petitioner to occupy the shared household.Report is filed on behalf of the State wherefrom it appears that criminal case had been registered by the petitioner against her husband (since deceased) and other in-laws being Rajarhat Police Station Case No. 90 of 2012 dated 29.06.2012 under Section 498A/324/325 of the Indian Penal Code and charge-sheet was filed therein.Thereafter the petitioner and her husband started residing together at the parental house of the petitioner where the husband of the petitioner expired.The husband of the petitioner had three acres of land where he used to carry on business of electric appliances.Private respondents are interfering with the possession of the said shop room and on the complaint of the petitioner proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being Rajarhat Police Station NCR No. 124 of 2017 dated 02.03.2017 under Section 107/116( C ) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been registered.Copy of the report be handed over to the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as private respondents.In view of the aforesaid facts, it is open to the petitioner to establish and /or enforce her right on the shop room before the appropriate Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.Nonetheless, if the private respondents resort to acts of violence or cause an apprehension of breach of public peace and tranquility, it shall be open to the petitioner to initiate appropriate criminal proceeding against them in accordance with law.Needless to mention that lawful orders passed by the said judicial authorities shall be implemented by the police authorities in accordance with law.With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,721,496 |
A.(MD)No.202/2009 has been brought forthby Accused No.2 and Crl.2.The short facts necessary for the disposal of these appealscan be stated as follows:(a)P.W.1 Venkatasubramanian is the husband of oneVijayalakshmi, the deceased in this case.He was a resident of SafireApartments in Joseph Street, Perumalpuram, within the jurisdiction of therespondent Police Station.P.W.1 was working as Manager in Arasan TractorCompany at Thachanallur.He was also running a plastic shop at Anbu Nagar,Perumalpuram, in the name of 'Abinaya Plastics' and the said shop was beinglooked after by his wife Vijayalakshmi.(b)On 08.01.2007, as usual, P.W.1 went for his work in themorning hours leaving his wife Vijayalakshmi in the house.At noon hours i.e.at about 02.45 p.m., P.W.1 came back to his house, along with his driver IsakkiGanesh (P.W.2) in Car and found the house locked.Since there was no responseinspite of his knocking the door, he enquired one Periyanayaki Ammal (P.W.18), aneighbour, who in turn informed that she noticed water flowing outside from thehouse of P.W.1 since morning hours and she heard noise about and hence she wasof the impression that Vijayalakshmi was taking bath during the time.As hisattempt to take the key which was hanging near the window had failed, P.W.1,entertaining a suspicion proceeded to his plastic shop at Anbu Nagar andenquired as to whether Vijayalakshmi came to shop but, he got only negativeanswer.Thereafter, he brought with him one Singa Raja (P.W.3), a boy employedin his shop, took the key which was hanging near the window and opened the doorsand when he went inside, along with P.Ws.2 and 3, he found Vijayalakshmi's deadbody in a pool of blood and also found missing the gold jewels worn by her,namely thalichain with two thalis, one small chain, four bangles, one braceletand one ear stud.Immediately, P.W.1 rushed to the respondent police stationand gave Ex.P-1, the complaint, to P.W.17, the Sub-Inspector of Police, who wason duty.P.W.17, based on Ex.P-1 complaint, registered a case in CrimeNo.7/2007 under Sections 302 and 380 IPC and prepared Ex.P-21, Printed FIR anddespatched the same to the court and forwarded copies to the higher officials.(c)On receipt of copy of Ex.P-21 FIR at 6.00 p.m. on08.01.2007, P.W.20, the Inspector of Police, took up the investigation, rushedto the scene of occurrence at 6.30 p.m., made an observation and prepared Ex.P-2, the observation mahazar and also drew Ex.In the meantime, P.W.20 also gave intimation forbringing Sniffer Dog and Forensic Expert to the scene.He conducted inquest onthe body of Vijayalakshmi, in the presence of panchayatdars and witnesses,between 7.30 p.m. and 9.30 p.m. and prepared Ex.P-23, the inquest report.Thereafter he sent the dead body for postmortem with Ex.P-14, the requisition,through P.W.16 Head Constable.Thereafter, from the place of occurrence, P.W.20recovered M.O.14 - a long hair, M.O.15 - a bunch of 30 cm.P.W.20 enquired P.Ws.1 to 3,P.W.18 and some other witnesses and recorded their statements.On completion of postmortem,P.W.12 issued Ex.P-15, the postmortem certificate, wherein he opined that thedeceased would have died of complications of multiple injuries.M.O.13 -bloodstained brazier, M.O.12 - bloodstained Chudidar Pant and M.O.22 - blackcolour jatti, the bloodstained clothes, recovered from the bodyof the deceased and three finger nails handed over by the postmortem doctor,were recovered by P.W.20 under Ex.(e)Thereafter, on 18.01.2007, P.W.20 gave Ex.P-24, therequisition, to the Court for sending the material objects for chemicalanalysis, which resulted in two reports, namely Ex.P-25, the Chemical AnalysisReport and Ex.P-26, the Serologist's Report.(f)Pending investigation, P.W.21, the Inspector of Police,arrested accused No.2 on 09.07.2007 in the presence of P.W.7, Julius and P.W.8Mohan and recorded the voluntary confessional statement given by him andpursuant to the admissible portion of his confessional statement, marked asEx.P-27, accused No.2 took the police party to Meenakshi Pawn Broker Shop, whereP.W.9 was the Manager, and took and produced M.O.8 series four gold banglespledged by him through P.W.10 and the same were recovered by P.W.21 under Ex.P.W.21 enquired P.Ws.7 to 10 and recordedtheir statements.(g)On 10.07.2007, based on the confessional statement given byAccused No.2, P.W.21 arrested accused No.1 in the presence of P.W.11 and oneMurugan and recorded his voluntary confessional Statement and pursuant to theadmissible portion of the confessional statement, which is marked as Ex.Pursuant to the admissible portion of his confessional Statement,which is marked as Ex.These two appellants, along with two others ranked as Accused No.3 and 4,stood charged and tried by the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track CourtNo.II, Tirunelveli, in S.C.No.462 of 2008, whereby these two appellants andaccused No.3 were found guilty and awarded punishment as follows.Accused No.2 U/s.302 r/w 34Accused No.2 U/s.397 r/w 34P-11,accused No.1 took the police party to his house at Shanthi Nagar from where hetook and produced one bracelet and two gold thalis and the same were recoveredunder Ex.P-12 mahazar and he also produced M.O.19 knife and the same wasrecovered under Ex.P-13 mahazar.(h)Based on the confessional statement of accused No.1, P.W.21arrested accused No.4 and sent him for judicial custody.P-29, accused No.3 took and produced two sovereign goldchain, which was recovered by P.W.21 under Ex.P-30 mahazar.P.W.21 enquiredwitnesses and recorded their statements.Thereafter, one Dinesh Kumar,Inspector of Police, took up the investigation and after perusing the case file,he filed final report against the accused under Sections 449, 302, 397, 414, 411read with 120-B IPC.3.After committal proceedings, the case was taken on file bythe Sessions Court in S.C.No.462/2008 and necessary charges were framed.Toprove the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses asP.Ws.1 to 21 and marked 30 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-30 and produced M.Os.1 toOn completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, when theaccused were questioned under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code aboutthe incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses,they denied all of them as false.4.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellants with allvehemence in Tamil, the learned counsel would submit that in the instant casethe prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case either by adducing directevidence or indirect evidence.5.Insofar as the conviction of accused Nos.1 and 2 areconcerned, learned counsel would urge that in the instant case, a perusal ofEx.P.16, the recovery mahazar, and Ex.P-2, the observation mahazar, wouldclearly indicate that a number of gold jewels were actually found scattered,along with silver jewels, around the body of the deceased and if really theintention of the persons who got entered into the house was to commit murder forgain, they would have got sufficient time and situation to take all the thingsbut, they have not done so and, therefore, this would not have been a murder forgain and this casts a doubt on the prosecution case.6.Learned counsel for the appellants pointing out to Ex.P-1,the complaint, pointed out that specific items of jewels alone (five numbers)were found mentioned as missing from the body of the deceased but, the recoveryof jewels allegedly made from accused Nos.1 and 2, in the presence of witnesses,are found to be different.In support of the above contention, learned counselwould specifically point out that while in Ex.P-1 complaint only a thali chainis found mentioned, two thalis have been introduced at the time of recording 161statement of P.W.1 at a later point of time and also at the time of trial beforethe Court and this discrepancy throws a doubt on the case of the prosecution.Added further learned counsel, P.W.10 has further statedthat the jewels were pledged as early as on 13.12.2006 itself, which wasactually much earlier to the date of the crime.Learned counsel would furthersubmit that though P.W.11, recovery mahazar witness, in his evidence, at thefirst place, has stated that the jewels were actually recovered from the houseof accused No.1 in Shanthi Nagar, later in his cross-examination he has given adifferent version that the jewels were recovered from the house of accused No.1at Venkatesa Nagar and thus there is discrepancy as to the place from whererecovery was made from accused No.18.Added further the learned counsel, according to theprosecution accused No.1 was arrested on 10.07.2007 but, P.W.10 in his evidencehas stated that on 07.07.2007 itself accused No.1 was brought to the P.W.9'spawn broker shop in police jeep and thus it would clearly indicate that he wasalready under the custody of police.Pointing out to the order of this Court,dated 06.07.2007, made in HCP(MD)No.303 of 2007, learned counsel for theappellants submitted that the father of accused No.1 had filed HCP(MD)No.303 of2007 before this Court specifically alleging that his son was taken into custodyby police on 27.06.2007 itself and kept under illegal custody and hence he hasgot to be produced by the police and when the said petition came up foradmission on 05.07.2007, a statement was given to the Court by the respondentpolice that the alleged detenu (accused No.1) would be produced before the Courtnext day i.e. 06.07.2007 but, on 06.07.2007 a different version was given by thepolice that he was actually complying with the condition imposed on him inanother case till 04.07.2007 and he did not turn up to the police station from05.07.2007 and therefore he could not be produced but, however, the Court wasnot satisfied with the statement of the respondent police and therefore orderedfor an enquiry by the District Collector, Tirunelveli District, as to theallegations made in the affidavit and to submit a report to the Court.Placingreliance on the above order of this Court, learned counsel would contend that itwould be indicative of the fact that accused No.1 was already under the illegalcustody of the police and apprehending that if an enquiry is made by theCollector as directed by this Court, they would land in trouble, the prosecutionhas foisted a false case against him.9.Learned counsel would add that in the instant case it iswell admitted that there was security for the entire apartments, but no securityguard was examined.It is also admitted that photographs were taken, but neitherthe photographer was examined nor photos were marked.It is also seen from theevidence of Doctor who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased thatvirginal smear from the body of the deceased was preserved but, there was noevidence whether the same was sent for examination and any report was received.Learned counsel added further that in the instant case P.W.20, the Inspector ofPolice, has admitted that Finger Prints Experts were called but, no evidence tothat effect was adduced on the side of the prosecution.10.Learned counsel would further submit that P.W.1 hasadmitted that there were two keys for his house, one for his use and another forhis wife but, however, P.W.1 on the date of occurrence came to the house withoutany key as if no key was available with him.Added further, Ex.He would add that it is also pertinent to pointout that for some time P.W.1 was taken to the police station, on suspicion, toenquire as to whether he has got any role to play in the alleged crime and undersuch circumstances accused No.1 and accused No.2 have been falsely implicated inthe case and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case and iflooked at from any angle, it is a fit case for acquittal but, the trial Courthas taken an erroneous decision and passed the impugned judgment which has gotto be set aside by this Court.11.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor onall the submissions made by the counsel for the appellants and paid its anxiousconsideration to the submissions made on either side and perused the materialson record.Following the registration of a case, P.W.20, the Inspector ofPolice, took up the investigation.After conducting inquest, the dead body wassubjected to postmortem by P.w.12, the Doctor, and after postmortem P.W.12 hasissued Ex.P-15, the postmortem certificate, opining that the deceased died dueto complications of multiple injuries.From the above evidence, it is quiteclear that Vijayalakshmi died out of homicidal violence.Apart from that, thefact that the deceased died out of homicidal violence was never disputed by theappellants either before the trial Court or before this Court and hence thetrial Judge was perfectly right in recording a finding that Vijayalakshmi diedout of homicidal violence.13.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against theappellants and two other persons, the prosecution has marched 21 witnesses.Outof these 21 witnesses, none claim that they say the occurrence and thus there isno direct evidence to the occurrence.In a given case like this where there isno direct evidence available and the case rests on circumstantial evidence, aduty is cast upon the prosecution to prove its case by bringing all thenecessary circumstances which should complete the chain without a snap.14.In the instant case, P.W.1 is the husband of the deceased.He, in his evidence, has stated that on 08.01.2007, as usual, he went for hiswork in the morning hours leaving his wife Vijayalakshmi in the house and whenhe back to the house at noon hours i.e. at about 02.45 p.m., along with hisdriver Isakki Ganesh (P.W.2) in Car for lunch, he found the house locked andsince there was no response inspite of his knocking the door, he entertained asuspicion and proceeded to his plastic shop at Anbu Nagar and enquired theservants there as to whether Vijayalakshmi came to the shop and as he got onlynegative answer, he brought with him P.W.3 Singa Raja with him, took the keywhich was hanging near the window and opened the doors and when he went insidethe side along with P.Ws.2 and 3 he found Vijayalakshmi's dead body in a pool ofblood and also some gold and silver articles around her body and immediately hewent to the respondent and gave a complaint (Ex.P-1), based on which a case cameto be registered.15.In the instant case, a perusal of Ex.P-1 complaint wouldclearly indicate that only five items of jewels, namely, (i) thali chain, (ii)Dollar Chain, (iii) one pair of ear stud, (iv) four gold bangles and (v) onebracelet were stated to be found missing from the body of the deceased.Asrightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, a number of goldand silver ornaments were actually found scattered around the body of thedeceased and if really the interest of the accused was to commit murder forgain, there was no need for them to leave a number of jewels, as found mentionedin Ex.P-2, the observation mahazar, as well as in Ex.P-16, the recovery mahazar,at the place of occurrence itself.Apart from that, a comparison of Ex.P-1complaint and the recovery mahazars (Ex.P-10 and Ex.P-12) prepared for therecovery of jewels from accused Nos.1 and 2 pursuant to their admissible portionof confessional statements would clearly reveal that there are discrepancies anddifference as to the missing items of jewels and recovered.16.In the instant case, immediately after the occurrence, theinvestigation was conducted by P.W.20, the Inspector of Police, for six longmonths and he could not find any breakthrough but, immediately when theinvestigation was taken over by P.W.21 on 08.07.2007, the prosecution was ableto arrest the accused persons within a day or two.It is pertinent to point outthat the prosecution would claim that accused No.2 was arrested on 09.07.2007and at that time he voluntarily gave a confessional statement in the presence ofPws.7 and 8 and pursuant to which, a part of the missing jewels (M.O.7 seriesBangles-4) which were pledged with P.W.9, through P.W.10, Head Clerk of JudicialMagistrate Court, came to be recovered.However, the witnesses P.Ws.7 and 8,examined for their presence at the time of recording the alleged voluntaryconfessional statement given by the accused No.2, have turned hostile.Addedfurther, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants,P.W.10 was not an ordinary man.17.Prosecution would claim that when P.W.10 was identified byAccused No.1, they took P.W.10 to P.W.9's pawn broker with whom jewels werepledged.It is pertinent to point out that P.W.10 has been treated as hostilewitness.On the contrary P.W.10 has statedthat when he was enquired by the police on 07.07.2007, accused No.1 was broughtbefore him in police Jeep itself and at that time the police enquired accusedNo.1 also.D-1,the order of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 06.07.2007, made inHCP(MD)No.303 of 2007, which was brought forth by the father of accused No.1alleging that his son was taken by the police on 27.06.2007 itself and keptunder illegal custody by the police.It is also seenfrom Ex.D-1 that when the matter was taken up for hearing on 06.07.2007, therespondent police informed the Court that accused No.1 was not complying withthe conditions imposed on him in some other case from 04.07.2007 and thereforehe could not be produced before the Court.In the above circumstances, theCourt has observed that it was not satisfied with the statement made by thepolice and felt that a detailed enquiry and report by the District Collector ofTirunelveli District as to the allegations made in the affidavit filed insupport of the habeas corpus petition was called for.P.W.1 would claim that he used to keep onekey and his wife the other.A perusal of Ex.P-23, the Inquest Report, wouldclearly indicate that key was available in the hands of P.W.1, but he wouldclaim that as there was no response inspite of his knocking the door, as if thekey was not with him, he went to his shop, made an enquiry, came back to thehouse and then opened the house with the help of key which was hanging near thewindow and found the body of his wife lying in a pool of blood.Actually, asuspicion was entertained by the police on P.W.1 as to whether he has got anyrole to play in the crime and he was summoned to police station, enquired for along time and this creates a doubt in the mind of the court as to thegenuineness of the prosecution case.Under such circumstances, the Court is ofthe considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the chargeslevelled against accused Nos.1 and 2 and therefore sustaining the judgment ofconviction rendered against them by the trial Court would be highly unsafe andthe same is liable to be set aside.20.In the result, both the appeals are allowed and thejudgment of conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by the trial Courtin S.C.No.462/2008, dated 29.07.2009, is set aside and the appellants areacquitted of all the charges levelled against them.The appellants are directedto be released forthwith unless their presence, in accordance with law, isrequired in connection with any other case.The fine amount, if any, paid by theappellants are directed to be refunded.The Court places its appreciation onrecord for the learned counsel for the appellants, who putforward elaboratelythe evidence available to the Court.1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.2.Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Tirunelveli.3.The Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
172,151,581 |
Factual matrix of the case arising from the written report Ex.Ka-1, as well as evidence brought on record is as follows:-On 05.05.2009, a written report was presented before Police Station Chirgaon, District Jhansi by Informant, PW-1, Mehtab Singh, alleging that on previous evening of 04.05.2009 at about 05:00 PM, Informant's wife Usha was present in the house and their daughter Jyoti was playing in front of door.In the meantime, accused-appellant Santosh @ Tidkey, aged about eighteen years, came over there and told the child Jyoti to go with him to get mehadi applied on her hand, whereupon Jyoti went with him.When she did not return till night, Informant made search for her but could not trace.Buddh Singh, son of Hemraj, and Lakhan son of Gokal Rajpoot of the village told that they had seen Santosh getting Jyoti drunk water at the hand-pump in front of house of Amar Singh Rajpoot.They had seen him taking away the girl.When Informant and others made search for Santosh @ Tidkey, he could not be traced.Santosh is a mischievous boy and they are sure that he has murdered her and caused dead body of Jyoti disappeared has absconded.On the basis of written report Ex.After registration of case, investigation was entrusted to PW-5, Sub Inspector (hereinafter referred to as "SI") Sri Girwar Giri.He obtained a copy of FIR and after recording statement of Head Moharrier as well as Informant, PW-1, proceeded to the place of occurrence along with S.I. Sri Ram and other Police personnel.He searched for accused and recorded statement of mother of the deceased (Jyoti).He prepared site plan Ex.Ka-9 of the place where-from accused-appellant had taken prosecutrix / deceased.In the meantime, on getting information about location of accused, Police went to Temple of Kuchwadiya and arrested accused-appellant, who admitted that he had taken Jyoti on the pretext of applying Mehndi and got her drunk water and then took her to Bera, where he inserted finger in her vagina as a result whereof blood stained oozing; then she cried.Accused put her frock and suppressed her mouth and committed rape upon her on a stone slab (Patiya).Thereafter he covered her with the stone slab and fled away.On the pointing of accused-appellant, dead body of Jyoti was recovered by Police.A recovery memo, Paper no. 11, was prepared by Investigating Officer (hereinafter referred to as "IO").He also prepared inquest Ex.Ka-10 before the Panches.He prepared necessary documents along with inquest, Ex.Ka-11 to 15, and thereafter sent dead body along with Constable, Mustaque Ahmad, and Head Constable, Prati Pal Singh, to District Hospital for postmortem.He took in possession simple as well as blood stained pieces of stone slab (patiya).IO also took in possession a blank wrapper, a tube of mehndi cone and necklace made of red and white beads from the spot and prepared recovery memo Ex.He also took in possession undergarments of deceased which contained blood stains and prepared recovery memo Ex.Abraded contusion two in number, one below other on left side of neck, 1 cm below and behind left mastoid process on side of neck, underlying tissue and muscle of neck are contused.On internal examination, Doctor found both the pleura, larynx, trachea and both the lungs congested; about 50 gm of pasty semi digested food in stomach; large intestine contained faecal matter and gases; liver was congested; gall bladder was half full, weighed 450 gm; spleen and both kidneys were congested; urinary bladder was empty and blood clots present on the vagina.According to doctor, duration of death was about one day at the time of postmortem.In the opinion of PW-4, Dr.A.K. Tripathi, girl died due to asphyxia as a result of ante mortem throttling.Doctor prepared slides of vaginal smear and vaginal swab and preserved for pathological examination which were sealed and handed over to Constables along-with clothes of the deceased.12. PW-6, Dr. Mohini Saxena, the then Senior Consultant Pathologist in Women Hospital, Jhansi had examined three slides of vaginal smear and swab sent by PW-4 Dr. A.K. Tripathi.She found that slides did not contain spermatozoa but RCBS was found in them.Muh; gS vkSj bl U;k;ky; ds izlaKku esa gSA r`rh; ;g fd fnukad 5-5-09 dks vkius xzke&cjy ogn Fkkuk fpjxkWo ftyk >kWlh fLFkr cq}flag ds edku [k.Mgj esa dejs ds mRRkjh if'peh dksus ls iRFkj ds ifV;k ds uhps ls e`rdk dq0 T;ksfr dh yk'k dks cjken djk;k ftls vkius vijk/k dh lk{; foyksiu gsrq fNik;k Fkk vkSj bl izdkj vkius ,slk vijk/k fd;k] tks Hkk0n0la0 dh /kkjk&201 ds vUrxZr n.Muh; gS vkSj ,slk bl U;k;ky; ds; izlaKku esa gSA vkSj ,rn~ }kjk funsZ'k nsrk gwW fd vkidk ijh{k.k mijksDr /kkjkvksa ds vUrxZr bl U;k;ky; }kjk fd;k tk;sxkA""I Vigyan Ram Mishra, Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Jhansi charge you Santosh @ Tidkey as under:-Firstly that on 04.05.2009 at the door of informant in Village Baral, Police Station Chirgaon, District Jhansi you committed murder of Km.Jyoti daughter of Mehtab Singh aged about 3½ years.Thereby you have committed offence which is punishable under Section 302 IPC and is within the cognizance of this Court.Secondly that on the aforesaid date, place and time you committed rape on Km.Jyoti aged about 3½ years in the ruins of the house of Budh Singh within Village Baral, Police Station Chirgaon, District Jhansi and thereby you have committed an offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and within cognizance of this Court.Thirdly that on 05.05.2009 you got recovered the dead body of deceased Km.Jyoti), PW-2 Budh Singh is witness who had last seen the deceased Jyoti with accused-appellant while he was getting her drink water.He is also a witness of arrest of accused-appellant as well as recovery of blood stained under-wear of accused-appellant.18. PWs 1 and 2 both are witnesses of fact and rest are formal witnesses of Police and Health Department.19. PW-3 Constable Moharrir Brij Mohan Rawat had registered FIR at case crime no.665 of 2009, under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and has proved Chick report Ex.Ka-6 and a copy of GD Ex.PW-4 Dr. A.K. Tripathi had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Km.Jyoti and has proved injury report Ex.Ka-8 referred above.PW-5 Girwar Giri is the IO and has proved site plan Ex.Ka-9, inquest Ex.Ka-10, documents relating to sending of dead body of victim / deceased to the District Hospital Ex.Ka-11 to 15, recovery memo Ex.Ka-3 in respect of blood stained pieces of stone slab, recovery memo Ex.Ka-4 in respect of Mehndi Cone and necklace of beads, recovery memo Ex. Ka-6 pertaining to blood stained underwear of the appellant; charge sheet Ex.Ka-16 and site plan Ex.Ka-17 in respect of place of occurrence where-from dead body of Jyoti was recovered.IO has also proved FSL report Ex.PW-6 Dr. Smt. Mohini Saxena has proved pathological report, Ex.Ka-22, in respect of examination of three slides of vaginal smear and swab.Three reports of FSL of Agra were received; first report, dated 26.10.2009 received from Joint Director, FSL, Agra is Ex.Ka-21, according to which spermatozoa were found on the frock of the deceased.(i) Blood stains were found on the pieces of stones, underwear of accused-appellant Santosh, frock of deceased and Kalawa (bracelet) in large area.(ii) Largest blood stains on stone measured about 5 cm.(iii) For examination of blood spectrum test was applied.(iv) On pieces of stones, underwear of accused-appellant and frock of Jyoti, human blood was found.Jyoti on the pointing out of accused-appellant; recovery memo of dead body and Panchayatnma; collection of blood sample of stone; recovery of underwear of accused-appellant and forensic reports received as (Ex.Ka-19, Ka-20 and Ka-21) and lastly, Dr. Smt. Mohini Saxena, PW-6 who examined three slides of vaginal smear received from Dr. A.K. Tripathi and proved the report (Ex.Ka-22).The Informant PW-1 and Budh Singh PW-2 are witnesses of fact and rest are formal witnesses.39. PW-1, Mehtab Singh, father of deceased in examination in chief stated that he is well acquainted with accused Santosh @ Tidkey who was residing in front of his house; his daughter Km.Jyoti aged about 3 and 1/2 years at around 5:00 PM on 05.05.2009 was playing in front of door of the house and PW-1 and his wife were present in the house; Accused-appellant on the pretext of getting Mehadi applie on the hand of Km.Jyoti, took her with him in front of Informant and his wife and thereafter Km.Jyoti did not return; they tried to find out but failed.Lakhan Lal and Budh Singh, two persons residing in the village, during search, met Informant and told that they had seen accused Santosh @ Tidkey in front of the house of Bhanwar Singh where he was getting Km.Jyoti to drink water and had seen both of them going together; Santosh @ Tidkey is a mischievous person which led Informant to believe that he (accused) had murdered Km.Jyoti and hide her dead body somewhere; thereafter he lodged report in Police Station i.e. Ex.On 05.05.2009, Police arrested Santosh @ Tidkey at the temple of Kuchbadiya Baba where he was hiding; Santosh @ Tidkey in front of all told that he had killed Km.Jyoti and hide her dead body in the ruins of the house of Hemraj and also that he can get her dead body discovered; thereafter, he got body discovered from the ruin of the house of Hemraj.I.O. prepared panchayatnama of dead body of Km.After drinking water, both went towards 'Bada'.'Bada' is not bound / fenced from all four sides and has no gate.He did not ask from Santosh @ Tidkey and Jyoti as to where they were going.He new Mehtab Singh, father of Km.Jyoti with whom he met in the evening, at around 7:00 PM, when he (Mehtap Singh) told that he was searching his daughter, Km.PW-2 told that he had seen Km.Jyoti with Santosh @ Tidkey outside the house of Bhanwar Singh where Km.Jyoti was drinking water with the help of Santosh @ Tidkey from the hand pump.The condition of Km.Jyoti was normal at the time of drinking water.Santosh @ Tidkey was never prosecuted earlier nor arrested by Police in past.When he was getting Km.Jyoti drunk water, it was not night but there was sun light.No body resides in the 'Bada' of PW-2 i.e. the ruins of the house of Hemraj where the incident had taken place.PW-2 said that Informant went to lodge report around 8:00-9:00 PM and PW-2 had not accompanied him.Informant came back at around 12:00 PM after lodging report and at that time PW-2 was sitting in the locality.When Mehtab Singh had come, he was searching Jyoti.Between 7:00 to 12:00 PM in the night, they also went at the house of Santosh @ Tidkey and inquired about him.PW-2 had Suresh and Lakhan Singh of the village with him, besides 3 to 4 other persons, at that time, but Santosh @ Tidkey was not found at his residence.His brother was found.Santosh was searched in the entire village but could not be found.In the morning, around 5:00 AM, Police came and arrested Santosh @ Tidkey from temple of Kuchbadiya Baba.There was no permanent priest in the said temple and it is open from all the sides.The aforesaid temple was about 1 Km.away from the village.PW-2 had not seen Police while arresting Santosh @ Tidkey but when he was brought in the village, PW-2 saw him.PW-4 Dr. A.K. Tripathi is a witness to prove post mortem report since he had conducted post mortem and submitted report.Besides others, he proved the fact that blood was coming out from vagina and blood clots were also present.65. PW-5, I.O., Girwar Giri has stated that he was assigned investigation where upon he made inquiry from the Informant and recorded his statement.Then he searched village and tried to find out Km.Jyoti and accused Santosh @ Tidkey, accompanied by Informant and other witnesses.He also recorded statement of Usha, wife of Informant and this is mentioned in C.D. On the same day, on the pointing out of Informant, he prepared site plan where-from accused had taken Km.Jyoti along with him and it was marked as Ex.He recorded statement of Prem Narayan and Mithlesh.When received information that accused was hiding in temple of Kuchbadiya Baba, accompanied by police officials and villagers, PW-5 went to the temple of Kuchbadiya Baba and searched in the rooms where he found accused Santosh @ Tidkey, who was identified by the villagers also and taken in custody at around 6:00 AM.The documents of his arrest were prepared and the same were Paper no. 12-A/1 to 12-A/5 in record of Trial Court.After taking accused in custody, he was interrogated whereupon he admitted his guilt and said that on the pretext of getting Menhdi put on the hands of Jyoti, he took her from her house.In the way Jyoti drank water and thereafter she was taken in the ruins of house of Budh Singh i.e. son of Hemraj, where he inserted his finger in the vagina which resulted in bleeding whereupon she cried.Accused immediately put her frock on her mouth and throttled her neck and thereafter committed rape upon her, on the stone piece.Later he kept stone piece on her dead body and after concealing the same, ran away.He stated to get dead body of Jyoti discovered on the pointing out by accused from the ruins of house of Budh Singh after removing stone piece.In respect of recovery memo, Paper No. 11-A was prepared.On the spot panthayatnama was also prepared which was duly signed by Panchas and marked as Ex.I.O., PW-5 collected blood stained stone pieces which had blood stains at several places and the same were taken after breaking the stone slab.On the spot he found a blank wrapper mentioning in English 'Chaka Chak', a Cone of 'Prem Dulhan Mehadi' and Mala of red and white beads.I.O. also prepared Fard as Ex.During investigation accused stated that he was wearing same underwear which he had worn while committing rape upon Km.Police immediately got him stripped off the accused and took out underwear with blood stains thereon.On the basis of statement of accused given to the Police and injuries found on the dead body of Km.1. Present Reference under Section 366 Cr.P.C. and Capital Case under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. have arisen from judgment and order dated 14.03.2011 passed by Sri Vigyan Ram Mishra, Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Jhansi.2. Capital Case Appeal No.4173 of 2011 has been filed by accused-appellant Santosh @ Tidkey through Sri S.P. Sharma, Advocate and Capital Case Appeal No.2330 of 2011 has been filed by same accused-appellant through Senior Superintendent, District Jail, Jhansi.By the impugned judgment and order, accused-appellant has been convicted in Session Trial No.144 of 2009, (Case Crime No.665 of 2009), under Sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC, Police Station Chirgaon, District Jhansi.Considering the case to be rarest of rare, he has been sentenced under Section 376 IPC for life imprisonment; under Section 302 IPC, he has been sentenced to death.He has been directed to be hanged till he dies.Under Section 201 IPC, he has been sentenced to two years Rigorous Imprisonment (hereinafter referred to "R.I.").Ka-1, First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as "FIR") was lodged by PW-3, Constable, Brijesh Mohan Rawat, as Case Crime no.665 of 2009, under Sections 302 and 201 IPC on 05.05.2009 at 02:00 PM at Police Station Chirgaon, District Jhansi.He prepared Chick FIR Ex.Ka-6 and made relevant corresponding entry in General Diary (hereinafter referred to as "GD"), a copy whereof is Ex.Ka-7 on record.Autopsy on the dead body of deceased was conducted by PW-4, Dr. A.K. Tripathi.According to him, deceased girl was aged about 3½ years.On external examination, Doctor found that deceased was of average body built; rigor mortis passed off from neck and upper extremities and present on both lower extremities, no sign of decomposition was seen; face was congested; both eyes were closed; fresh blood was coming out from both nostrils; bleeding from vagina was present; dried blood was present over perineal region and both thighs; hymen was ruptured and lacerated; bleeding from vagina was present.He found following ante mortem injuries:-Contusion abraded 1.5cm x 1.5cm on right side of neck just behind mastoid process.I.O. got accused-appellant medically examined.He sent recovered articles relating to incident for Forensic Science Laboratory (hereinafter referred to as "FSL"), Agra.After conclusion of investigation, IO, PW-5, Girwar Giri, submitted charge sheet Ex.Ka.-16 in Court under Sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC against accused-appellant.Since the case was exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, CJM committed the case to Sessions Court on 09.07.2009, where it was registered as Session Trial No.144 of 2009, under Sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC, Case Crime No.665 of 2009, Police Station Chirgaon, District Jhansi.Learned Sessions Judge transferred the case to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Jhansi who framed charges against the accused-appellant under Sections 302, 376 and 201 IPC.The charge read as under:-Jyoti from beneath the stone slab kept in the south west corner of the ruins in the runes of house of Budh Singh situated within Village Baral under Police Station Chirgaon, District Jhansi where you had concealed the dead body with the intention of disappearing the evidence and thereby you committed offence which is punishable under Section 201 IPC and within cognizance of this Court.I hereby direct that you be tried by this Court for the aforesaid judgement." (English Translation by Court)Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty and asked for trial.In support of its case, prosecution examined, in all, six witnesses, out of whom PW-1 Mehtab Singh is father of victim (deceased Km.However, no spermatozoa was found on underwear of Kalawa.Second report, of the Joint Director of FSL, Agra is dated 29.10.2009, Ex.Ka-20, and findings are as under:-(v) On Kalawa (bracelet) blood stains were found disintegrated, therefore, determination could not be made.No definite conclusion could be drawn from the classification of blood stains on pieces of stone and underwear of accused Santosh.(vi) Blood stains on the frock of Km.Jyoti were not fit for classification.Third FSL report Ex.Ka-19 dated 16.01.2010 is with respect to sample of blood stained and simple pieces of stones slab.On physical microscopic inspection both the pieces of blood stained stone and pieces of simple stone (material EX-1) appeared to be similar in terms of colour, nature and density.Accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 24.02.2011, he stated that prosecution story is false; he had not taken Jyoti with him from house of Informant; allegation that he had made Km.Jyoti drunk water is false and concocted; witness Budh Singh in connivance with Lakhan Singh had got FIR registered to implicate him falsely; he did not commit rape or murder and has falsely been implicated; all the documents are false and incorrect; he pleaded ignorance about the postmortem on deceased; site plan had been prepared at the instigation of Informant in order to implicate him; police had arrested him from the chabutra situated out side his house; he did not make any statement to Police and Police has recorded false statement; he did not get any dead body recovered; he pleaded ignorance about blood stains on stone slab; he denied of any underwear belong to him taken by Police; he was not aware as to whose underwear had been recovered; on the instigation of Informant and witnesses, he has been implicated under Section 376 IPC; he also pleaded ignorance about sending articles to FSL for examination; Informant and witnesses are relatives and friends and want to usurp his property after throwing him out of village.On 03.03.2011, accused-appellant was again examined by Court under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he was confronted with the reports regarding sample of smear in three slides.He said that the same are wrong and he has no knowledge about those reports.On appreciation of evidence available on record and after hearing both the parties, Trial Judge recorded capital punishment against the accused-appellant under Section 302 IPC; life imprisonment under Section 376 IPC and two years' RI under Section 201 IPC as stated above.Trial Court has given verdict of conviction, broadly, recording its finding on the following aspects :-(i) Dead body of victim (Km.(ii) Accused has taken victim with him and Informant PW-1 was an eye witness to this fact and also proved the pretext on which accused allured victim to accompany him.(iii) PW-2 Budh Singh verified the fact that he has seen accused along with victim while he was helping victim to drink water at the hand-pump in front of the house of Bhanwar Singh.(iv) Possibility of rape could not be ruled out by PW-4 Dr. A.K. Tripathi due to ruptured hymen.(v) Cause of death of victim due to asphyxia as a result of throttling was proved by PW-4 who proved post mortem report.(vi) Blood stains were found on the underwear of accused as per forensic report dated 29.10.2009 (Ex.Ka-20) and remained unexplained by accused.(vii) There was no delay in lodging F.I.R. inasmuch as victim had gone with accused at around 5:00 PM in the evening in front of PW-1 and when she did not return up to 7:00 PM, PW-1 and other family members searched for her.PW-2 Budh Singh during search met Informant and told that he has seen accused along with victim getting her to drink water at the hand-pump in front of the house of Bhanwar Singh and thereafter went together and on this information further search continued and when none could be traced out thereafter report was lodged at 2:00 AM in the Police Station.(vii) Accused was arrested at 5:00 AM on 05.05.2009 and on his pointing out dead body of the victim was recovered.(ix) Victim was last seen with accused and thereafter her dead body was recovered.The time lapse between the last seen and recovery of dead body is closer ruling out any possibility of the victim having gone with anybody else in the meantime.(x) Accused pleaded enmity with Informant stating that he wanted to grab his property but neither any evidence was adduced to prove this nor any such suggestion was made to PW-1 and PW-2 in cross-examination.(xi) Though defence was taken that PW-1 and PW-2 are relatives but this fact could not be proved adducing any evidence.(xii) No evidence was brought to show that there was previous enmity with the witnesses of fact and more particularly, the Informant and accused.Accused also did not adduce any evidence to show that he had any personal property in the village.(xiii) Site plan Ex.Ka-9 was proved by I.O., PW-5, S.I. Girwar Giri, showing that the houses of accused and Informant i.e. father of victim are opposite to each other.(xiv) The place where accused stated to have committed rape upon victim as also the place where her dead body was concealed were clearly mentioned in site plan and I.O. also proved G.D. (Ex.Ka-18) wherein the fact of taking statement of accused explaining the manner in which he committed crime, is mentioned.(xv) The stone slab on which rape was committed measured 2' 10" by 1' 8" and had blood stains in large amount.(xvi) The stone slab, underwear of accused and deceased frock were found to have human blood of same nature.(xvii) Though underwear of accused and underwear and frock of deceased, as per the report (Ex.Ka-2) of PW-6, did not contain spermatozoa but as per forensic report, spermatozoa was found on deceased's frock.(xviii) In the panchayatnama, swelling in vagina was mentioned and as per post mortem report also hymen was found ruptured which supports that rape was committed upon the victim.(xix) The defence that accused was juvenile was not found correct and as per record, it was found that accused was 19-1/2 years at the time of incident.Trial Court, therefore, found accused guilty of committing offences under Sections 376, 302 and 201 I.P.C. and has convicted and sentenced him in the manner as stated above.Against conviction and sentence Capital Case Appeal No.4173 of 2011 has been filed by accused-appellant Santosh @ Tidkey through Sri S.P. Sharma, Advocate, Capital Case Appeal No.2330 of 2011 has been filed by same accused-appellant through Senior Superintendent District Jail, Jhansi and Reference No. 06 of 2011 has been made by Trial Court for confirmation of Capital punishment.We have heard Sri S.P. Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri M.C. Joshi, learned AGA for State at length and have gone through record carefully with the valuable assistance of learned Counsel for parties.Learned counsel for the accused-appellant contended that there is no eye witness of the incident; there was no motive for accused to commit the crime for which he has been charged; chain of events is not complete so as to draw a conclusion that it is only the accused appellant who could have committed crime and none else; the dead body of the victim was found by Police on its own and accused has been implicated falsely; as per vaginal smear test, no spermatozoa was found and the charge of rape is not proved; prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; and, lastly that since evidence adduced by prosecution is not sufficient to point out with due reasonableness that it is only the appellant who has committed crime for which he has been charge, accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.Per contra Sri M.C. Joshi, learned AGA for the State contended that admittedly, it is not a case of ocular evidence but there are two reliable and unimpeachable witnesses who have proved the fact that the accused had taken the girl with him and she was last seen with him where-after her dead body was recovered and that too, on pointing out by accused-appellant, hence, chain of circumstances was complete; the short time within which incident had taken place and other relevant factors of presence of blood stains on the underwear, stone slab and frock of deceased of same nature support the inference that it is only the accused who had committed crime and none else; and accused has not offered any explanation as to how blood stains were found on his underwear.So far as the sentence is concerned, it is contended that a minor girl aged about 3 and 1/2 years has been dishonoured and murdered in a very cruel manner and accused-appellant, not only committed rape and murder, but even hide her dead body and showed no repentance, hence, Trial Court has rightly treated it as case of rarest of rare nature and awarded capital punishment which warrants no interference and Reference made by Trial Court deserves to be confirmed.This plea was raised by accused before Trial Court also.The matter was examined and thereafter Trial Court passed order dated 07.07.2010 rejecting application of accused for declaring him juvenile offender in Trial relating to Case Crime No. 66 of 2009 under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C., P.S.Chirgaon.The matter was taken in Criminal Revision No. 4154 of 2010 by accused-appellant Santosh @ Tidkey wherein order dated 07.07.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Jhansi was challenged.It is not in dispute that aforesaid judgement of Revisional Court has attained finality therefore, counsel of appellant did not press issue of juvenility before this Court at the time of final hearing of these appeals and Reference and has addressed this Court on merits.Now we proceed to consider the merits of the matter.In the light of rival submissions, two questions have arisen requiring adjudication by this Court :-(i) Whether prosecution has adduced enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused appellant has committed crime for which he was charged.(ii) Whether facts of this case bring it within the parameters of 'rarest of rare', so as to justify Capital punishment, i.e. death sentence.Before examining above questions, we find it appropriate to have re-look of entire evidence on record which was brought by prosecution before Court below and thereafter we shall proceed to examine "whether evidence is sufficient to bring home the findings of guilt / conviction against the accused appellant".Documentary evidence placed by prosecution includes written report dated 05.05.2009 (Ex.Ka-1); F.I.R. dated 05.05.2009 (Ex.Ka-6); recovery memo of blood stained stone dated 05.05.2009 (Ex.Ka-3); and recovery memo of wrapper Chka-Chak; and red-yellow Mala, dated 05.05.2009 (Ex.Ka-4); recovery memo of dead body of Km.Jyoti dated 05.05.2009 (Ex.Ka-5); recovery memo of blood stained Chaddhi (underwear) dated 05.05.2009 (Ex.Ka-6); vaginal semen report dated 08.05.2009 (Ex.Ka-22); post mortem report dated 05.05.2009 (Ex.Ka-8); and Forensic Laboratory Reports dated 16.01.2010 (Ex.Ka-19), dated 29.10.2010 (Ex.Ka-20) and dated 26.10.2010 (Ex.Ka-21).Oral evidence examined by prosecution comprised of six witnesses whereof Mehtab Singh PW-1 is the Informant and father of victim / deceased; PW-1 and Budh Singh PW-2 are the witnesses of fact having seen victim along with accused-appellant in the evening of 04.05.2009; Constable, Brijmohan, prepared Chick No. 77 of 2009 (Ex.Ka-6) and G.D. No. 3 at 2:00 AM dated 05.05.2009 (Ex.Ka-7) and these documents were proved by him; Doctor A.K. Tripathi, Senior Consultant, District Hospital, Jhansi, PW-4, had conducted post mortem and proved post mortem report (Ex.Ka-8); Investigating Officer, S.I., Girwar Giri, PW-5 proved site plan (Ex.Ka-9) and also the fact of arrest of accused and discovery of dead body of Km.PW-1 Informant and other villagers signed panchayatnama; at the time of preparing panchayatnama, private part of deceased Km.Jyoti had blood stains and it appeared that after committing rape upon her she was murdered; PW-1 proved his signature on panchayatnama which is marked as Ex.I.O. also collected stone slab having blood stains, it was cut with an Axe and blood stained stone piece was taken in custody and Fard (memo) was prepared which was also signed by Informant and another witness Sudama and it was marked as Ex.Ka-3; from the spot, one Mala, a blank wrapper of 'Chka chak' and Mehadi was recovered for which also Fard (memo) was prepared and signed by Informant as well as Sudama which was marked as Ex.Dead body of girl was sent for post mortem; Four stone pieces kept in a sealed bundle were opened in Court and during examination in chief, Informant saw those pieces and verified that the same were those which were collected by I.O. from the place where dead body was found and where, as per information given by accused, he committed rape and murder of Km.Jyoti and these articles were marked as material Exhibits-1 to 4; out of four stone pieces, one was without any blood stain.In cross examination PW-1 said that they are three brothers, Parvat Singh, Mehtab Singh and Ram Prakash; Parvat Singh is residing outside; Hemraj Singh belongs to his family and in relation is grandfather (Baba) aged about 72 to 75 years; Hemraj has three sons, Budh Singh, Mithlesh and Bahadur Singh; Lakhan Lal belongs to the same caste as that of Informant and his father's name is Gokul; House of Lakhan Lal is at a quite distance from the house of Informant.Lakhan Lal has two houses in the village; one house is after about 8-9 houses from the house of Informant; house of accused was in front of Informant's house and in between there is a five feet passage; there is no Chabutara in front of house of Informant and Informant's house has four rooms; accused Santosh @ Tidkey are two brothers and since childhood he has been residing in the same house; accused is not undergoing education and PW-1 is not aware as upto which class accused has studied; he is not aware as to whether accused was facing any other criminal case; accused is unemployed and just wanders hither and thither; accused was born in front of Informant and there were some complaints of theft committed by accused, made by villagers, but they were all settled; he was not aware as to whose goods were stolen by accused; Informant had four daughters and Km.Jyoti was playing in front of door of his house where he was sitting, Santosh came out from his house and in the presence of Informant took her with him; Informant did not raise objection when accused was taking Km.Jyoti though he asked as to why he was taking her, whereupon he said that he is taking Km.Jyoti for putting Mehadi on her hand; this happened at around 5:00 PM; at that time other neighbours were not present; he did not stop Santosh @ Tidkey from taking Km.Jyoti as he was not aware that Santosh @ Tidkey would murder her; when she did not return up to 7:00 PM, search was made but she could not be found and then Informant was let to believe that Santosh had taken her and might have murdered her, hence he lodged F.I.R.; during search when the girl was not found, two village people Budh Singh and Lakhn Singh told Informant that they had seen Km.Jyoti accompanying Santosh @ Tidkey and she was drinking water from the hand pump in front of the house of Bhanwar Singh Rajpoot and those two persons had seen Km Jyoti going with Santosh @ Tidkey; these persons met Informant arount 7.15 PM, where-after, search continued up to 11:30 PM and then report was lodged at 2:00 AM on 05.05.2009; first of all search was made at the house of Santosh @ Tidkey where his mother was present but Santosh @ Tidkey and Km.Jyoti was not present; both were searched in the entire area; nobody except Budh Singh and Lakhan Singh told that Santosh and Km.Jyoti were going together; Informant came back to his house around 3:00 AM after lodging report and by that time, accused Santosh @ Tidkey could not be found; Informant and others were sitting in the house in the night; body of Km.Jyoti was found in the ruins of house of Hemraj, who was not brother of Informant but belongs to the family; Informant has no relation with Hemraj and was not aware with the name of his father; about 15 houses away is the house of Hemraj; dead body of Km.Jyoti was recovered by Police; Informant had reached the site and Hemraj had also come; dead body was discovered in front of Hemraj, Informant and Ram Prakash; Hemraj and Ram Prakash did not sign documents i.e. recovery memo; Police arrested Santosh @ Tidkey at around 5:00 AM or 5:30 AM in the morning when a lot of people had gathered; after arrest of Santosh @ Tidkey, Informant did not visit Police Station; Informant's statement was recorded by I.O. and Informant told him about the place where-from Santosh @ Tidkey had taken Km.Jyoti; the place where dead body was discovered is around 70 to 80 paces from the house of Informant; he did not visit the entire village with I.O. and Police did not arrest any member of family of Santosh @ Tidkey and only Santosh @ Tidkey was arrested; Informant had no dispute regarding property or house with Santosh @ Tidkey.40. PW-1 therefore, is not a witness of crime as such, but he has proved that Santosh @ Tidkey had taken Informant's minor daughter, aged about 3-1/2 years, in the evening of 04.05.2009 and when she did not come back by 7:00 PM, search started and during that process.Informant met Budh Singh also told that Santosh @ Tidkey and Km.Jyoti were going together.PW-1 is also a witness of recovery of dead body of victim in the ruins of house of Hemraj and condition of dead body is mentioned in panchayatnama.He is witness to panchayatnama and recovery memo on which he has put his signature.In cross examination, we do not find anything otherwise extracted by defence to discredit the above facts stated by Informant in his evidence.Informant did not give any instance on account whereof there could be any occasion of enmity or bad blood between Informant and accused.Whatever has transpired or he had seen, he stated.He said that Santosh @ Tidkey, on the pretext of putting Mehadi on the hand of victim, took her with him and there being no otherwise reason of suspicion, Informant did not prevent accused from taking her with him for the aforesaid purpose i.e. putting Mehadi on her hand.These facts remain uncontroverted and nothing otherwise could be extracted in his cross-examination.44. PW-2, Budh Singh is also a witness of last seen and has stated in his oral deposition that on 04.05.2009 he along with Lakhan Singh was coming from 'Bada' on 04.05.2009 at around 5:00 PM; when they reached near the house of Bhanwar Singh, saw Santosh @ Tidkey getting water drunk to Km.Jyoti from the hand-pump and thereafter both went towards 'Bada'.He told this fact to Ghanaram and Mehtab Singh who is father of Km.Jyoti; she did not return till night and when their family members searched for her, she could not be found where-after her family members reported the matter to Police; it came on 05.05.2009 and recovered dead body of Km.Jyoti from 'Bada' on the pointing out of Santosh @ Tidkey; Police prepared recovery memo of dead body and it was signed by PW-2 also; the said recovery memo, Paper No. 11-A was shown to PW-2 and he verified his signature as also of one Suresh Kumar and it was exhibited as Ex.Police got underwear of Santosh @ Tidkey in its possession which was having blood stains and it was a blue coloured underwear.46. PW-2 stated that dead body of Km.Jyoti was discovered on the pointing out by Santosh @ Tidkey from the ruins of house of Hemraj.He also identified Santosh @ Tidkey, present in Court, stating that he belongs to the village of PW-2 and has seen him going with Km.Budh Singh son of Hemraj is a farmer.If he had work, he used to go in the morning but when he had no work, normally stays at his residence.He had normal relation with the family of accused Santosh @ Tidkey.His father Hemraj was alive who had also normal relations with the family of accused Santosh @ Tidkey.The incident is of 04.05.2009 and he reiterated this fact in his examination in chef and in cross-examination as well.In the cross-examination, he said to have seen both of them i.e. Santosh and Jyoti from a distance of only five paces from hand-pump, where she was drinking water and Santosh @ Tidkey was getting her drunk water with his hands.Santosh @ Tidkey was wearing white shirt and pant while Jyoti was wearing frock and underwear.Hand-pump was installed out side the house of Bhanwar Singh and it belongs to Bhanwar Singh.There was no boundary wall around hand-pump.When Santosh @ Tidkey was getting Jyoti drunk water, doors of house of Bhanwar Singh were open and mother of Bhanwar Singh was outside the house.Police made inquiry from Santosh @ Tidkey but did not beat him.On the pointing of Santosh @ Tidkey dead body of Km.Jyoti was discovered by Police.At that time, PW-2 was also there.In fact entire village was there.The Informant Mehtab Singh was also present.Blue coloured underwear from a sealed cover envelop was opened when witness PW-2 was recalled for examination on the application of prosecution and he proved it.The blue coloured underwear, stating it was the same underwear which accused appellant was wearing at the time of incident and it was taken in custody by Police from the accused-appellant.The aforesaid underwear was marked as Ex.In cross-examination, he reiterated that underwear was seized by Police before him from accused who was wearing the said underwear under the pant.Police got stripped off pant and underwear of accused and took underwear in its custody.The underwear was stained with blood.Police also seized a stone.On the recovery memo of underwear PW-2 and Suresh put their signature.The aforesaid witness PW-2, therefore, has proved three facts :-(i) He saw accused-appellant Santosh @ Tidkey along with Jyoti in front of house of Bhanwar Singh at the hand-pump where Santosh @ Tidkey with his hands was helping Km.Jyoti to drink water and after drinking water both Jyoti and Santosh @ Tidkey went towards 'Bada' i.e. ruins of the house of PW-2 and Hemraj, whose ruins have been stated by PW-1 is the father of PW-2 Budh Singh.(ii) Secondly, he has verified and proved the fact that underwear seized by Police belongs to accused-appellant and when he was arrested, Police taken out from the accused the said underwear and seized it.(iii) Discovery of dead body of Km.Jyoti was on the pointing out by accused and at that time not only PW-2 but PW-1 and other villagers were also present.In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observations, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence.Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon.However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety.Court has to form its opinion about the credibility of witness and record a finding, whether his deposition inspires confidence.Jyoti, Section 376 I.P.C. was added and this fact was mentioned in C.D. Medical examination of accused was conducted and copy of report is a part of C.D. and fact of preparation of panchayatnama is also mentioned therein.I.O. sent related material for examination to FSL at Agra.Vaginal smear slide report from pathology was received by him and on the basis thereof, charge sheet against accused under Sections 302, 376 and 201 I.P.C. was submitted.The site plan of the place where dead body was recovered, was also proved and marked as Ex.The FSL report was also proved by PW-5 and marked as Ex.From the sealed envelop red colour underwear was taken out, which was identified as of Km.Jyoti and blue colour underwear was identified to be of accused Santosh @ Tidkey.PW-5 also identified the frock which Km.This witness has been subjected to a lengthy cross-examination.With regard to underwear of accused, in cross examination, he has explained the manner in which it was seized from accused and said :-The last formal witness is Dr. Smt. Mohini Saxena who was posted as Senior Consultant in Pathology in woman Hospital, Jhansi and has tested three slides of vaginal smear sent for pathological test.In cross examination, she withstood her statement.When questioned said that it was not possible to tell as to blood was that of Km.Jyoti or the accused Santosh @ Tidkey since it would have been possible only after D.N.A. test.The statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of accused's is of complete denial.While answering question no. 24, he said that he will tender defence evidence when given opportunity, but as a matter of fact, has not given any evidence at all.Answering question no. 21, he said that witnesses and Informant are relatives and friends and with the intent to get the accused appellant exiled from village they are deposing so as to acquire his (accused's property) but give no evidence to prove it.While answering question nos. 19 and 20 with respect to FSL report Ex.Ka-19, Ka-20 and Ka-21 and material Ex.-1 to 9, he said that he has no information about that.The examination of the aforesaid evidence in detail shows that present case is not founded on ocular version proving directly that crime has been committed by accused-appellant.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
172,155,859 |
Item no. 19 Ct.No.34 CHC Allowed C.R.M. No.6246 of 2018 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 16.08.2018 in connection with Kharagpur Town Police Station Case No. 363/2018 dated 05.08.2018 for alleged offence punishable under Sections 448/341/324/326/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re:-Anannya Kar (Paul) & ors.... Petitioners Mr. Suman Das Adhikary, Advocate .. for the petitioners Mrs. Kakali Chatterjee, Advocate ..for the State The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Kharagpur Town Police Station Case No. 363/2018 dated 05.08.2018 for alleged offence punishable under Sections 448/341/324/326/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J.)
|
['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
172,159,440 |
(Delivered on 05/06/2020) Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the rival parties.The brief facts leading to filing of this case are that office of Divisional Joint Commissioner, Health Services, Bhopal vide letter dated 11/04/2016 passed an order of appointment on the post of Lab Technician in respect of the petitioner herein as well as other candidates.Subsequently, on an enquiry, it was found that the aforesaid appointment were illegal as well as forged appointment letters were also issued.One Dr. B.L. Arya, Chief Medical and Health Officer of the concerned HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 BENCH AT GWALIOR M.Cr.C. No. 40243/2019 District in order to save himself lodged a false report against the petitioner and others, on the basis of which, various FIRs have been registered against them.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2The trial Court proceeded against the petitioner in the matter.In such circumstances, the petitioner has prayed that further proceedings in S.T. No. 65/2018 be kept in abeyance till challan is filed in other two cases.The trial court while deciding the application came to the conclusion that in the application, the petitioner could not bring forward any legal ground / point so as to stay the further proceedings.The application being bereft of merit and absolutely misconceived, therefore, the same was dismissed.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 3BENCH AT GWALIOR M.Cr.There shall be no order as to costs.
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
172,164,746 |
He has the responsibility of maintaining his mother and two unmarried sisters.He has remained in jail for a period of more than four years.A. No. 412/20112 Page 2 of 15As per the prosecution case, the incident took place on a very trivial issue as the complainant had gone to the shop of Amil Hair Dresser in Gali No.18, near his house for having a hair cut along with his cousins Raj Kumar and Atul.While Raj Kumar sat on the chair, he sat behind him and was waiting for his turn.Atul was standing outside the shop.Accused came inside the shop and started combing his hair.The mud stained shoes of accused hit the right foot of the complainant.He asked him to walk carefully.This annoyed the accused who hurled abuses on him whereupon the complainant slapped him.The accused thereafter took out a knife from the right pocket of his pant and stabbed him on the left side of his abdomen and then on his left arm.Complainant started bleeding and fell down on the floor.He was removed to JPN hospital where his MLC, Ex.PW1/A was prepared by Dr. Fahim.As per the MLC, victim sustained stab wound on left hypochondrium region 2x1 cm and incised wound 1 x 1 cm on his left forearm.: SUNITA GUPTA, J.Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 26th August, 2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Delhi in Sessions Case No.69/2010 convicting the appellant for offence under Section 307 IPC and order on sentence dated 29th August, 2011 sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years with fine of Rs.2000/- in default to undergo SI for two months.2. Learned counsel for the appellant at the outset did not contest Crl.As such, he be released on the period during which he remained as under trial in this case.A. No. 412/20112 Page 1 of 15Mitigating circumstances referred by the learned counsel for the appellant were not seriously disputed by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.However, it was submitted that dangerous injuries were caused on the person of the complainant with the result, one of his kidney and spleen had to be removed.The complainant is liable to be compensated.In this regard, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the financial condition of the appellant is not sound, inasmuch as, he could not even engage a private advocate and, therefore, he had to be provided legal assistance through Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.Under the circumstances, it was submitted that the appellant will not be able to pay any compensation to the complainant.A. No. 412/20112 Page 2 of 15Spleen and left kidney of the victim was acutely damaged and due to this reason, both the organs were completely removed.The patient had lost four litres of blood and was kept in ICU for 2-3 days.Injuries were opined to be Crl.A. No. 412/20112 Page 3 of 15 dangerous for life.A. No. 412/20112 Page 3 of 15Prosecution examined 15 witnesses in order to substantiate its case.In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused took a plea of alibi and alleged his false implication at the instance of Head Constable Raj Kumar who is uncle of injured.He examined DW1 Smt. Vimla, his mother in support of his defence.However, keeping in view the mitigating circumstances, i.e., his being first offender, his age and family responsibility, he was sentenced to undergo 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/-.His overall conduct has been reported to be satisfactory.A. No. 412/20112 Page 13 of 15Copy of the judgment be sent to Member Secretary, Delhi State Legal Services Authority for immediate compliance.A. No. 412/20112 Page 14 of 15A. No. 412/20112 Page 14 of 15The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.The pending application, if any, also stand disposed of.The appellant be informed through Superintendent Jail.Copy of the judgment along with Trial Court record be sent back.(SUNITA GUPTA) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 12, 2014 rs Crl.A. No. 412/20112 Page 15 of 15A. No. 412/20112 Page 15 of 15
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
172,165,550 |
"Ans.I was running a wielding shop at Ganga Nagar area at Meerut City.On 28.01.2007 Police reached at the house of my in-laws at Mamepur.My in-laws called me there.Delhi Police from there took me to PS Incholi.They inquired from me about Ganesh and I told them that I know Ganesh as he is from my village.From there, I was brought to Delhi.A.No.1440/2012 Page 2 of 16I do not Kamal."A complaint dated January 14, 2007 for the kidnapping of his cousin brother Kaushal Sharma signed by Rakesh PW-1was received at PS Pandav Nagar.On the same day vide DD No. 14A FIR No. 23/2007 under Section 365 IPC was registered at PS Pandav Nagar.In the complaint it was stated by Rakesh Kumar that he was running Sanjeevani Studio for editing and recording and along with him his cousin brother Kaushal Sharma, son of Rambrij Sharma was working as a photographer.On January 06, 2007 a person who told his name as Rajneesh came to his studio and asked for a camera on rent for the purpose of shooting.According to the said Rajneesh the shooting was to take place from January 07, 2007 to January 12, 2007 at Bara Mandir, Hastinapur, Meerut, UP.Rakesh asked for a reference from Rajneesh who took the name of one Hari Darshan, Director GM Films, Meerut and gave his phone number 09837236464 and told that the said phone belongs to his brother Sriniwas on which he can talk to him as well as Kaushal.Believing Rajneesh, as Hari Darshan had earlier also taken camera on rent, he gave the camera to Rajneesh and sent Kaushal Sharma along with Rajneesh on January 06, 2007 at 7.00 PM.Since Kaushal did not make any call till January 10, 2007 on January 11, 2007 Rakesh made a phone call on mobile No. 09837236464 on which the person who received the call said that he was Sriniwas but he did not know either Rajneesh or Kaushal.Sriniwas gave his address of Bulland Shehar.On January 12, 2007 he discussed about Rajneesh to Hari Darshan on which he stated as to why he had given the camera to Rajneesh.On this Rakesh replied that because he had dealt with him i.e. Hari Darshan 5-6 times and Rajneesh made reference Crl.A.No.1440/2012 Page 3 of 16 to Hari Darshan.On January 13, 2007 he went to Meerut along with his friends.On phone when Hari Darshan was contacted he said he was busy in shooting and he should come to his office at Pallavi Tower, Meerut where his friends were sitting and he could go and meet them.When he reached the office at Pallavi Tower he asked number of persons to accompany him to Bara Mandir, Hastinapur, Meerut, UP, however they said that there was no shooting going on there.He went to Tejgarhi Chowk to find out Rajneesh however he could not get any clue and thus he made complaint on the basis of which FIR was registered.A.No.1440/2012 Page 3 of 16On January 31, 2007 he received a call from Police officials of Garh Mukteshwar that they had caught hold of one Rajneesh whose actual name was Ganesh.Thus, he along with his friend went to Garh Mukteshwar and identified the appellant who impersonated himself as Ganesh.He came back to Delhi and informed the facts to Delhi Police.After January 31, 2007 the exact date which he did not know he accompanied Delhi Police to village Amehra near Garh Mukteshwar.Thereafter along with Delhi Police he went back to village Amehra near Garh Mukteshwar.One camera stand (track board) which was kept on the reck inside the house of Paramjeet was seized.In the month of February 2007 he was called by Delhi Police and shown the photograph of the deceased and he identified the same to be of his brother Kaushal Sharma.On the arrest of Ganesh one black coloured pant, one sky blue full sleeve shirt, one check T-shirt having colours, one shawl light green colour, one badami underwear, one head phone, one battery charger, SLR wire of blue colour, one RC wire with three pins, one plastic tape of white colour and one camera remote were recovered.He identified Crl.A.No.1440/2012 Page 4 of 16 these articles and exhibited them.A.No.1440/2012 Page 4 of 16The case of the prosecution is that on arrest Ganesh disclosed the place where he had thrown the dead body and from there it was revealed that on January 07, 2007 a dead body was recovered from the paddy fields of Rajender Prasad PW-4 on the basis of which another FIR was registered at Garh Mukteshwar.SI Prem Babu Sharma, PW-15 is the Police officer who recovered the dead body of Kaushal Sharma on January 07, 2007 and got lodged FIR under Section 302/201 IPC at PS Incholi Jila Meerut.SI Prem Babu Sharma has deposed that on January 07, 2007 Rajender Prasad PW-4 resident of Lal Kurti came to Police Station and gave in writing that a dead body of unknown person was lying in his fields in village Sikhaera.He along with the staff reached the spot and found dead body of a male aged 25 years lying in the field.The throat of the deceased was cut and there were stab wounds on abdomen.The dead body could not be identified.(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE AUGUST 28, 2014 'ga' Crl.A.No.1440/2012 Page 16 of 16A.No.1440/2012 Page 16 of 16Ganesh is convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302/419/392/201 IPC vide the impugned judgment dated February 24, 2012 and vide order dated February 28, 2012 directed to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of `10,000/- for offence under Section 302 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for 2 years for offence punishable under Section 419 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of `5000/- each on both the counts i.e. Section 392 and Section 201 IPC.Ganesh assails the judgment on the ground that the only evidence with the prosecution is of Rakesh PW-1 the complainant who is not a trustworthy witness in view of the material contradictions in his complaint and the statement before Court.No incriminating article was recovered at his instance and the so-called recovery was not subjected to Test Crl.A.No.1440/2012 Page 1 of 16 Identification Parade and is thus not reliable.While affecting the alleged recovery of articles at the instance of Ganesh neither any public witness nor any Police official of Uttar Pradesh was associated.The version of Rakesh that he had spoken to Hari Darshan is falsified by the fact that at the relevant time Hari Darshan was in judicial custody.Rakesh himself stated that after the recovery of camera and the stand at the instance of Paramjeet they went to Delhi and hence there was no occasion for recovery at the instance of Ganesh.Despite Rakesh having all the phone numbers and details as to where Kaushal had gone he made no efforts to search him.There is no investigation as to whom the numbers allegedly given by Ganesh to Rakesh belong to.Rajender Prasad PW-4 from whose Paddy fields it is alleged that the dead body of Kaushal was recovered has not stated that he saw the appellant.No identification of the dead body was done as no photographs were shown to Rakesh.The recovery of articles at the instance of Ganesh has been disbelieved by the learned Trial Court.Thus, merely on the evidence of Rakesh who stated that Kaushal deceased had gone with Ganesh, Ganesh cannot be convicted of the offences as held by the learned Trial Court.A.No.1440/2012 Page 1 of 16The defence of Ganesh is false implication.No defence evidence has been led and in reply to question "Do you want to say anything else?" it is stated:The post-mortem of Kaushal Sharma was done as an unidentified body by Dr. Vikram Singh PW-3 who exhibited his post- mortem report as Ex.PW-3/A. According to him the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries.He handed over the clothes of the deceased, Janeu and Pendal to police officer of Garh Mukteshwar.He noticed the following injuries on the body of the deceased:I.W. measuring 9.0 x 3.0 cm x 2.0 cm deep front of neck.6.0 cm below from chin.8.5 cm below from (left) ear, 5.0 cm below from (right) ear.Major vessels cut through along with Trachea at level of cervical vertebrae No. 5th.I.W. measuring 2.0 cm x 0.5 cm (Right) side neck 1.0 cm below from injury No. (1).Stab wound (Ins) 1.0 x 1.0 cm x 0.5 cm front of chest, 8.0 cm CA medial to (right) nipple.I.W. measuring 2.0 x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm (Right) side chest, 9.0 cm below from injury no. (3).I.W. measuring 5.0 x 2.0 cm abdominal cavity deep 5.0 cm above from (right) ant.Superior iliac crest loop or intestine coming out.I.W. measuring 5.0 x 2.0 cm x abdominal cavity deep 9.0 cm.(set aspect) lateral and above umbilicus loop of intestine coming out of wound stomach small intestine lacerated.A.No.1440/2012 Page 5 of 16I.W. measuring 4.5 cm x 2.0 cm x 0.5 cm (right) side lower back 3.0 cm midline and 11.0 cm lateral to injury no. (6).I.W. measuring 6.5 cm x 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm (left) side middle part of thighs lateral aspect 16.0 cm above from (left) knee joint.I.W. 3.0 x 1.5 x 1.0 cm lateral aspect of (left) knee joint."It was got photographed and the post-mortem was done after preserving the dead body for 3 days for identification.Thereafter, the dead body was cremated.Inspector Vijay Nagar, PW-17 the investigating officer of the case deposed that on January 31, 2007 he along with ASI Vijender Singh, HC Yashpal and other police officials reached Garh Mukteshwar.There they met Sri Nivas, Advocate and Ram Nivas.Ram Nivas produced Ganesh and he was taken to PS Garh Mukteshwar.The complainant was called who identified Ganesh as the same person who had come to him telling his name as Rajneesh and has taken his brother Kaushal for Meerut for shooting of the picture with video camera.Ganesh was arrested.He made a disclosure Crl.A.No.1440/2012 Page 6 of 16 statement Ex.PW-6/C. Ganesh led to the arrest of Paramjit and Kamal (discharged).All the three accused were brought to Delhi .On the next day, P/C remand of all the three accused were taken.On February 02, 2007 the accused were taken to PS Incholi, who pointed out the place where Kaushal's murder was done.At the instance of Paramjit, from the house of his in-laws a stand of camera kept in a jute bag was recovered with words Manfroot written on it.Thereafter, Ganesh from the roof, beneath a heap of wood and brick got recovered a bag containing leads of camera, remote and tape of camera, black pant, sky-blue shirt and camel colour underwear and one Chadar belonging to the deceased.He identified Ex.P-1 to Ex.This witness has admitted that till January 31, 2007 when Ganesh was arrested they had no clue that Kaushal had been murdered.Thus, it is on the disclosure statement of Ganesh that the factum of murder of Kaushal and thereafter tracing of the FIR registered and photos of the dead body which was criminated as unidentified were identified by Rakesh.A.No.1440/2012 Page 6 of 16Thus, the prosecution case primarily rest on the testimony of Rakesh Kumar before whom Ganesh impersonated as Rajneesh, took Kaushal Sharma and the recovery of the articles belonging to the deceased at the instance of Ganesh.The fact that Rakesh Kumar noted the father's name and address of Rajneesh is only to highlight that after Kaushal Sharma did not return back he tried to contact on the number given but he could not contact him.Further the statement that Rajneesh hired an Auto and his cousin brother Kaushal Sharma along with Rajneesh and one other boy sat in the TSR is also not a material improvement from his complaint.These are minor blemishes which are bound to take place every time a person makes a narration of the sequence of events.In nutshell, from the cross- examination of Rakesh Kumar.A.No.1440/2012 Page 7 of 16The next round of attack is the alleged recoveries of the clothes and other articles of deceased at the instance of Ganesh.It is stated that no TIP of the recoveries has been done.Further, no public witness or local police has been associated for recovery pursuant to the alleged disclosure statement.Moreover, the recovery of the clothes etc. has already been disbelieved by the learned Trial Court.The fact that the recovery of these clothes of the deceased and camera accessories at the instance of Ganesh has been disbelieved by the learned Trial Court is not binding on this Court and this Court is required to appreciate the facts and the law involved in the present case independently.The learned Trial Court has disbelieved the recoveries of the clothes of the deceased and the camera accessories at the instance of the appellant on the ground that no proper identification of the Crl.A.No.1440/2012 Page 8 of 16 same were got conducted and they were first time identified in the Court.Rakesh Kumar has deposed that in the month of February 2007 he was called by the Police and he was shown the photograph and clothes of the deceased and camera accessories which he identified.Though TIP of camera and camera stand was done, however the bag containing the clothes of the deceased and the accessories of the camera were not got identified in the judicial TIP.The deceased was a cousin brother of Rakesh Kumar and was working with him.Thus, the two being too close and intimate he would obviously know about each other's clothes and the camera accessories which were taken from the shop of Rakesh Kumar itself.Hence he was in a condition to duly identify the same.In our view, it has been rightly held by the High Court that the accused was not affluent enough to possess the said ornaments and from the nature of the evidence adduced in this case and from the recovery of the said articles from his possession and his dealing with the ornaments of the deceased immediately after the murder and robbery a reasonable inference of the commission of the said offence can be drawn against the appellant.Excepting an assertion that the ornaments belonged to the family of the accused which claim has been rightly discarded, no plausible explanation for lawful possession of the said ornaments immediately after the murder has been given by the accused.In the facts of this case, it appears to us that murder and robbery have been proved to have been integral parts of the same transaction and therefore the presumption arising under Illustration (a) of Section 114 Evidence Act is that not only the appellant committed the murder of the deceased but also committed robbery of her ornaments."A.No.1440/2012 Page 13 of 16A.No.1440/2012 Page 14 of 16A.No.1440/2012 Page 15 of 16In view of the aforesaid discussion we uphold the conviction of Ganesh for offences punishable under Section 302/419/392/201 IPC and the order on sentence.The appeal is accordingly dismissed.The appellant who is in custody will suffer the remaining sentence.T.C.R. be returned.Two copies of the judgment be sent to the Superintendent Central Jail Tihar one for his record and the other to be handed over to the appellant.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
99,502,920 |
Learned counsel for the State has informed that the complainant has already been noticed by the police.Heard on the question of grant of bail.This is an appeal made by the appellants- Narayansingh and Shyamsingh under Section 14(A)(2) of SC/St (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for grant of bail.Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the appellants being neighbour have falsely been implicated for the offence under the SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. He submits that the other offences under IPC are bailable offence and the offence under the SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act is triable by the Judicial Magistrate First Class.He submits that the offence under Section 3(2)(iv) is not made out and for other offence under the provisions of SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act the 2 minimum sentence prescribed is 6 months.In reply, learned counsel for the State has opposed the appeal for grant of bail.On perusal of the case diary and considering the circumstances of the case, I find prima facie force in the submissions made by the counsel for appellants.The appellants- Narayansingh and Shyamsingh are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rs. Thirty Five Thousand) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for their appearance as and when directed.The appellants will attend each hearing of their trial before the Trial Court out of which this bail arises.Any default in attendance in Court would result in cancellation of the bail granted by this Court.The appeal is accordingly disposed off.Certified copy as per rules.(PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE RJ/ Digitally signed by Reena Joseph Date: 2019.07.03 16:48:33 +05'30'
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
99,504,662 |
Further order that out of recovery of fine 50% money shall be given to the brother of deceased Om Prakash @ Sonu and all the sentence shall run concurrently.Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Om Prakash @ Sonu lodged the FIR by giving written report with the allegation that his sister Lokesh aged about 24 years was married with appellant Neeraj five years back of the incident as per Hindu rites and rutuals.During marriage, he has given sufficient dowry according to his financial capacity, but appellant's family was not satisfied with dowry.Thereafter appellant Neeraj, his elder brother Mahendra, his wife Usha, mother-in-law Radha and father-in-law Dungar Singh used to harassment and torture to his sister by demanding motorcycle as additional dowry.Due to poor financial condition of the complainant's family they, were unable to fulfill their demand of motorcycle.Due to this appellant's family used to harass and assaulted her on two occasion due to nonfulmilment of demand of motorcycle they ompel his sister to leave the matrimonial home.Appellant had taken her back to his house after persuasion, but they continued to stick with their demand of motorcycle and often beat to his sister.On the fateful night of 20/21.09.2012 some unknown time her husband Neeraj, Mahendra, Usha, Radha and Dungar Singh had committed murder to his sister by hanging.The dead body was lying at the house of his brother-in-law in village Gataura and all family members including husband of the deceased fled away.On this allegation FIR Ext Ka-4 was lodged at police station Bilari by the complainant on 21.09.2012 at 04.30 p.m., as a case crime no. 481 of 2012, under sections 498A, 304B IPC and ¾ D.P. Act. The distance of the police station is 15 Kms.Before the investigation of the case inquest was done by P.W. 7 Abhay Kumar Singh in presence of inquest witness.Inquest report was prepared by P.W. 7 Abhay Kumar Singh, Tehsildar, and cause of death could not be ascertained so as per opinion of Panch, the dead body was sent to the district hospital for autopsy of deceased Smt. Lokesh.The prosecution also examined P.W. 4 Pankaj Kumar Pandey, First Investigating Officer, who has clearly stated that he prepared site plan and recorded the statements of witnesses present at the spot.Particularly he has clearly denied that the family members of the appellant was present at that time.In the statement he has also stated that he also recorded the statement of neighbours of the appellant.This jail appeal has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 17.07.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Moradabad, in S.T. No. 70 of 2013 (State Vs.P.W. 3 Dr. S.K. Chaudhary has conducted the postmortem of dead body of the deceased on 22.09.2012 at 12.30 p.m. at District Hospital Moradabad, and prepared postmortem report Ext Ka-3, in which doctor found the age of the deceased was about 24 years and the eye and mouth of the decease was closed, bleed from both intestine.Face congested.Following antemortem injury were found on the person of deceased:-Abraded contusion 15cm x 3cm front of neck extending to left side of neck 4cm below chin, 5cm below left year and 9cm below right ear of lobule subcutaneous tissue under injury mark ecchymosed.Abraded contusion 7cm x 3 cm back of middle of left side of chest.Hyoid Bone fractured.Larynx and Vocal Cords congested.Both lungs congested.Stomach (wall condition, Contents & smell) 200 grms pasty food material .Small intestine chyme & gasses was presemt.Cause of death due to Asphyxia as a result of antimortem strangulation.Time of death about 1 and ½ day old.The post-mortem report is on record and marked as Ext. Ka-3Primary investigation of this case was conducted by Pankaj Kumar Pandey.He also recorded the statement of complainant Om Prakash.Second investigating officer is P.W. 6 R.S. Gautam.During investigation he recorded the statement of other witnesses and after completing all formalities of the investigation submitted the charge sheet against the appellant Neeraj under section 498A, 304B IPC and Section ¾ D.P. Act., who proved the charge sheet Ext. Ka-7 and exonerated the other accused namely; Mahendra, Dungar Singh, Radha and Usha.After completion of investigation charge-sheet submitted by him before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad, had taken cognizance on the charge sheet on 17.01.2013 and the case was committed before the court of session where it is registered as S.T. No. 75 of 2013 and the case was transferred for trial to the court of Additional District Judged Moradabad.On 29.06.2013 the charge against the appellant was framed under section 498A, 304B IPC and Section ¾ D.P. Act and alternative charge under section 302 IPC was also framed and charge read over and explained to the appellant, and claimed to be tried.To substantiate the charge levelled against the appellant, prosecution has examined 9 witnesses in all.P.W 1 complainant Om Prakash @ Sonu, who is real brother of the deceased, who proved the written report as Ext. Ka-1 and Inquest report as Ext. Ka-2, P.W. 2 Smt. Sonam @ Renu, sister in-law of the deceased, P.W. 3 Dr. S.K. Chaudhary, who proved the post mortem report as Ext. Ka-3 and P.W. 4 HCP Jai Singh, who proved the chick FIR Ext. Ka-4 and GD entry Sl.After conclusion of the evidence of prosecution, statement of appellant was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. in which accused denied all the charges and stated that the witnesses wrongly stated before the court and also stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case and the deceased Lokesh committed suicide on account of depression.In defence, no evidence was recorded on behalf of appellant.After conclusion of the trial learned trial court acquitted the appellant under section 302 IPC and convicted him under sections 498A, 304B and Section ¾ D.P. Act as aforesaid.Being aggrieved by the judgement and order of conviction dated 17.07.2018, this appeal has been filed by the appellant.I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA and perused the material available on record.Next submitted that the information of this incident has given by him to the parent of the deceased and thereafter the family member of parental house of the deceased arrived at his house and he was also present at the time of last rutuals of the deceased.It is also submitted that during autopsy no grievious injury was found on the person of deceased and also stated that the prosecution has clearly failed to establish that the death of deceased- Lokesh was subject to cruelty and harassment by the appellant.The prosecution failed to prove the charge levelled against the appellant beyond shadow of doubt.Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is very poor person and languishing in jail at the commencement of trial.Apart from arguing on the merits of the case, learned counsel for the appellant further contended although there is no evidence against appellant if court comes to the conclusion about guilt of appellant then a lenient view should be taken in sentencing him and his sentence should be reduced to minimum prescribed under section 304B IPC that is to say, seven years.Per contra learned AGA contended that victim was died inside her matrimonial home.Prosecution clearly established by cogent and credible evidence that deceased was died within seven years of her marriage and soon before her death she was subjected to mental and physical harassment and tortured by making demand of additional dowry.Prosecution is able to prove his case beyond shadow of doubt and appeal of appellant is liable to be dismissed.A report was obtained from the District Jail Superintendent, Moradabad dated 11.02.2019 which shows that during trial the appellant was in jail from 25.11.2012 to 16.07.2018 (5 years 7 months and 22 days) and from 17.07.2018 to till date the appellant is detained in district Jail Moradabad.Once the said ingredients were satisfied it will be called dowry death and by deemed fiction of law the husband or the relatives will be deemed to have committed that offence.In this case prosecution examined P.W. 1 Om Prakash, as in his deposition he has stated that her sister Lokesh was married with appellant Neeraj about 5 years ago before the incident.His parent gave sufficient dowry in marriage as according to his status, but sometime after marriage her in-laws were not happy with the dowry given in the marriage.Family members of the appellant always taunted to the deceased Lokesh for being less dowry and started demand of motorcycle.He further stated that due to poor condition of his family he could not fulfill the demand of her in-laws.His sister was previously ousted from her matrimonial home for not giving motorcycle, thereafter, on being convinced in punchayat she was taken back to her matrimonial house, still they continued their demand of motorcycle.All her family members (in-laws) tortured her, but family members of the complainant kept patience.On intervening night of 20/21.09.2012 a call came from village Gataura and it was informed that his sister was killed by members of his matrimonial house.On telephonic information, complainant and other family members reached at the matrimonial house of his sister.The death of the deceased was not possible by hanging and strangulation, so as per the doctor, the case was homicidal not suicidal.Beside the injury on the neck two other injuries have also found antemortem injury on the body of the deceased.P.W. 6, Second Investigating Officer R.S. Gautam has stated that nothing any other important found in the statements of the witnesses and this witness only proved the charge-sheet against the appellant under section 498A, 304B IPC and Section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act only against the appellant.On perusal of the entire record, it is reveals that the death of the deceased was done within 7 years of the marriage .
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
99,505,175 |
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.
|
['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
99,517,591 |
(i) In the event of arrest of the Applicant in connection with C.R.No.I-656 of 2019, registered with Bhadrakali Police Station, Nashik City, Nashik, he be released on bail on his furnishing PR Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, with one or more sureties in the like amount;(ii) Anticipatory Bail Application stands disposed of accordingly.(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2019 21:14:15 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2019 21:14:15 :::
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
995,184 |
The accused, who suffered conviction in the hands of the lower Court for the offences under Sections 307 and 302 I.P.C., and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to undergo further R.I. for six months and to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to undergo further R.I. for six months, respectively, for the above said offences, is the appellant.On 16.6.2001 at about 10.30 a.m., the accused had some dispute with Mayavelu (P.W.1) and Ilayaraja (the deceased).The accused not only assaulted P.W.1 aiming his life, but also stabbed Ilayaraja, taking away his life prematurely.The prosecution case leading to conviction in brief may be stated as follows:(a) Thiru Mayavelu (P.W.1), Ilayaraja (deceased), Senthil (P.W.3) and Govindaraj (P.W.2) who are all residents of Keezhai, Mayiladuthurai Taluk, were doing catering business.Ilayaraja took the role of leadership.In sharing the remuneration, there was a dispute between Ilayaraja and the accused, since Ilayaraja paid lesser amount to the accused, than the amount, which he is eligible, as agreed.(b) On 16.6.2001, at about 10.00 a.m., when P.Ws.1, 2, 3 & Ilayaraja were coming through the road near a tea stall, the accused who came there, questioned the conduct of Ilayaraja in paying lesser amount, which caused grievance to P.W.1 and Ilayaraja, who in turn beat the accused with hands.The accused, aggrieved by the conduct of P.W.1 and Ilayaraja, challenged them that he will finish off both of them.Thus declaring, he went to his house, took M.O.1, returned to the place, where P.Ws.1 to 3 & Ilayaraja were proceeding i.e. opposite to Ananda Clinic.Immediately, the accused declaring ",j;njhL xHpe;Jnghlh" stabbed P.W.1 over his left lateral chest.Thereafter, the accused left the scene of crime and confessed to P.W.8 about the incident, which had taken place, and the crime committed by him.(c) P.Ws.2 & 3 with the help of P.W.7, took the injured to the hospital.When they reached hospital at about 12.20 p.m. or so, the doctor, who attended on them viz., P.W.10, declared that Ilayaraja died.He had also treated P.W.1, advising him to go to Tanjore Hospital for further treatment.P.Ws.10 & 11 who treated P.W.1, issued Exs.P.6, 8 & 9 revealing that the injury sustained by P.W.1 was grievous in nature.(d) On information, the Inspector of Police, (P.W.14) went to Mayiladuthurai Government Hospital, examined P.W.1, recorded Ex.P.1 statement.(e) In continuation of the investigation, P.W.14 inspected the scene of crime, prepared observation mahazar, sketch and examined the witnesses also, recording their statements then and there.On complaint, after investigation, since the offences had been made out, the respondent police had filed a final report against the accused under Sections 307 and 302 I.P.C.The accused/appellant when questioned after framing charges, as per the offences disclosed by the materials, he refused to plead guilty, which resulted a full-fledged trial, leading to conviction.The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam having satisfied himself, that the offences charged against the accused are all proved beyond all reasonable doubt, found him guilty under Sections 307 and 302 I.P.C. and slapped the conviction and sentence as aforementioned, which is under challenge in this appeal.No. 329/2001, for which the printed F.I.R., Ex.On the same day, between 4.00 p.m. and 6.00 p.m., P.W.14 conducted inquest over the body of Ilayaraja, resulting the preparation of Ex.Thereafter, he had made arrangement, for conducting autopsy, by giving requisition.(f) P.W.9 on receipt of Ex.P4 conducted autopsy over the body of Ilayaraja, which revealed the following external and internal injuries:External Injury:"A cut injury 3 cm x 3 cm over left intercostal space at the midclavicular line (left), 1 cm below left aureola."Internal Injuries:"Third Lt. Rib at midclavicular luie level cut.The injury further goes deep piercing pleura through and through left lower lung lobe, pericardium.The injury has opened the left ventricle 3 cm in length, cm breadth."(g) The investigating officer, P.W.14 on information arrested the accused on 17.6.2001 and on enquiry, he volunteered to give a confession, disclosing the place where certain material objects had been concealed, informing that he will take out and hand over the same, under Ex.In pursuance of the same, P.W.14 recovered M.Os.1,6 & 7 under the cover of Mahazar Ex.In the course of the investigation, he had examined number of witnesses, recorded their statements then and there and thereafter, he was transferred.(h) After P.W.14, P.W.15 who took the investigation, examined some of the witnesses, perused the previous investigation, which disclosed the facts, that the accused had not only aimed the life of P.W.1, but also committed murder of Ilayaraja.Thus taking the view, a final report has been filed for appropriate punishment, which ended in conviction, as mentioned supra.5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. S. Saravanakumar and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), Mr. A.N. Thambithurai.(iv) no independent and uninterested witnesses have been examined, though available at the time of the alleged incident,In this way, supporting the reasonings given by the trial Court and opposing the above arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, he pleaded for confirmation of the findings of the trial Court.In the incident, which took place on 16.6.2001 at about 10.30 a.m., P.W.1 sustained serious injury along with Ilayaraja, who succumbed to the same, is not very much disputed.P.8, the injury sustained by P.W.1, was grievous in nature.When the doctor had spoken about the nature of injury sustained by P.W.1, the same was not challenged.P.W.11 has also stated categorically, that this injury is sufficient enough to endanger the human life.When he had opined on the above said basis, regarding the nature of injury, the same is not challenged.P.W.1 has also spoken about the injuries sustained by him over his left chest, which caused him to stay in the hospital as inpatient.Dr. Sampath Kumar, who conducted autopsy over the body of Ilayaraja, opined that Ilayaraja died of shock and hemorrhage due to penetrating stab injury, which is strengthened by Ex.P.5/postmortem certificate.Though the external injury was 3 cm x 3 cm, the scan revealed that the injury pierced through left lower lung lobe, pericardium, causing injuries to the left ventricle 3 cm x cm, though it is a single injury, which proved to be very very fatal, terminating the life of Ilayaraja.The opinion given by the doctor, regarding the cause of death, as well as the nature of injury, is not questioned and in fact, the doctor has not been cross examined also.Therefore, safely it could be concluded, that Ilayaraja died due to stab injury, which he received over the left intercostal space, in the incident described in the final report.The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that there is suppression of the original or previous first information report given by P.W.1, fails to persuade us, because of lack of materials.None had accepted about the availability of the previous first information report, other than Ex.P.W.1 during the cross examination appears to have stated, that they had been to the police station, preferred a complaint, then went to Mayiladuthurai Government Hospital.Except the above said stray answer, there is no other material to show that P.W.1 went to the police station and preferred a complaint.In fact, during the examination in chief, he has categorically stated that at about 12.30 p.m. when he was in the hospital at Mayiladuthurai, Police came, enquired and recorded Ex.P.1 statement, in which he had subscribed the signature, which is the case of the Inspector of Police, P.W.14 also, who recorded the statement.P.W.2 has also categorically stated when P.W.1 was in the Mayiladuthurai Hospital, Inspector of Manalmedu came there, recorded the statement.To buttress the answer elicited from P.W.1, nothing is suggested to P.W.2 or P.W.3 or P.W.4 also, as if P.W.1 had given a complaint to the police, then proceeded to the hospital.In the absence of any such suggestion, taking the stray answer elicited from P.W.1, which appears to be factually incorrect, an argument is sought to be built up, as if the first information report given by P.W.1 was suppressed, which we are unable to agree.By the suppression of the alleged first information report, the prosecution is not going to gain anything in this case, because of certain admitted position.The dispute between P.W.1, deceased and the accused, is admitted, as seen from the cross examination.The presence of P.Ws.1 to 3 as well as the deceased is also admitted at the time of the incident, whether the incident had taken place, as described by the prosecution or as claimed by the accused.P.1, after deliberation, so as to implicate the accused.When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he had stated that when he was in his house, Mayavelu, Ilayaraja, Senthil, Govindaraju came to his house assaulted him with iron pipe, causing head injury, for which he took treatment.In support of the above contention, D.W.1 was examined seeking aid from Ex.As seen from Ex.D1, though originally the name of the accused was written, it was scored out and one Vadivelu name is described as patient, giving father's name also differently.Therefore, Ex.D.W.1 also failed to identify the accused, informing the Court the injuries said to have been sustained by him or treated by her.P.W.14 has deposed that though the accused informed him that he was assaulted by P.W.1 and others, he had not noticed any injury.Immediately after the arrest, he was produced before the Magistrate concerned, for remand.The learned Judicial Magistrate had not noticed any external injury over the body of the accused.The above facts would go to show, that the accused had not sustained any injury, in the incident narrated in the final report, in the hands of P.W.1 or the deceased.According to P.Ws.1 to 3, they have assaulted the accused with hands, when he questioned them, uttering provoking words, thereby explaining the assault, which is sufficient in this case.In Ex.P.1, P.W.1 has picturised the incident, the act of the accused and his role previous to the incident, etc. In accordance with the averments available in Ex.P.1 alone, P.Ws.1 to 3 have deposed cogently, naturally, convincingly before the trial Court.Though P.Ws.1 and 2 are brothers, we do not find any reason, to discard their oral testimony, P.W.1 being the injured witness and P.W.2 being the eye witness.In Ex.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
99,525,129 |
The com- plainant was living along with her husband Kaner Singh and mother-in-law at village Semra Dangi, Police Station Doraha, Dis- trict Sehore.The prosecution case, in brief, is that marriage of com- plainant Sunitabai, PW2, was solemnized with appellant Kaner Singh one and half years prior to the date of incident.It is alleged that on 21.5.1994 at noon appellant Kaner Singh took the com- plainant to a well situate in the agricultural field on the false pre- text of fetching drinking water for the cattle and when the com- plainant started fetching water from the well, appellant pushed her into the well due to which she fell down into the well and sus- tained injuries on the waist and back.The water was till waist level in the well.After sometime Mansingh, brother of Kaner Singh came and pulled her out of the well and brought her home.A.No.1923/1996 Cr.A.No.1914/1996 On the next day, appellant Kaner Singh again tied her hands and beaten her with lathi mercilessly, then Brajlal, PW6, and Mans- ingh, PW8, saved her.It is also alleged that appellant Kaner Singh often beat Sunitabai for demand of dowry and also have doubt on her character.At that time Mansingh and Brijlal rescued her.Thereafter, she narrated the entire incident to her maternal aunt Leelabai who resided in the same village.Then, she in- formed her brother.(Delivered on 08/05/2019) This judgment shall govern the disposal of both the afore- said criminal appeals, as they arise out of common judgment of conviction and sentence.Appellants have preferred the present appeals being ag- grieved with the common judgment dated 12.10.1996 passed by the II Addl.Sessions Judge, Sehore, in Sessions Trial No.151/1994 whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as mentioned herein- below.In the present case, undisputed facts are appellant Kaner Singh is husband of complainant Sunitabai and appellant Jamna Prasad is brother-in-law of appellant Kaner Singh.It is further alleged that appellant Jamna Prasad pressurized the complainant to sign on a paper stating that she herself had fallen down into the well.Thereafter, she disclosed the incident to her maternal aunt (sister of her father) who resided in the same village and called her brother Haricharan, PW9, who came to take her and when she was going with him, appellant Jamna Prasad abused and kicked her and snatched her luggage bag saying that not to come back.On 29.5.1994 information of the incident was given at Police Station Doraha, District Sehore wherein FIR was lodged vide Crime No.135/1994 for the offence under sections 498-A, 294 and 506 of the I.P.C. Complainant Sunitabai was sent for medical ex- amination.After investigation charge-sheet was filed against the appellants in the court of CJM, Sehore, who added offence under sections 307 and 323 of the I.P.C. and committed the case to the court of Sessions, Sehore.The learned II ASJ, Sehore, framed charges under sections 498-A, 323, 307 and 506 of the I.P.C. against appellant Kaner Singh and under section 498-A/109 of the I.P.C. against appellant Jamna Prasad.The appellants abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried.The learned trial court after appreciating the oral as well as the documentary evidence that has come on record, has convicted and sentenced the appellants, as mentioned above.A.No.1923/1996 Cr.Apart from it, there is no evidence at all against appellant Jamna Prasad to connect him with the incident.He has been falsely implicated on account of relationship with accused Kaner Singh.In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the prosecution has established its case be- yond reasonable doubt.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeals be allowed and the appellants be acquitted of the charges leveled against them.On the other hand, learned Govt. Advocate has contended that the findings of the learned court below are based on legal and proper appreciation of the evidence, which does not require any interference, therefore, the appeals be dismissed.9. Having heard the contentions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the court below, it is found that the learned trial court has arrived at the conclusion that the allegation with regard to demand of dowry against the ap- pellants having not found to be proved and in this regard testi- mony of Sunitabai, PW2 and her parents are not reliable.Sunitabai, PW2, has further stated that on the date of incident her husband appellant Kaner Singh took her to the well on the false 5 Cr.A.No.1923/1996 Cr.A.No.1914/1996 pretext of fetching drinking water for cattle and when com- plainant started fetching water from the well, appellant Kaner Singh pushed her into the well due to which she fell down and then he fled away.The water in the well was till her waist level.She sustained injuries and became unconscious and remained ly- ing till half an hour.Thereafter, Mansingh came and pulled her up from the well and took her to the house.Then co-accused Jamna Prasad pressurized her to put thumb impression of a paper stating that she herself has fallen into the well.On the next day her husband Kaner Singh tied her hands with a rope and again beaten her with lathi.Her brother Haricharan came to village Sem- radangi.She narrated the entire incident to him.When she was going along with her brother, appellant Jamna Prasad abused her, kicked on her waist and snatched her luggage and asked her to never come back.Thereafter, she went to her parental house and narrated the entire incident to her parents and lodged the report, Ex.In the case, Mansingh, PW8 and Brajlal, PW6, have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution story.Leelabai has not been examined.Haricharan, PW9, has stated that after getting information from Leelabai, he came at village Semradangi where Leelabai told him that quarrel had taken place between Sunita and her husband Kaner Singh.She did not tell anything about the physical assault by any of the appellants.He took her sister Sunita to her house situated at village Khaikheda where Sunita disclosed that she was beaten and pushed into the well.He has also stated that he stayed and took dinner in the house of Jamna Prasad where he said that quarrel has taken place between Sunita and her husband Kaner Singh and also said that she had 6 Cr.A.No.1923/1996 Cr.A.No.1914/1996 fallen into the well and that he should take her to her parental house.Therefore, Haricharan, PW9, took her to her parental house.Laxminarayan, PW3, father of Sunitabai has also stated that after getting information of the incident, he came to village Semradangi where appellants told him that Sunitabai had fallen into the well.Considering the aforesaid evidence, it cannot be said that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the case beyond reasonable doubt that appellant Kaner Singh has pushed his wife Sunitabai into the well with an intention to kill her, as neither Leelabai has been examined to prove that after the incident Sunitabai, PW2, has narrated the incident to her, nor her brother Haricharan, PW4, has stated that Sunitabai immediately disclosed the fact of incident to him.Moreover, FIR of the incident has been lodged after 8 days and no explanation has been given for the delay in lodging the FIR.In the circumstances, there is a rea- sonable possibility that the incident of falling into the well has been given the shape of pushing by husband into the well with a view to kill her.That apart, testimony of the complainant with re- gard to accused appellant Jamna Prasad that he abused, kicked on her waist and snatched her luggage also does not appear to be truthful as Haricharan, PW9, has not stated anything against Jamna Prasad.On the contrary, he has stated that he stayed and took dinner in the house of Jamna Prasad, who advised to take complainant with him.Thus, there was no occasion for appellant Jamna Prasad to snatch the luggage and made any resistance while the complainant was going with her brother.As per medical evidence Dr.J.K.Kathoriya, PW1, who exam- ined complainant Sunitabai on 30.5.1994, has stated that he found five injuries viz. contusions or bruises at the back and buttock of the complainant which were simple in nature and caused by hard 7 Cr.A.No.1923/1996 Cr.A.No.1914/1996 and blunt object within 7-10 days.He prepared M.L.C. report, Ex.The M.L.C. report, Ex.P/1 shows that Sunita might have got the said injuries at the time of falling into the well or on ac- count of beating by accused Kaner Singh.Consequently, the Cr.(J.P.GUPTA) JUDGE HS Digitally signed by HEMANT SARAF Date: 2019.05.08 18:23:56 +05'30'
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
99,526,242 |
Heard on I.A.No.10257/2016, an application under Section 389(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for suspension of execution of the sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant.It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant has wrongly been convicted.Learned Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence and erred in convicting the appellant.It is further submitted that the appellant was on bail during the trial and has not misused the liberty granted to him.The final hearing of this appeal shall take time.On these grounds, learned counsel prays for suspension of execution of the sentence and grant of bail.Learned counsel for the State opposed the application.I have perused the judgment and record.Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the fact that the appellant was on bail during 2 trial and has not misused the liberty granted to him and final hearing of this appeal shall take time, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the application deserves to be allowed.(D.K. Paliwal) Judge bj/-
|
['Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
995,332 |
The complainant has no sonand the accused being his nephew and close relative, hehanded over the shares with transfer forms to the accusedfor arranging the sale thereof through reliable broker andto pay the sale proceeds to the complainant.It is the case ofthe complainant that he signed and executed various transferforms, so also his said daughter Ms. Feroza to facilitatethe transfer thereof in the name of prospective buyer.The Special Court issued summons of theappellant and framed charge against the appellant as under :"CHARGE I, Justice M.S. Rane, Judge, Special Court, Mumbai, do hereby charge you Minoo Mehta, the accused herein, as under:That in or about December.1991 securities viz. distinctive number of 1200 shares of Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd., belonging to the complainant Shavak D. Mehta and his daughter Ms. Feroza P. Driver, as per particulars mentioned hereinbelow i.e. Distinctive No. No. of Shares 1 31202266 - 31202415 150 2 31202116 - 31202265 150 3 31202416 - 31202440 25 4 25752406 25752430 25 5 25752431 25752455 25 6 25752456 25752480 25 7 8699052 8699151 100 8 24690929 24691028 100 9 823796 823895 100 10 33201 33300 100 11 405952 406051 100 12 541991 542090 100 13 7720240 7720339 100 14 4715055 4715154 100Leave granted.We have heard learned counsel or the parties.A fewintroductory facts leading to these proceedings are requiredto be noted at the outset.However, for quite a long timethere was no response from the accused.The complainant onvarious occasions made enquiries with the accused about thesale of the said shares.Thereafter, the accused began to avoid the complainant.Thecomplainant, therefore, felt that something was a miss andenquired with M/s, Tata Consultancy Services who were ShareRegistrars of M/s .The compiling was filedby the complainant before the Special Court both against theappellant as well as accused no.2 Paresh B. Patel.
|
['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
174,712,549 |
in nut-shell giving rise to the petition are that complainant/respondent no.2 lodged a report against the petitioners to the effect that on the date of incident when he was purchasing the wheat in a bid carried out at Galla Mandi Sheetalganj, Indergarh, the petitioners came and restrained him.When he refused, they all beat him by means of kicks and fists.They also caused injuries to him by but of 12 bore gun and by hurling filthy abuses upon him, threatened him to kill.Hence, a case has been registered against the petitioners for the offences mentioned above at Crime No.81 of 2013 under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 294 and 506B of IPC registered at PS Indergarh District Datia.I.A.No.5756 of 2014 stating therein that respondent no.2/complainant does not want to further prosecute the criminal case against the petitioners-accused.The petition has been signed by both the parties.The petition is supported by the affidavit of complainant with a prayer to quash the FIR as stated herein above.The counsel for the state formally opposed the prayer.
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
17,471,550 |
He fled towards western side.This Jail Appeal under section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. has been filed by appellant Shiv Bhajan @ Ram Bhajan @ Kharedam through Senior Superintendent, Central Jail, Naini, Allahabad, under section 383 Cr.P.C. against judgment of conviction and sentence made therein dated 28.3.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ F.T.C. II, Kaushambi, in S.T. No. 58 of 2006, State of U.P. Vs.Shiv Bhajan @ Ram Bhajan @ Kharedam, arising out of Case Crime No. 74 of 2005, under section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Puramufti, District Kaushambi, whereby convicting appellant for offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine two years' additional imprisonment with this contention that Trial Court failed to appreciate facts and law placed before it.Two witnesses examined as witnesses of fact, who were named as eyewitness account in first information report, have turned hostile.They have not supported prosecution case.The only witness of fact PW1 is informant, father of deceased, who too failed to prove his presence on the spot or source of light or occurrence to be committed by convict appellant.His sole testimony was not trustworthy, but the Trial Judge based its judgment upon unreliable testimony of PW1 and passed impugned judgment of conviction and sentence made therein.2. Heard Sri Pawan Singh Pundir, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing on behalf of appellant and Sri Ratan Singh, learned AGA for the State.Perused the lower court's record as well as impugned judgment.In brief facts on record reveal that a first information report as Case Crime No. 74 of 2005 under section 307 I.P.C. was lodged at Police Station Puramufti, District Kaushambi, against Kharedam, son of Munni Lal, resident of Shanharpur Peepalgaon, Police Station Dhoomanganj, District Allahabad, on 24.4.2005 at 8.30 P.M. upon written report of Arjun Lal scribed by Dheerendra Kumar Shukla (Ext. Ka1) with this contention that informant's son Ram Sukh Kori, aged about 20 years, was standing near graveyard situated towards north side of his house under conversation with Kharedam, son of Munni Lal, resident of Shanharpur Peepalgaon, Police Station Dhoomanganj, District Allahabad, when at about 7.45 P.M. in the night of 24.4.2005 Kharedam under anger gave a firearm shot over Ram Sukh Kori with intention to kill him, who shouted upon which this informant, his real brother Sunder Lal, Shambhoo Lal son of Late Bharsoor and many others of village rushed on the spot when Kharedam was giving knife blow to Ram Sukh Kori, who had fallen there at.This informant and witnesses have seen and identified Kharedam, while giving knife blow and running from spot.Injured Ram Sukh Kori was taken at Police Station and this report, which was scribed by Dheerendra Kumar Shukla and signed by Arjun Lal, son of Late Ram Adhar, resident of Village Bihka alias Puramufti, District Kaushambi, was submitted for legal recourse.Injured Ram Sukh Kori was instantly taken to Swarooprani Medical College, Allahabad, for treatment, where he was admitted upon letter of Station Officer, Police Station Puramufti.Ram Sukh Kori succumbed to above injuries on 28.4.2005 at 12.15 P.M. This was informed by Constable Vishnu Lal.Inquest proceeding followed by preparation of requisite police papers for autopsy examination and autopsy examination in intact sealed dead body of Ram Sukh Kori was conducted in which death owing to above antemortem injury of wound of entry of close range by firearm shot as well as lacerated wounds of sharp edged weapon as well as of hard blunt object were held to be cause of death.This case crime number 74 of 2005 was altered into offence of murder punishable under section 302 I.P.C. Investigation resulted in filing of charge sheet (Ext. Ka6) for offence of murder punishable under section 302 I.P.C. against Shiv Bhajan @ Ram Bhajan @ Kharedam.Sessions Judge after hearing learned Government Counsel for State as well learned counsel for defence framed charge for offence of murder against Shiv Bhajan @ Ram Bhajan @ Kharedam on 29.5.2006, which was subsequently amended vide charge dated 6.9.2010 by Additional Sessions Judge/ F.T.C. No. 2, Kaushambi, as follows:-"eaS] Mk0 cky eqdqUn] vij l= U;k;k/kh'k@,Q0Vh0lh0&2] dkS'kkEch vki vfHk;qDr f'koHktu mQZ jkeHktu mQZ [kM+sne dks fuEu vkjksi ls vkjksfir djrk gWw%& 1& ;g fd fnukad 24-4-2005 dks jkf= djhc 07-45 cts LFkku ogn xzke fcgdk mQZ iwjkeq¶rh varxZr Fkkuk iwjkeq¶rh tuin dkS'kkEch esa vkius oknh eqdnek vtqZu yky ds edku ds mRRkj rjQ fLFkr dfczLrku ds ikl mlds yM+ds jkelq[k dksjh ij tku ls ekjus dh fu;r ls dV~Vs ls Qk;j fd;kA fxj tkus ij pkdw ls Hkh okj fd;k ftlls mldh e`R;q nkSjku bykt gqbZA vkidk mDr d`R; Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dh /kkjk&302 ds varxZr ,d n.Muh; vijk/k gS tks bl U;k;ky; ds izlaKku esa gSA ,rn~}kjk vkidks funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd mDr vkjksi ds varxZr vkidk fopkj.k bl U;k;ky; }kjk fd;k tk;sxkA""That you on 24.4.2005 at 7.45 P.M. at Village Bihka alias Puramufti within area of police station Puramufti, District Kaushambi, committed murder of Ram Sukh Kori, son of Arjun Lal in north of house of informant near graveyard by firearm shot with intention to kill and when he fell down you assaulted by knife too.Ram Sukh Kori died during course of treatment, thereby you committed offence of murder punishable under section 302 I.P.C. within the cognizance of the court." (English translation by Court)Charge was read over and explained to accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.Prosecution examined PW1-informant Arjun Lal, PW2- Sunder Lal, PW3- Mangal Das, PW4- Ram Singh, PW5- Bhaee Lal, PW6- Dr. Ajay Kumar Chaddha, PW7- Gulab Singh, PW8- Dr. Rafat Jamal Siddiqui, PW9- S.I. Ram Kumar Yadav, PW10- S.I. A. K. Singh, PW11- S.I. Surendra Singh and PW12- Constable Ram Naresh Pandey.With a view to have explanation, if any, and version of accused over incriminating evidence furnished by prosecution, he was examined and his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded.Wherein the accusation was denied with contention that testimonies of prosecution witnesses to be false with specific contention that "esjk uke f'koHktu rFkk [kM+sneu ugha gSA esjk uke dsoy jkeHktu gSA oknh us vius rhljs pj.k ds c;ku esa ykSafM;kckth ds pDdj esa vius yM+ds dk dRy gksuk crk;k gSA ;fn oknh ds yM+ds dh vk'kuk;h fdlh Hkh yM+dh ls Fkh rks mldh gR;k yM+dh ds ifjokj okyksa us lqulku txg esa fd;k gSA eSaus dRy ugha fd;k gSA""My name is only Ram Bhajan and not Shiv Bhajan or Kharedam.Informant in his statement at the third stage has said that his son was murdered because of some love affairs, hence family members of that girl with whom the deceased had love affair, might have murdered him in the night but this accused has not committed murder of the deceased."Additional Sessions Judge has further examined the accused by mentioning his name as Shiv Bhajan @ Ram Bhajan @ Kharedam in which testimonies of prosecution witnesses has been said to be false and his false implication under police plan and pressure.No evidence in defence was given by accused-appellant.Trial Judge after hearing learned counsel and learned counsel for defence passed impugned judgment of conviction for offence of murder punishable under section 302 I.P.C. against convict appellant and awarded sentence, as aforesaid, against which this appeal.Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that murder of deceased Ram Sukh Kori on above date, time and place of occurrence is not disputed, but implication of convict appellant was false and for it there was no evidence on record.Two of the witnesses of fact PW2 and PW3 became hostile and they did not support the factum of commission of this offence of murder by convict appellant.The only testimony of PW1-informant was of eyewitness account, but he too has said that prior this occurrence he had never met convict appellant, then how he was able to know his name and parentage or his involvement.Moreso, source of light for this occurrence of night has not been said and proved by prosecution.There is no electricity pole in the site map nor house of informant has been shown in site map.The witnesses, who were shown to have their houses nearby spot, have not been examined nor maternal grandfather or any member of his family has been examined.There is no clue that Shiv Bhajan @ Ram Bhajan @ Kharedam is one and the same person, whereas report was lodged only against Kharedam.This was disputed by convict appellant that he has no concern with Kharedam.He has no alias name either Kharedam or Shiv Bhajan, rather he was Ram Bhajan against whom no allegation was made.Rest of the witnesses were of inquest proceeding, autopsy examination and investigation.They have not established the name and identity of the convict appellant.Hence, prosecution failed to prove charge beyond doubt against convict appellant.Learned AGA has argued that it was instant report in which injured was taken to hospital along with first information report.He was got admitted for treatment on the pretext of police.He remained in hospital under treatment for four days but he succumbed to above antemortem injuries and informant was eyewitness account, who has proved the case against convict appellant.12. PW1-informant Arjun Lal in his examination in chief has said that he took his injured son at police station instantly and got the report scribed by Dheerendra Kumar Shukla, put his signature and lodged at Police Station Puramufti.His son was got admitted at Swarooprani Hospital, Allahabad, where he remained for three days and died on the fourth day.Inquest proceeding was got conducted at hospital, where he put his signature.Regarding this registration of case crime number there is no contradiction in his examination in cross.Injured was instantly taken for treatment to hospital where his medico legal examination followed by treatment was given, which has been proved by testimony of PW8 Dr. Rafat Jamal Siddiqui that while being posted as Plastic Surgeon at Swaroop Rani Hospital medico legal examination of Ram Sukh Kori aged about 24 years, son of Arjun Lal, resident of Puramufti was made by him on 24.4.2005 at 9.15 P.M. upon bringing of injured by Constable Vishnu Lal, C.P. 230 of Police Station Puramufti, district Kaushambi.The following injuries were found on the person of victim:i. Gunshot lacerated wound below right eye in an area 3 cm x 3 cm, tattooing and blackening present.Bleeding present.Margins were lacerated and inverted towards inner side and this injury was fresh of one hour.X-ray with occipital view and C.T. Scan of brain was advised.Wound of cut over right temporal on right side behind ear in an area of 3 cm x 0.25 cm , bone deep with reddish margins and bleeding of fresh duration within one hour.Lacerated wound 2 cm x 0.25 cm x scalp deep over right temporal part behind right ear having reddish corner and blood oozing with fresh duration within one hour.Lacerated wound over right ear 1 cm x 0.25 cm x cartilage deep with red margin and bleed of fresh duration within one hour.Injury no. 1 was owing to firearm shot grievous and fresh.Injury nos. 2, 3 and 4 were of hard blunt and incised weapon with grievous nature.In cross-examination a suggestive question was put that injury nos. 2, 3 and 4 may be cause by axe or spade.It was denied that they may be caused by knife and were of front side and may occur by one weapon in different assault on different angle.Weapon may be different.It may be caused by one or many person.Injury no. 1 may be assault by right side.Injuries nos. 2, 3 and 4 may be assaulted while standing.These were of in between 8 to 8.30 P.M. of that night and very close range assault.There is no dispute regarding his testimony or injuries over person of the injured.During course of treatment injured succumbed.Offence u/s 307 I.P.C. was converted into offence of murder.As a result inquest was got conducted and this inquest proceeding has been proved by PW4 Ram Singh, who in his testimony has said that four years back Ram Sukh Kori, son of Arjun Lal was murdered.Inquest proceeding of his dead body was done in his presence at Swarooprani Hospital, Allahabad, which was having injury of firearm shot as well as incised wounds.This has further been corroborated by the testimony of PW10-S.I. A. K. Singh that he received application informant regarding death of injured Ram Sukh Kori during course of treatment.This was entered in Parcha no. 6 of case diary on 1.5.2005 wherein the case was converted from case of attempt of murder to offence of murder.This has further been corroborated by testimony of PW11 S.I. Surendra Singh that while being posted as Sub Inspector police station Kotwali, Allahabad, on 28.4.2005 had conducted inquest proceeding at 12.15 P.M. of deceased Ram Sukh Kori, son of Arjun Lal at Swarooprani Hospital in presence of informant and other witnesses.This death was under treatment and there were eight injuries written in the inquest report.Thereafter sealed intact dead body along with those papers were handed over to Constable Surendra Kumar for carrying and getting the same examined under autopsy examination.There is no inconsistency in his testimony and disputed by defence.PW6 Dr. Ajay Kumar Chaddha in his testimony has proved autopsy examination report (Ext. Ka3) by saying that while being on postmortem duty on 29.4.2005 at 4.00 P.M. he conducted autopsy examination on dead body of Ram Sukh Kori brought by Constable Surendra Kumar under sealed and intact position.Death was owing to antemortem injuries and was of 24 hours.Following antemortem injuries were found on the person of deceased:i. Firearm wound of entry 3 cm x 2 cm on right side of face below right lower rid adjacent to nasal bridge..Firearm wound of exit stitched wound on right skull behind right pinna 4 cm x 1 cm.Wound in directed backward obliquely and literally.Pinna stitched 5 cm x 2 cm .v. Big haematoma out side right parietal bone on right side.Fracture right parietal bone and adjoining temporal bone above pinna.Fracture base of skull and big haematoma present in right side skull.Cause of death was shock and hemorrhage as a result of gun shot head injury.In cross-examination this has further been reiterated that there were six antemortem injuries over person of deceased including firearm wound.No question was asked by learned counsel for defence regarding postmortem examination made by PW6 on dead body of deceased brought under intact sealed position by above constable on above date, time and place and preparation of Exhibit Ka3 under handwriting and signature of this witness and cause of death as determined by this witness due to antemortem injuries.This testimony is unrebutted by defence.Though, no substantial cross-examination of this witness was made by learned counsel for defence, whereas the Court itself has cross-examined PW7 in which he has proved his presence and corroborated his examination in chief.He intended to record statement of injured but because of his seriousness and impossibility to record his statement, the same could not be recorded.Copies of inquest report and autopsy examination report were entered in case diary and inspite of all efforts accused could not be apprehended even after proclamation and attachment under sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. Then charge sheet against accused under his handwriting and signature was filed and proved as Exhibit Ka6 on record.A perusal of inquest report (Ext. Ka2), autopsy examination report (Ext. Ka3), oral testimonies of PW11, PW6 and PW1 alongwith admission of murder by accused to be by someone else, because of love affairs, it was fully established that this was not a natural death.Rather, it was a death by inflicting firearm wound and of other mentioned wounds by sharp edged weapon and hard and blunt object i.e. culpable homicide amounting to murder punishable u/s 302 I.P.C.Admittedly, there is no eyewitness account except informant PW1, who in his testimony has categorically stated that:"?kVuk ds le; eSa njokts ij ekStwn FkkA Qk;j dh vkokt lqurs gh eSa vius csVs dh rjQ nkSMk rks ns[kk fd f'koHktu] esjs yMds dks pkdw ekj jgk FkkA""At the time of occurrence I was at my door and after hearing sound of firearm shot I rushed towards my son and found Shivbhajan giving knife blow over his person." (English translation by Court) In cross-examination he has said that eSa tc vius ?kj ls bekeckMk dh vksj nkSMk rks lkeus bekeckMk gSA bekeckMk ls eSaus ?kVuk dks ns[kk FkkA esjs lkFk vkSj dksbZ ugha Fkk dsoy eSa gh FkkA ?kVuk ds ckn lHkh yksx igqap x;s gSaA esjk yMdk fxjk iMk FkkA ?kVuk ?kVus ds 15 feuV ckn lc yksx igqaps pkjikbZ ij ykndj yMds dks Fkkus ys x;sA "At the time of occurrence I ran from my home towards Imambada, which is in front of my house.I witnessed the occurrence from Imambada.None else was with me.I was alone.Others had rushed on the spot after occurrence.Occurrence was seen by me alone.None else had seen the occurrence.My son had fallen on ground.After 15 minutes of occurrence others rushed and brought the injured on a cot at police station." (English translation by Court)Meaning thereby it was only and only informant, who saw the occurrence and that too after giving firearm shot and witnessed knife blow caused by accused over deceased.Other persons reached on the spot after fifteen minutes of the occurrence, whereas in written report (Ext. Ka1) they have been said to be eyewitness account.This testimony is having corroboration with testimony of PW2, who is real brother of informant and he had stated that he did not witness the occurrence because he was not present on spot at that time but this was a occurrence of giving firearm shot over his nephew Ram Sukh Kori.He said as under:"jkr ds vkB cts dk le; FkkA eSa dke ij ls ykSV jgk FkkA jkLrs esa tc ?kVuk LFky ls ,d QykZax dh nwjh ls igqapk rks ns[kk fd esjs Hkrhts jke lq[k dksjh dks eqgYys ds yksx mBkdj ys tk jgs gSA eqgYys ds yksxksa us crk;k fd jkelq[k dks xksyh yx x;h gSA bykt ds fy, ys tk jgs gSaA eSaus e`rd jkelq[k dks xksyh ekjrs fdlh dks ugha ns[kk FkkA ?kVuk ds le; eSa ekSds ij ugha FkkA""At about 8.00 in the night I was my way back to home from job and when was at a distance of one furlong I saw that my nephew Ram Sukh was being taken by Mohalla persons, who apprised him that Ram Sukh had sustained firearm injury and was being taken for treatment.I have never seen this occurrence of giving firearm shot because I was not present on the spot." (English translation by Court)This witness has been declared hostile on the request of prosecution and permitted for cross-examination in which he resiled from his previous statements.PW3 alleged another eyewitness account Mangal Das has stated on oath that he is not aware of giving firearm shot by accused Kharedam.He stated as under:I was not present at home on the day of occurrence, rather I was in the area of police station Kaundhiyara, district Allahabad, on the day occurrence and when came back to home at 11.00 P.M. family members apprised him about murder of Ramsukh.He was not aware as to who had committed the murder." (English translation by Court)Though he by his testimony proved taking of plain and blood stained soil from the spot and preparation of recovery memo of the same.Meaning thereby none other than PW1-informant is a witness for implicating convict appellant in this offence.Instantly lodged chick F.I.R. (Ext. Ka5) and written report (Ext. Ka1) gives names of Kharedam for giving firearm shot over deceased Ramsukh Kori.Kharedam is said to be son of Late Munni Lal Pasi, resident of Shahanpur Peepal Gaon, Police Station Dhoomanganj, District Allahabad, residing since sometime at the house of his maternal grandfather Dashrath, son of Late Dwarika Prasad, resident of Village Bihka alias Puramufti.No alias name of Kharedam as Ram Bhajan or Shiv Bhajan has been written in this first information report.When examined under section 161 Cr.P.C. this was added with alias Shiv Bhajan.When examined before Trial Court this was said that Shiv Bhajan alias Kharedam and deceased Ramsukh was present near graveyard and were under conversation when suddenly Kharedam alias Shiv Bhajan gave firearm shot over Ramsukh resulting injury over his temporal region and when he fell down, he was further assaulted by knife and accused ran towards western side of graveyard.This was witnessed by this witness-PW1 alone.Other persons, who have been said to eyewitness account in report, were said to be present on spot after fleeing of the accused from the scene.In cross-examination PW1 has stated that he was present at his door and heard loud voice is Shiv Bhajan @ Kharedam with his son near graveyard and he went at the time of this conversation.He was all alone and found that a firearm shot was given to Ramsukh before his reaching at above spot i.e. who had given firearm shot was not seen by this witness.Though this assault of firearm is said to have been given by Shivbhajan and no alias either Ram Bhajan or Kharedam has been said.This occurrence is said to have been witnesses from 10-12 steps, but this has been admitted to be night and there was no torch in his hand.Though, source of light has been given to be electric bulb on electric pole on the spot but no electric pole or electric bulb has been shown in the site plan by Investigating Officer nor house of informant from where he rushed on spot has been shown in the site map (Ext. Ka5).Rather place 'B' has been said from where witness PW1 had seen the occurrence.But there is no house of informant shown in site map (Ext. Ka5).Regarding identity of Kharedam PW1 has said that he had never met Kharedam prior to this occurrence."f'koHktu dk ufugky esjs xkao esa gSA blfy, og vkrk tkrk FkkS fdrus fnu ls vkrk tkrk gS eSa ugh crk ldrk gwWA ?kVuk ds igys f'koHktu ls esjh dksbZ eqykdkr ugha gqbZA blfy, eSa ugh tkurkA""Shivbhajan is having his maternal grandfather's house in my village, that is why he used to visit his village.This cannot be said that from how many days he used to visit.There was no meeting with Shivbhajan prior to this occurrence.Hence this informant was not aware about this fact." (English translation by Court) In subsequent line he has replied:"rgjhj eSaus eqfYte dks ns[kk FkkA mlds igys eqfYte dks ugha tkurkA""I had seen accused.Prior to it I was not aware of accused." (English translation by Court)Meaning thereby this informant was unaware of accused.Though, he has said that his maternal grandfather Dashrath was of his village and this has been written in instantly lodge first information report and chick first information report (Ext. Ka1 and Ext. Ka5, respectively) that Kharedam was residing at the home of Dashrath son of Late Dwarika of village Bihka @ Puramufti because he was his maternal grandfather, but when asked in cross-examination as to how could recognize Kharedam against whom report was lodged, he said that he had never met accused, hence, not aware of his relations or alias.When asked about name of Dashrath and his parentage this witness replied:"n'kjFk esjs xkao dk gS buds firk dk uke JhukFk gksxk eSa ugha tkurkA iku dk nqdku yxkrs gSaA""Dashrath is of my village.His father's name may be Shreenath, I am not aware.He used to have betel shop." (English translation by Court)Whereas name of Dashrath with his parentage as Dwarika Prasad has been written in the report (Ext. Ka1).Thus, parentage is doubtful.Meaning thereby he was not perfectly aware of parentage of Dashrath or Kharedam.Whereas the accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. has specifically said that his name is Ram Bhajan with no alias name of Shiv Bhajan or Kharedam and for this there is no evidence on record, nor the Investigating Officer has investigated as to whether the accused is Kharedam or Ram Bhajan or Shiv Bhajan and who is maternal grandfather and what was his occasion to be at above village at above time and place or what was his motive for his occurrence or what was circumstantial evidence of proving fact of firearm shot over deceased, which was the main fatal injury.Admittedly, the deceased having such grievous injury, he was taken to hospital, where he remained hospitalized for four days and succumbed to above injury.Inspite of time the Investigation Officer could not record his statement because of his serious condition and he has not give any statement or dying declaration or any clue as to who had given this injury and under what circumstances.Hence, the very identity of Kharedam, against whom the first information report (Ext. Ka1) was lodged or his alias name as Ram Bhajan or Shiv Bhajan could not be established beyond reasonable doubt.This has been said by informant-PW1 in his testimony that his son was given firearm shot and antemortem injuries in love affairs i.e. deceased himself was under love affair but who was counter part of this affair has not been said by informant.Hence, from overall appreciation of these evidence placed on record, it was fully proved that deceased Ramsukh Kori was murdered by firearm shot coupled with assault of incised wounds at above date, time and place.He received fatal injury.He was instantly brought to police station, instant report was got lodged, he was hospitalized upon police pretext, he remained under treatment and succumbed to above antemortem injuries but this assault was by Kharedam or Kharedam @ Ram Bhajan @ Shiv Bhajan, whose maternal grandfather was Dashrath or his parentage was Dwarika Prasad or his parentage was Shreenath could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt.Hence, charge leveled against convict appellant as well as identity of convict appellant could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt for which this appeal merits its allowance.In view of the above discussions, the impugned judgment of the trial court is liable to be set aside and the appellant deserves to be acquitted from the charges leveled against him.Accordingly, this appeal succeeds and is allowed.The impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 28.3.2011 passed by the Trial Court is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted of all the charges.The appellant is in jail.He shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.Keeping in view the provisions of section 437-A Cr.P.C. appellant is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. One Lakh and two reliable sureties each in the like amount before the Trial Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months, along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the appellant on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.Let a copy of this judgment along with lower court's record be sent back to the court concerned for immediate compliance.Before parting, we find it appropriate to place on record our commendation to learned counsel, who has argued this appeal as Amicus Curiae with ability and actually assisted the Court effectively.Order Date :- 21.2.2019 Pcl
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
174,716 |
JUDGMENT Harries, C.J.This is a Reference to a F. B. made by a Bench of this Court in a criminal matter.A petn.The petnr.On 12-2-1950 communal disturbances took place in Howrah and according to the complainant the petnr.proposed to him that all the articles in the shop should be removed to the petnr.'s house at 29/2 Beniatolla Lane, Calcutta which was outside the danger zone.The complainant stated that he agreed whereupon the petnr.procured a taxi cab and loaded it with articles which were in the shop.The communal disturbances passed off and according to the complainant he went to the petnr.'s house on 1-3-1950 to collect the articles and bring them back to the shop.The petnr., it is said, told the complainant that he would return the articles in two or three days' time, but this he did not do.On 15-3-1950 the complainant stated that he again went to the petnr.'s house to obtain the articles and he was then told by the petnr.that he had no knowledge of the articles at all.A patnr.against the co-patnrs.
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
174,718,234 |
Appellants No.3 & 4In short, the prosecution case is that on 16.5.2000, at about 10:30 p.m., when Sunil (PW-3) heard that appellant Sanju was beating Ramvishal in front of his house, he rushed to that place.Moujilal(PW-2), Rampal (PW-10) and Sendhubai (PW-9) also reached there.They intervened and Moujilal snatched away the stick from the hand of Sanju.Other appellants were also present there.A few minutes thereafter when Sarpanch Lakhan Patel, the elder brother of Sunil, reached there and told to appellant Jagdish Patel as to why he was making them quarrel and why he did not ask the boys to refrain from quarreling, appellants Jagdish and Durga Patel told that their real enemy had come and appellants should kill them.Appellants Ayodhya and Sanju immediately thereafter brought a farsa and sword from the Parchhi of their house.Sanju dealt a blow of farsa on the head of Lakhan due to which he fell down.When (3) Cr.A.No.1421/2002 Sunil (PW-3) tried to catch Sanju, appellant Ayodhya dealt blows of sword to him causing injuries on his neck and left scapula.All the four appellants then caught Sunil and carried him inside their house, but somehow he escaped by jumping over the wall of the house.Sunil and Ramvishal carried injured Lakhan on a motorcycle to police station Barhi where Sunil (PW-3) lodged the first information report Ex.P/11 at 11:00 p.m. Station Officer B.D.Pandey (PW-11) sent the injured persons to Primary Health Centre, Barhi for treatment and medico legal examination.Dr. Kamla Patel (PW-1) examined the injuries of Lakhan Patel, Sunil and Ramvishal.Lakhan Patel was unconscious and was vomiting.There was an incised wound on his head and his brain matter was exposed.He referred Lakhan Patel for X-ray examination and effective treatment to Government Hospital, Katni.There was an incised wound, 8"x 2"x bone deep, which extended from forehead to the mid-parietal region of his skull.It was bleeding.His brain matter was exposed.He referred the patient for further treatment to District Hospital, Katni.This patient was brought to Medical College on being referred from Jabalpur Hospital.On examination, he found an incised injury on his head which was 12 x 1cm in size.It was in stitched condition.The condition of patient was serious.The brain of injured was draining out.Per: Rakesh Saksena,J.Appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment dated 13.09.2002 passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in Sessions Trial No.532/2000 convicting and sentencing them as under:Dr. Kamla Patel found two incised injuries on the body of Sunil and four injuries of hard and blunt object on the body of Ramvishal.Lakhan Patel was further examined by Dr. Anupam Dixit (PW-12) of Medical College, Jabalpur and Dr. Alok Agrawal (PW-14), neuro-surgeon of Jabalpur Hospital.Radiological examination was performed by Sanjay Kumar (PW-13) in Medical College, Jabalpur.During investigation, accused persons were arrested and weapons were seized from their possession.After further requisite investigation, charge sheet was filed and case was committed for trial.During trial, appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication by the interested witnesses because of enmity.(4) Cr.A.No.1421/2002 According to them, Lakhanlal was beaten by some unknown persons near the place of Ramlila.They also examined 5 witnesses in their defence to show that the incident did not take place at the spot as stated by the prosecution and that there was no light at the place of occurrence.Learned trial Judge relying mainly on the evidence of eyewitnesses Moujilal (PW-2), Sunil (PW-3), Ramvishal (PW-5), Gudda Patel (PW-7), Sendhu Bai (PW-9) and Rampal (PW-10) and the medical evidence of Dr. Kamla Patel (PW-1), Dr. Anupam Dixit (PW-12), Dr. Sanjay Kumar (PW-13) and Dr.Alok Agrawal (PW-14), held the appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced them as mentioned above.Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, appellants have filed this appeal.Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the evidence of alleged eyewitnesses was not reliable.Learned trial Judge mis-appreciated their evidence and convicted them of the aforesaid charges.Shri R.S.Patel, learned counsel for appellants- Jagdish and Durga Prasad, submitted that the prosecution evidence in respect to them was inconsistent and contradictory.It was not established beyond doubt that these two appellants exhorted accused Sanju and Ayodhya to assault Lakhan Patel and Sunil Patel, as such their conviction was liable to be set aside.Shri S.K.Gangrade, Advocate, submitted that the assault on Lakhan Patel was made suddenly by appellant Sanju, therefore, other accused persons could not have been held liable under section 307 with the aid of section 34 I.P.C. On the other hand, Shri Umesh Pandey, (5) Cr.A.No.1421/2002 learned counsel for the State, submitted that the evidence of injured witnesses namely Sunil (PW-3), Ramvishal (PW-5) as well as other witnesses was fully trustworthy.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment and the evidence on record carefully.Injured witness Ramvishal (PW-5) deposed that at about 10 o'clock in the night when he was going to his house, as soon as he reached in front of the house of accused Ayodhya Patel, accused Sanju Patel started beating him with lathi.He fell down.When he shouted, Moujilal and Sunil Patel snatched away lathi from accused Sanju.In the meanwhile, Rampal and Sendhu Bai also reached there.Accused Durga Patel and Jagdish Patel, who were present at the spot, did not ask assailants not to beat him.When Sarpanch Lakhan Patel reached there and admonished Jagdish Patel as to why he was getting his boys killed and was not asking his boys to refrain from beating, Jagdish Patel told that he was the real enemy and he should be killed.Accused Sanju and Ayodhya Patel then went to their Parchhi and brought farsa and sword.Sanju dealt a blow of farsa on the head of Lakhan as a result of which he fell down.When Sunil tried to catch hold of Sanju, accused Ayodhya dealt blows of sword on his neck and back.All the four accused persons then carried Sunil into their house, but somehow Sunil escaped and came out.He and Sunil then carried Lakhan to hospital and Sunil went to (6) Cr.A.No.1421/2002 police station for lodging the report.In the cross-examination, though suggestions were made that there was no light and the accused persons were falsely implicated due to Election rivalry, but all of them were firmly denied.This witness categorically stated that he saw accused persons assaulting Lakhan and Sunil.It is also significant to note that both the parties were known to each other from before.Before the assault was launched on Lakhan, this witness (Ramvishal) was being assaulted by accused Sanju Patel.In these circumstances, trial Court was justified to hold that there was no mistake in identification of assailants.It is true that Ramvishal (PW-5) did not mention in his police statement Ex.D/3 that accused Ayodhya assaulted Sunil with a "sword", but it does not affect his credibility in view of the fact he mentioned that he assaulted Sunil on his neck and back.He and Moujilal (PW-2) snatched lathi from Sanju.All the four accused persons including Durga Prasad and Jagdish were present at the spot.Hearing about quarrel, when his elder brother Lakhan came at the spot and admonished Jagdish as to why they were not asking their boys to not to assault Ramvishal, they shouted that their real enemy had come and asked other accused persons to kill him.(7) Cr.A.No.1421/2002 Accused Sanju and Ayodhya went to their Parchhi and brought farsa and sword.Sanju dealt a blow of farsa on the head of Lakhan.Lakhan fell down.When Sanju attempted to repeat the blow, he caught him but accused Ayodhya dealt two blows from the sword on him causing injuries on his neck and back.All the four accused persons caught him and forcibly carried him into their house and closed the door, but by climbing the wall he escaped.He and Ramvishal then carried Lakhan on a motorcycle to hospital and he went to police station Barhi to lodge the report.Similar statements were made by Moujilal (PW-2), Gudda Patel (PW-7), Sendhu Bai (PW-9) and Rampal (PW-10).Though some inconsistencies and contradictions were pointed out by the learned counsel in the evidence of these witnesses, but they were not substantial or material in nature.Their evidence appeared consistent, cogent and truthful.The evidence of Sunil (PW-3) stood corroborated from the first information report Ex.P/11 which was lodged by him only within half an hour after the incident.Evidence of complainant Sunil (PW-3) and Ramvishal (PW-5) seems further reliable since they also suffered injuries in the same incident.Dr. Kamla Patel (PW-1) categorically stated that on examining person of Sunil Patel, he found (i) incised wound 3" x 1" x muscle deep on left scapula bone and (ii) incised wound 2" x 1" x muscle deep on occipital bone.He stated that injuries of Sunil were simple in nature.His injury report was Ex.Similarly, on examination of Ramvishal, he found (i) swelling 2" x 2" on right elbow; (ii) swelling 1" x 1/2" under the left eye; (iii) abrasion 2" x (8) Cr.A.No.1421/2002 1/4" on eighth rib of left side and (iv) contusion 3" x 1" on his back.Injury report of Ramvishal is Ex.In the opinion of Dr.Kamla Patel, the injuries of Sunil were caused by sharp edged weapon like sword and the injuries found on the body of Ramvishal could have been caused by hard and blunt object.Thus, the presence of these two witnesses at the spot could not be doubted.The fact, as stated by the eyewitnesses, that appellant Sanju dealt a blow with farsa on the head of Lakhan Patel also stands corroborated by the evidence of Dr. Kamla Patel (PW-1).Dr. Kamla Patel deposed that on 16.5.2000, constable Ambika Prasad brought Lakhan Patel to P.H.C. Barhi in an injured condition.He examined his injuries and recorded them in his report Ex.Lakhan Patel was in unconscious state and was vomiting.In CT scan, number of fractures were seen in his fronto parietal bone.This injury was caused to him by some hard and sharp object.Dr. Sanjay Kumar (PW-13), a radiologist of Medical College, Jabalpur stated (9) Cr.A.No.1421/2002 that there was fracture in parietal bone of Lakhan Patel.His X-Ray plate and X-Ray report were respectively Ex.P/36 and Ex.Dr. Alok Agrawal (PW-14), neuro-surgeon of Jabalpur Hospital, stated that on 17.5.2000 Lakhan Patel was brought to his hospital from Government Hospital Katni.He was semi-conscious, but was not responding the commands.There were injuries on his head admeasuring 6" x 2" x 2".Skull bone was fractured and scattered.Pieces of fronto parietal bone had damaged the brain.His MLC report Ex.P/38 was written and signed by him.In the opinion of Dr. Alok Agrawal, the patient was not able to speak.The nature of injury of Lakhan Patel was dangerous and grievous.After closely scanning and scrutinizing the evidence of aforesaid prosecution witnesses, we find that it has been amply established that appellant Sanju @ Ram Sajivan assaulted Lakhan Patel on his head with farsa due to which he received dangerous and grievous injuries.From the nature of his act, the weapon used and the part of body on which the injury was caused, it can be unhesitatingly concluded that appellant Sanju intended to commit murder of Lakhan Patel.Now the question before this Court is whether appellants Ayodhya, Jagdish and Durga Prasad were rightly convicted under section 307/34 I.P.C.Learned counsel for the appellants on the basis of the evidence of Sendhu Bai (PW-9) and Ramvishal (PW-5) argued that it was only Jagdish Patel, who on coming of Lakhan Patel, told that (10) Cr.A.No.1421/2002 their real enemy had come and he should be killed.They did not say that these words of exhortation were uttered by appellant Durga Prasad also.Their evidence is inconsistent and militates against the evidence of other witnesses who stated that simultaneously Durga Prasad and Jagdish both shouted that Lakhan Patel should be killed.We find substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants.Since Sendhu Bai (PW-9) and Ramvishal (PW-5), who admittedly were present at the spot, did not say that appellant Durga Prasad also exhorted other accused persons to kill Lakhan Patel, it created doubt that Durga Prasad also exhorted other accused persons to kill Lakhan Patel.However, the evidence of these witnesses as well as of other prosecution witnesses is clear and consistent in respect of appellant Jagdish that he exhorted to other accused persons to kill Lakhan Patel saying that he was the real enemy, and that in pursuance to his exhortation, appellants Sanju and Ayodhya brought farsa and sword to assault Lakhan Patel.Thus, in our opinion, the conviction of appellant Durga Prasad under section 307 read with section 34 I.P.C. was not justified.Since from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it has been established that on the exhortation by appellant Jagdish, Sanju and Ayodhya brought farsa and sword from their Parchhi, and Sanju gave a farsa blow on the head of Lakhan Patel, trial Court, in our opinion, committed no error in holding appellant Sanju guilty of the offence under section 307 I.P.C. It has also been proved that when Sunil tried to save Lakhan Patel by catching accused Sanju, (11) Cr.A.No.1421/2002 appellant Ayodhya @ Sakit dealt two blows with sword to him.This clearly indicated that appellant Ayodhya shared common intention with appellant Sanju in his attempt to commit murder of Lakhan Patel.He has been sentenced to imprisonment for life under section 307 I.P.C. Learned counsel for the appellants prayed for reduction of his sentence to the period of sentence (12) Cr.Learned counsel submitted that appellants Ayodhya and Jagdish who have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under section 307/34 I.P.C. be also dealt with liberally, since they did not cause any injury to injured Lakhan Patel.For causing injury to injured Sunil Patel, they have already been convicted under sections 324 and 324/34 I.P.C. Appellant Ayodhya has remained in jail for a period of 8 months.Appellants Jagdish and Durga have remained in jail for a period of about 3 months.On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that in view of the serious nature of injuries caused to Lakhan Patel, and the act attributed to appellant Ayodhya in causing injury to Sunil also, the sentences of aforesaid appellants did not deserve to be reduced even on the ground that the incident had occurred in the year 2000 and about 11 years have been elapsed.After due consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of the different acts attributed to appellants, we are of the view that the sentences of the appellants may be reduced to some extent.For the reasons stated hereinabove:-(a) Conviction of appellant No.1 Sanju @ Ram Sajivan under sections 307, 324/34 and 323 I.P.C. is affirmed.His sentence of imprisonment for life is reduced to the period of rigorous imprisonment already undergone by him.Sentence of fine of Rs.10,000/- as imposed on him is affirmed.His conviction and sentences under sections 324/34 and 323 I.P.C. are affirmed.(13) Cr.(b) Conviction of appellant No.2 Ayodhya @ Sakit @ Lallu and appellant No.3 Jagdish under section 307/34 I.P.C. is affirmed.However, their sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for three years.Sentence of fine of Rs.5000/- is affirmed.Conviction and sentences of appellant No.2 under section 324 I.P.C. and of appellant No.3 under section 324/34 I.P.C. are affirmed.(c) Conviction and sentence of appellant No.4 Durga Prasad under section 307/34 I.P.C. is set aside.He is acquitted of that charge.Appeal partly allowed.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
174,722 |
(a) P.W.1 is a native of Andalkulam near Vijayanarayanam within thejurisdiction of the respondent police. A-2 and A-3 are the associates of A-1.P.W.1 is the son of the deceased Ramasubbu.The sister of the appellant wasgiven in marriage to the brother-in-law of the deceased.On 20.5.2007, P.W.1and his father, the deceased, went to the field for irrigating the paddy crops.At that time, P.Ws.2 and 3 were also available.At about 2.45 P.M., A-1 armedwith aruval and A-2 and A-3 armed with sticks, came there, and A-1 attacked thedeceased on the head and hand causing injuries to the fingers.A-2 and A-3attacked him on different parts of the body.This was witnessed by P.Ws.1 to 3.Immediately, they left the place of occurrence.(b) P.W.1 took the severely injured to the Government Hospital where hewas declared dead.On intimation from the hospital, P.W.13, the Sub Inspectorof Police, attached to the respondent police station, proceeded to the hospital,recorded the statement of P.W.1, marked as Ex.P1, returned to the Station andregistered a case in Crime No.76 of 2007 under Sections 447, 294(b), 302 and506(2) of IPC.The printed FIR, Ex.P17, was despatched to the Court.(c) On receipt of the copy of the FIR, P.W.14, the Inspector of Police ofthat Circle, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared anobservation mahazar, Ex.P18, and also a rough sketch, Ex."The Doctor has issued a postmortem certificate, Ex.P12, wherein he has opinedthat the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due toblunt injury to upper limbs and back.(e) The further investigation was taken up by P.W.15, the Inspector ofPolice.The same was recorded.(Judgment of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) This appeal challenges a judgment of the I Additional Sessions Division,Tirunelveli, made in S.C.No.144 of 2008 whereby the appellant shown as A-1, whostood charged along with two others ranked as A-2 and A-3, was found guilty andawarded punishment as follows:2.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be statedas follows:The sample earth,bloodstained earth and other material objects were recovered from the place ofoccurrence.Then he conducted inquest on the dead body of Ramasubbu in thepresence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex.P20.The statements of the witnesses were also recorded as required by law.Arequisition was given to the hospital authorities for the purpose of autopsy.(d) P.W.9, the Assistant Professor, Forensic Medicine Department,Tirunelveli Medical College, on receipt of the requisition, has conductedautopsy on the dead body of Ramasubbu and has noted the following injuries:"(1) 6 x 1 cm x bone deep horizontal cut injury seen on the mid frontal region.It is seen 13 cm from the root of nose and 15 cm away from the upper part ofleft external ear.(2) 3 x 1 cm x bone deep vertical cut injury seen on the right parietal region.It is seen 13 cm away from the right external ear and 19 cm above occipitalprotuberance.(3) 3 x 1 cm x bone deep cut injury seen on the lower part of right leg.It isseen 10 cm above and away from the right ankle inner aspect.(4) 3 x 1 cm x bone deep cut injury seen on the web space of right 3rd and 4thfinger.Underlying muscles, vessels, nerves and bones cut at site.(5) Right forearm and wrist contused over an area of 19 x 10 cm x 1 cm.(6) 13 x 8 x 1 cm contusion seen on the upper part of outer aspect of right arm.(7) 23 x 13 x 2 cm contusion seen on the outer aspect of upper half of left arm.(8) 38 x 20 x 2 cm contusion seen on the upper part of entire left back.(9) 23 x 15 x 2 cm contusion seen on the upper part of entire right back.(10) 4 x 1 cm abrasion seen on the back of middle of right forearm.(11) 4 x 5 cm abrasion seen on the back of middle of forearm.(12) 16 x 10 x 2 cm contusion seen on the entity left elbow, lower part of leftarm and upper part of left forearm.(13) 3 x 5 cm abrasion seen on the outer aspect of lower part of left arm.On dissection of scalp: 14 x 10 cm sub scalpal bruising seen on the mid frontal,bi-parietal and occipital region.Right temporal is bruised.Pending investigation, the Investigator came to know that A-1surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate's Court, Theni.Then he filed anapplication for police custody which was ordered, and A-1 was taken to policecustody, during which he came forward to give a confessional statementvoluntarily.The same was recorded in the presence of witnesses.Pursuant to the same, he produced M.O.1,aruval, which was recovered under a cover of mahazar, Ex.A-2 alsosurrendered before the Court, and police custody was sought for.The same wasordered.A-2 was taken to police custody, and at the time of interrogation, hegave a confessional statement voluntarily.He produced a motorcycle, M.O.9,which was recovered under a cover of mahazar.(f) All the material objects including M.O.1, aruval, were subjected tochemical analysis by the Forensic Sciences Department on a requisition given bythe Investigator through the concerned Judicial Magistrate's Court, whichbrought forth two reports namely Ex.P15, the chemical analyst's report, andEx.P16, the serologist's report.(g) P.W.16, the Inspector of Police, took up further investigation.Heexamined the witnesses and recorded their statements.On completion ofinvestigation, the Investigator filed the final report.3.The case was committed to Court of Session, and necessary charges wereframed.In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 16witnesses and also relied on 23 exhibits and 9 material objects.On completionof the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questionedunder Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in theevidence of the prosecution witnesses, which they flatly denied as false.Onewitness was examined and one document was marked on their side.The trial Courtheard the arguments advanced on either side, and took the view that theprosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt in respect of theappellant/A-1 and hence found him guilty under Sections 447 and 302 of IPC andawarded punishment as referred to above.So far as the other charge isconcerned, A-1 was acquitted of the same.As regards A-2 and a-3, they areacquitted by the trial Judge of all the charges.Under the circumstances, thisappeal has arisen at the instance of A-1 before this Court.4.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned CounselMr.V.Kathirvelu would submit that the occurrence, according to the prosecution,has taken place at about 2.45 P.M. on 20.5.2007; that according to P.Ws.1 to 3,all the three accused have participated in the crime; but, the trial Judge wasnot ready to believe the evidence put forth by P.Ws.1 to 3 and acquitted A-2 andA-3; that the postmortem Doctor has given a certificate to the effect that thedeath was actually caused due to the injuries sustained on the back and upperlimbs and also due to the shock and haemorrhage; that it would be quite clearthat the injuries which resulted in the death of the deceased, were actuallycaused by A-2 and A-3; but the trial Judge has not believed the evidence ofP.Ws.1 to 3 and acquitted them; that under the circumstances, the same reasonswould be applicable to A-1, the appellant herein, also and hence he should havebeen acquitted.5.The learned Counsel would further add that the prosecution came forwardwith a motive attributed to A-1, which was actually unreliable; that it is anadmitted position that the sister of A-1 was given in marriage to the brother-in-law of the deceased, and they were living apart; that according to theprosecution, arrangements were being made for his second marriage, and apartfrom that, the deceased was also making some attempts to sell the property atMadras which belonged to the brother-in-law, and thus he was aggrieved; but noevidence was forthcoming in that regard; that the occurrence has taken place atabout 2.45 P.M.; that according to the prosecution case, A-1 caused two injurieson the head, and A-2 and A-3 attacked him with sticks on different parts of thebody; that P.W.2 has deposed that he was available at the spot, and thereafter,he went to the nearby village, took a taxi, returned to the scene of occurrenceat about 4.45 P.M. and took the deceased to the Government Hospital,Palayamkottai, where he was examined by the Doctor at about 6.20 P.M. and wasdeclared dead; that it would be quite clear that P.Ws.1 to 3 could not have beenin the place of occurrence at all; that according to P.W.1, they took food inthe house before they started at 1.00 P.M.; that P.W.9, the Doctor, whoconducted postmortem, has categorically stated that the liquid food was found inthe stomach of the deceased, and half an hour or one hour prior to the autopsy,he should have taken food; that if to be so, the occurrence could not have takenplace at 2.45 P.M. as put forth by the prosecution; that it should have takenplace at a different time, and thus it cannot be believed.6.Added further the learned Counsel that even assuming that theprosecution has proved the factual position that A-1 attacked him with thearuval on the head, the act of A-1 would not attract the penal provision ofmurder, and at best, it would attract the penal provision of Sec.326 of IPC forcausing grievous hurt; that according to the Doctor, P.W.9, cut injuries werefound on the head; but the injuries that were actually sustained on the back andalso the upper limbs were responsible for causing death, and if to be so, theact of A-1 did not lead to the death of the deceased; and that under thecircumstances, the Court has to consider that the act of A-1 would not attractthe penal provision of murder.7.In the further line of arguments, the learned Counsel would submit thatin the case on hand, according to the prosecution, the sister of A-1 was givenin marriage to the brother-in-law of the deceased, and they were living apart;that the accused felt that the deceased was responsible for the same; that apartfrom that, the brother-in-law of the deceased owned an immovable property atMadras, and the deceased was making arrangements for sale of that property, andif sold, the sister of A-1 would be without any means to follow; that under thecircumstances, he was really aggrieved; that being provoked by the saidcircumstances, he has acted so, and thus the act of A-1 would not attract thepenal provision of murder, and this has got to be considered by the Court.8.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on all theabove contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.9.It is not in controversy that the father of P.W.1 by name Ramasubbu, wasseverely injured in an incident that had taken place on 20.5.2007 at about 2.45P.M. Immediately, he was taken to the Government Hospital, Palayamkottai, in ataxi, and the Doctor on medical examination, declared him dead.The fact thatthe death was due to homicidal violence as put forth by the prosecution wasnever disputed by the appellant.In order to substantiate the said fact, theprosecution has examined the postmortem Doctor as P.W.9 apart from marking thepostmortem certificate as Ex.P12 to that effect.All would clearly indicatethat the prosecution was successful enough in proving the fact that he died outof homicidal violence.The trial Judge was not ready to believe the evidence of thesewitnesses in respect of the accusation made against A-2 and A-3 since there werelot of discrepancies on the material particulars.But, the trial Judge hastaken a view that the prosecution has proved the charges under Sec.447 and 302of IPC as far as A-1 is concerned.According to P.Ws.1 to 3, at the time ofoccurrence, they were with the deceased in the field, and A-1 came there alongwith others with an aruval and attacked him on the head, and he sustainedinjuries.When the postmortem certificate is looked into, the correspondinginjuries are found on the skull of the deceased.Further, the ocular testimonyof these witnesses stood fully corroborated by the medical opinion canvassed.P.W.7 despite cross-examination, has stood the test, and thus hisevidence was available for the prosecution.From all these evidence put forthby the prosecution before the trial Court, it would be quite evident that A-1attacked the deceased with the aruval on the head and caused injuries.11.Now the contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the appellantrelying on the medical opinion canvassed through the postmortem Doctor and thecertificate, that the injury that was caused by A-1 did not lead to the deathcannot be accepted for the simple reason that even the postmortem certificatereads "the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due toblunt injury to upper limbs and back." According to the prosecution, A-1 causedinjuries on the head and also on the hand, and corresponding injuries are alsonoticed in the postmortem certificate.The injuries that have been caused onthe limbs and back which were attributed to A-2 and A-3, did not make anybleeding.On the contrary, as regards the injuries that were caused by A-1 onthe head and also on the hand fingers, cut injuries are noticed, and bleedingwas available, and it could have caused death.The Doctor has given his opinionthat he died out of shock and haemorrhage also.Under the circumstances, thecontention put forth by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the injuriescaused by A-1, could not have caused death cannot be accepted.12.The next contention put forth by the learned Counsel that the appellanthad got sufficient provocation to act so cannot also be accepted for the reasonthat it is an admitted position that the sister of A-1 was given in marriage tothe brother-in-law of the deceased, and actually they have got separated andwere living apart.A-1 came to know, according to the Counsel, that thearrangements for the second marriage were actually going on for the brother-in-law of the deceased, and such arrangements were actually made by the deceased.If to be so, there were so many ways possible to bring his brother-in-law toorder, and this was not the way what was expected of by the appellant/ A-1.Apart from that, according to the learned Counsel, the deceased was makingarrangements to sell the property of his brother-in-law situated at Chennai, andif done, the sister of the appellant/A-1 would be deserted without any means tofollow, and under the circumstances, he was actually provoked.This Court is ofthe view that the same cannot be taken as provocation, much less suddenprovocation to do such an act.13.After looking into the evidence available, this Court is of theconsidered opinion that according to the prosecution, A-1 to A-3 havecontributed, and they have all attacked.Viewing the case of the prosecutionfrom the medical opinion canvassed, this Court is of the considered opinion thatthe act of appellant/A-1 cannot be said to be one of murder, but it would fallunder Sec.304 (Part I) of IPC and awarding a punishment of 7 years RigorousImprisonment would meet the ends of justice.14.Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment imposedby the trial Court on the appellant/A-1, under Sec.302 of IPC are set aside, andinstead he is convicted under Sec.304 (Part I) of IPC and is directed to undergoseven years Rigorous Imprisonment.The sentence already undergone by him, shallbe given set off.The fine amount imposed by the trial Court, will hold good.15.The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court on A-1, underSec.447 of IPC are confirmed.16.In the result, this criminal appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.1.The I Additional Sessions Judge Tirunelveli2.The Inspector of Police Vijayanarayanam Police Station Cr.No.76 of 2007 Tirunelveli District3.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
174,729,290 |
And In re: Mahadeb Ghosh & Anr. ... Petitioners (in jail) Ms.Sreyashee Biswas Mr.Prasun Chakraboty ... for the petitioners Mr.Prasun Dutta, Ld... for the State.Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties.Yesterday, when this matter was taken up for hearing, we were informed by Mr.Pradipta Ganguly, learned advocate for the State, on instructions, that the learned advocate for the State, Mr.Suman Saha, has not received the case diary.In that backdrop, we directed the personal appearance of the Investigating Officer of the case.Now, coming to the case in hand, we find that the petitioners are the parents-in-law of the victim-housewife.They are in custody for about 152 days.Initially, these petitioners were granted anticipatory bail by the learned court below, subsequently, the de facto complainant of the case moved a co- ordinate Bench of this court and their bail and they were arrested and taken into custody.Admittedly, two other co-accused persons, viz. husband and sister-in-law, are on bail.The statement of the victim, to which our attention has been drawn, we find that indisputedly these petitioners are standing on same footing with the said two co-accused persons, who are on bail.Such fact has not been disputed by the learned APP, Mr.Prasun Dutta, The statement is at page 42 of the case diary.Now, coming to the injury report, we find the following injuries were found on the person of the victim - "there was no external injury seen on the body surface except buccul-mucosal erosion and tongue mucosal erosion with minimal bleeding from the erosion site".Let the petitioners be released on bail upon furnishing a Bond of Rs.10,000/- each, with two sureties of Rs.5,000/- each, one of 3 whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Murshidabad Accordingly, this application for bail is disposed of.The office is directed to communicate this order at once to the Superintendent of Police, Murshidabad.As a matter of abundant caution, the learned advocate for the petitioners shall have the liberty to communicate this order to the Superintendent of Police, Murshidabad.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Amitabha Chatterjee, J.)
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
174,731,431 |
Heard Mr. Garun Pal Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. for the State.This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with a prayer for quashing the entire proceedings of Case No. 2152/IX of 2014 (State vs. Devendra and others) arising out of N.C.R. No. 104 of 2013, under Sections 427, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station-Raya, District-Mathura, which is pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no.1, Mathura.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the opposite party no.2 filed a non-cognizable report on 24.07.2013 at Police Staiton-Raya, District-Mathura against the applicants on the basis of which Case No. 2152/IX of 2014, under Sections 427, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station-Raya, District-Mathura has been registered.After investigation, the Police submitted a charge-sheet against the applicants under Sections 427, 504, 506 I.P.C. before the concerned court below, which was registered as Case No. 2152/IX of 2014 (State Vs.Devendra & others) against the applicants.In view of the said explanation, report of the Police Officer, after investigation, disclosing commission of non-cognizable offence is to be deemed to be a complaint and the Police Officer, who submitted the report has to be deemed to be a complainant.In other words, the charge sheet submitted by the Police in a non-cognizable offence shall be treated to be a complaint and the procedure prescribed for hearing of the complaint case shall be applicable to that case.
|
['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
174,731,921 |
Case diary is available.The case of the prosecution is that, in the intervening night of 29.07.2018 at about 08:00 pm the prosecutrix, aged about 14 years have visited along with Suraj Kol the shop of Sukhchain Sahu, situated at Ward No.4, Khantitola under the jurisdiction of Police Station Chandia, District Umaria.After sometime Suraj Kol had returned back, but the prosecutrix was found to be disappeared.A missing persons report was lodged by her mother Lalti Bai Kol against some unknown person.Her medical examination was conducted.Her statements along with her family members under Sections 161 of Criminal Procedure Code have been recorded.Later on, her statement under Section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code has also been recorded.In view of the aforesaid, prayer has been made to enlarge the applicant on bail.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/ State on the other hand has opposed the application and submitted that earlier bail application of the applicant has been rejected on merits, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.Although the previous bail application i.e. M.Cr.C. No.51168/2018 was dismissed on merits vide order dated 27.2.2019, but afterwards the statements of prosecutrix (PW1), her mother Laltibai (PW8) and her father Harilal Kol (PW9) and other witnesses have been recorded before the trial Court and the witnesses particularly proseuctrix and her mother and father have not supported the prosecution case.(MOHD.FAHIM ANWAR) JUDGE SKM Digitally signed by SANTOSH MASSEY Date: 17/01/2020 16:37:06
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
174,735,955 |
Perused the entire record.The prosecution case, in brief, is as under:(i) Mr.Ajay Janardan Sindkar (PW1), API, in the year 2008 was attached to Pant Nagar Police Station, Mumbai.On 22 nd August 2008, he joined his routine duty as Detection Officer.On 23 rd August 2008 at abut 12.10 a.m. in the midnight, Mr.Unawane, the officer attached to the said police station received information that one injured was lying in front of building No.69, Pant Nagar, Mumbai and, therefore, Mr.Ajay Sindkar (PW No.1) along with Mr.Unawane went to the said spot and found one injured person lying on the footpath near Netaji Garden, opposite Building No.69, Pant Nagar.They noticed profused bleeding from the person of the injured and he was unconscious.Sindkar (PW No.1) with the help of other police personnel, thereafter, shifted the said injured person to Rajawadi Hospital, Ghatkopar, Mumbai.The said officers also noticed one Auto Rickshaw bearing No.MH-03-6369 standing near the said place where the injured was lying and also noticed blood stains on its rear seat.Sindkar thereafter called Police Sub-Inspector Mr.Vijay Jadhav to guard the said Auto Rickshaw.After the admission of the said injured person to the hospital, during search of his person, the police found one::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2019 07:30:07 ::: SKN 4/12 1302.13-apeal.doc identity card in the pocket of his clothes and the name of the said injured person as Sohel Shaneali Sayyed was revealed.(ii) During the course of investigation, it was revealed that Ms.By the same judgment and order, the appellant No.1 is further convicted under sections 420, 465, 471 and 328 of IPC and is sentenced to suffer maximum rigorous imprisonment of 7 years.The appellant No.2- Shabana Shaikh is also convicted for the offence punishable under section 201 of IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 5 years.The trial Court has directed that all the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2019 07:30:07 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2019 07:30:07 :::SKN 3/12 1302.13-apeal.doc2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned APP.Initially, an Accidental Death Report was registered by the police and the criminal law was set in motion.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2019 07:30:07 :::Rubi Shaneali Sayyed (PW19), the sister of Sohel Sayyed (deceased) was intending to take admission for Engineering course in Bharati Vidyapith.The appellant No.1 had assured her for getting the said admission and for that purpose, he had accepted Rs.75,000/- in cash and a demand draft of Rs.29,000/- from Sohel Sayyed (deceased).It is further revealed that a bogus receipt denoting that the work of admission to the said college was completed by the appellant No.1 was given to Ms.Rubi Shaneali Sayyed (PW19) and Mr.Sohel (deceased).(iii) The deceased and her sister Rubi Shaneali were consistently pursuing the appellants for giving admission and, if it is in fact given, to complete further formalities.It is further alleged that as the appellants were apprehensive of the fact that their act of cheating would come in light, they decided to commit murder Mr.Sohel Sayyed and in furtherance of their conspiracy, on 22nd August 2008 at about 9.30 p.m., they called::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2019 07:30:07 ::: SKN 5/12 1302.13-apeal.doc Sohel Sayyed at their residence.It is further alleged that the appellants administered stupefying substance (sleeping pills) from the cold drink to Sohel and after he got unconscious, he was transported on a motorcycle bearing No.MH-03-6434 belonging to Mr.Sadik Ashfak Khan (PW9) and thereafter he was made to sit in Auto Rickshaw No.It is alleged that in the said Auto Rickshaw the appellant No.1 assaulted the deceased on his neck and committed his murder.It is the further allegation of the prosecution that the appellants thereafter tried to screen the evidence available against them.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2019 07:30:07 :::(iii) After completion of investigation, the police submitted chargesheet in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 49 th Court at Vikhroli, Mumbai.As the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 49th Court, Vikhroli, Mumbai committed the said case to the Court of Sessions.The said charge was read over and explained to the appellants to which they denied and claimed to be tried.The defence of the appellants was of total denial.The prosecution in support of its case examined in all 31 witnesses.The appellants examined 5 witnesses in support of their defence.The learned trial Court after recording the evidence of witnesses::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2019 07:30:07 ::: SKN 6/12 1302.13-apeal.doc and hearing the parties to the said case was pleased to convict the appellants and sentenced them by the impugned judgment and order as noted hereinabove.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2019 07:30:07 :::At the outset, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, on instructions from the appellant No.1, submitted that appellant No.1 is not seriously contesting the conviction and sentence under section 420, 465 and 471 of IPC.Inter alia, the appellant No.1 has accepted his conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court by the impugned judgment and order under sections 420, 456 and 471 of IPC.The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that there is no cogent evidence available on record to indicate that as a matter of fact, the deceased was seen lastly in the company of the appellants.She further submitted that the police had seized one knife from beneath the Auto Rickshaw which was parked near the place of offence.She further submitted that other knife and blood stained clothes were seized by the police from the house of the appellant No.1 by the alleged Panchanama (Exhibit-88) which do not stand to the test of legal sanctity and, therefore, it requires to be kept aside from the consideration.She submitted that if these two circumstances are held to be not sufficiently proved by the prosecution, then the appellants are entitled for acquittal::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2019 07:30:07 ::: SKN 7/12 1302.13-apeal.doc under section 302 read with section 34 of IPC.She, therefore, prayed that the present appeal may be partly allowed by acquitting the appellants from the charges under sections 302, 328 and 201 read with section 120(b) of IPC.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2019 07:30:07 :::Per contra, Mr.Yagnik, the learned APP vehemently opposed the appeal by pointing out the evidence available on record.He, therefore, prayed that the present appeal may be dismissed.The evidence available on record indicates that the prosecution case as far as charge under sections 328, 302, 201 read with section 120(b) is concerned, is based on circumstantial evidence.The prosecution in support of its case has propounded two major circumstances rather only two circumstances.(i) Last seen together; and (ii) seizure of blood stained clothes and a knife at the instance of the appellant No.1 from his house.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2019 07:30:07 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2019 07:30:07 :::circumstantial evidence the circumstances on which the prosecution relies must be consistent with the sole hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.The circumstances so established should form a complete chain which should exclude every hypothesis of the innocence of the accused and unquestionably point towards the guilt of the accused.The circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn have not only to be fully established but also that::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2019 07:30:07 ::: SKN 9/12 1302.13-apeal.doc all the circumstances so established should be of a conclusive nature and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and should not be capable of being explained by any other hypothesis, except the guilt of the accused and when all the circumstances cumulatively taken together should lead to the only irresistible conclusion that the accused alone is the perpetrator of the crime.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2019 07:30:07 :::As far as evidence pertaining to the circumstance of 'last seen together' i.e. the deceased was last seen together in company of the appellants is concerned, the prosecution has examined witness, namely, Mr.Majhar Ali Haider Ali Sayyed (PW12).The said witness in his testimony has stated that he had seen Sohel Sayyed alive at about 10.30 p.m. on 22nd August 2008 as he was passing near from his room.That Sohel (deceased) was proceeding towards "Domnic School", Pant Nagar Police Station, Ghatkopar.He had seen Sohel walking with ear phones in his ears.He thereafter saw the appellants proceeding behind Sohel.In his cross-examination, the said witness has admitted that, it did not happen that five minutes after Sohel had gone, the appellants had also gone to the direction of Domnic High School.Apart from the said admission given by the said witness (PW12), it is to be noted here that the statement of PW12 has been recorded by the investigating agency after a::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2019 07:30:07 ::: SKN 10/12 1302.13-apeal.doc gap of 45 days from the date of alleged incident which creates doubt in the mind of this Court about the veracity of its maker.Apart from the said fact, as narrated hereinabove, the evidence of PW12 nowhere even remotely suggests that PW12 is the witness, who had in fact, seen Sohel Sayyed (deceased) lastly in the company of the appellants.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2019 07:30:07 :::This leads us to deal with the other circumstance propounded by the prosecution against the appellants i.e. recovery of the knife from the appellant No.1 and blood stained clothes from his house.It is to be noted here that the alleged recovery Panchanama (Exhibit-88) at the instance of the appellant do not stand to the legal test of section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. A bare perusal of the said Panchanama would indicate that the facet of 'fact discovered' as enumerated in section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is lacking in the said Panchanama.Minute perusal of the said Panchanama would however indicate that, the house in which search was taken was in the possession of the mother-in- law of the appellant No.1 and she was having exclusive domain over it at the relevant time.In view thereof, the said Panchanama needs to be kept aside from consideration.It further appears that, there is no other evidence available on record to connect the appellants with the present offence of murder of Sohel Sayyed.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2019 07:30:07 :::The record further indicates that, evidence pertaining to administration of stupefying substance (sleeping pills) from the cold drink to Sohel Sayyed (deceased) is also lacking to attract section 328 of IPC to the present crime.In view of the facts of the present case, it is clear that, the prosecution has failed to prove that, the appellants were, in fact, seen lastly in company of Sohel Sayyed.The vital piece of evidence to like in the chain of circumstances is missing and the chain of circumstances is not complete.In view thereof, the appellants deserve to be given benefit of doubt and, as a result thereof, are entitled for acquittal from the offenses 1 AIR 1947 (34) PC 67::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2019 07:30:07 ::: SKN 12/12 1302.13-apeal.doc punishable under sections 328, 302 and 201 read with section 120(B) of IPC.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2019 07:30:07 :::Hence, the following order:(i) The conviction and sentence of both the appellants for the offences punishable under sections 328, 302 and 201 read with section 120(B) of IPC is quashed and set aside;(ii) The conviction and sentence of the appellantVishal Ashok Narayane @ Samir Shaikh for the offences punishable under sections 420, 465 and 471 of IPC imposed by the trial Court by the impugned judgment and order is upheld.The fine amount imposed on the appellant No.1 for the said offence is also upheld;(iii) The appellant No.1 is entitled to benefit of set off under section 428 of Cr.P.C.;(iv) The appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms;::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2019 07:30:07 :::
|
['Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,747,373 |
On the basis of an enquiry and audit report relating to Chinsurah Police Ration Stores a suo motu F.I.R. was registered on 26th June, 1992 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 409, 467 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against the respondents.One of the accused persons, namely, Shyamal Kumar Ghosh, constable No. 2271, surrendered before the learned sub-divisional judicial magistrate, Sadar, Hooghly on 10.12.1992 and was released on bail.All the respondents are police personnel who were alleged to have misappropriated store's material meant for the police personnel.As the investigation could not be completed within the statutory period, the investigating officer applied on 5.12.1995, for extension of time which was allowed.It appears that the respondents thereafter filed an application praying for being discharged in terms of Section 167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Aggrieved by the rejection of their application for being discharged, the respondents filed a revision petition in the court of additional sessions judge, first court, Hooghly, who partly allowed the revision petition and after setting aside the order of the judicial magistrate, directed him to decide whether or not the proceedings be stopped and respondents be dischargedunder Section 167(5) of the Code.Not satisfied even with the order of the additional sessions judge, the respondents approached the High Court by way of writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for setting aside the orders passed by the judicial magistrate as also the additional sessions judge, Hooghly.The High Court allowed the petition filed by the respondents and discharged them after holding that as the mandatory provisions of Sub-section (5) of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had not been complied with, the further investigation was uncalled for.Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the state is before us in this appeal by way of special leave.They filed a separate application on 10.4.1990 praying for stopping further proceedings and discharging them.
|
['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,747,400 |
JUDGMENT Santosh Hegde, J.The appellant before us was Accused No. 2 before the Court of IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Banka.He along with his father (A-1) and his younger brother (A-3) was charged for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and having found guilty was sentenced to imprisonment for life on that charge.The appellant and his brother Kustam (A-3) were also charged for an offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act and were sentenced to 3 years R.I. on that charge.On appeal, the High Court of Judicature at Patna has confirmed the said conviction and sentence.All the three accused persons preferred the above noted criminal appeal before this Court and this Court as per its order dated 9.2.2001 dismissed the appeal so far as it concerned Hazi Shariff (A-1) and Kustam @ Khurshid (A-3), while notice was issued in regard to appeal filed by the present appellant and on return of the said notice after hearing the parties the leave was granted on 23.4.2001, therefore, the appeal of the present appellant alone as against the judgment of the High Court is before us.The prosecution case briefly stated is that there was some dispute between the father of the appellant and one Manir Mian the deceased in this case in regard to some land.It is the further case of the prosecution that on 14.6.1996 in the morning at about 9 a.m. the A-1 was taking a pumping set in a bullock cart for irrigating his land and when the art reached near the house of one Sheikh Madhu the deceased who was there asked A-1 not to use the pump for irrigating the land until the dispute as to the land is settled and at that time the deceased also stopped the bullock cart.A-1, getting angered by this obstruction caused by the deceased, the first accused allegedly called the appellant and accused No. 3 shouting that the deceased is stopping his cart.On hearing this shout, it is stated that the appellant and A-3 Kustam came to the spot armed with firearms, appellant carrying pistol and Kustam carrying a musket.On their arrival, their father A-1 allegedly exhorted them to kill Manir.On hearing the sound of firing, it is stated, that the deceased's mother (PW-7) and other members of the deceased's family came there at which time the prosecution states that the appellant herein fired two shots one of which grazed the mother-in-law (PW-7) and PW-4 the other hit the wall of the house.Thereafter the prosecution case is that the accused persons went away from the place of incident.On the above allegation, the three accused persons including the appellant herein were charged under Sections 302, 307 and 120B IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. On the said charges as stated above, the three accused persons were convicted.From the facts narrated above, it is seen that because of the enmity between A-1 and the deceased on an exhortation made by A-1, A-3 fired a shot from the musket which caused the death of the deceased.For this A-1 was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC while A-3 was convicted under Section 302 simplicitor as also under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Even though there has been no overt act on the part of the appellant in the killing of the deceased, he was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Since the appeal of accused Nos. 1 and 3 has been dismissed by this Court, in this appeal we will have to only examine the role of the appellant in the incident that occurred on 14.6.1996 in which Manir lost his life.From the prosecution evidence, the overt act attributed to the appellant is that after A-3 shot Manir, the appellant allegedly shot from his revolver causing an injury to PW-7 and PW-4 which the doctor described in the first instance as an injury which was caused by hard and blunt substance, which on further examination the very same doctor opined that it can also be caused by the grazing of the pellet.She says on coming of the members of her family to the place of the incident, the appellant had fired a shot which had hit PWs.PW-5 who also witnessed the incident has also not attributed any role to this appellant even in regard to second shooting.She says it was A-3 who shot the second time also.According to her, it is the pellets discharged by the musket of A-3 which caused injuries to PWs.PW-7 in her evidence has stated that it is the appellant who fired a gum shot which hit her in her right hand and by the same shot, PW-4 Jabbar was also hit.Then the said pellet struck the wall.PW-8 another witness in his evidence has stated that it is the appellant who fired the gun which caused the injury to PWs.4 and 7 but in his statement before the Police he had not stated that PWs.4 and 7 had received the injury, therefore, to that extent he has made an improvement in his evidence before the court.Therefore, in reality it is only the evidence of PW-7 which implicates the appellant as to the injury caused to PWs.While considering the charge under Section 307 IPC against this appellant, the trial court itself did not believe the prosecution case that the appellant had caused the injury to these injured persons with an intention to kill.Therefore, it had acquitted the appellant of that charge.Thus, it is apparent that this appellant did not share the intention of his father to either kill Manir or anybody else.From the entire prosecution evidence, it is noticed that the appellant and accused No. 3 came to the place of incident on hearing the call of their father.It is said that after they came to the spot armed with firearms, their father exhorted them to kill Manir, the deceased.In response to that exhortation, it is only accused No. 3 who fired at Manir and admittedly the appellant did not shoot at the deceased.Therefore, we will have to consider whether the alleged subsequent shooting of appellant at PWs.4 and 7, if at all true could also be attributed as part of the same common intention.In this process we notice that there is so much of contradiction in the case of the prosecution that the Sessions Court itself thought it fit not to rely upon this part of the evidence of the prosecution while considering the case under Section 307 IPC against the appellant.Then we notice appellant has not been attributed with any other motive to either kill the deceased or any of the members of his family nor was there any exhortation by A-1 to kill any person other than the deceased.In such circumstances, if the appellant has not chosen to obey the exhortation of his father to kill Manir then it will be extremely difficult to hold that the appellant shared the common intention of his father and his younger brother.This injury report in my writing and bears my signature."Later in the cross examination, he stated thus:"My injury report does not show that the injuries of the injured persons were caused by pellet of fire arm.The injury of Jahiram may be caused by contact of pressure of door or any hard substance.The injury of Jabbar may be caused by fall on hard substance."In the background of this evidence and the improvements which we have noticed in regard to the role played by this appellant, we find it difficult to place reliance on this part of the prosecution case so as to hold the appellant guilty of having caused prosecution case so as to hold the appellant guilty of having caused any injury to either PW-4 or PW-7 as also the alleged offence attributed to him under the Arms Act.For the reasons stated above, this appeal succeed.The judgment and conviction recorded by the High Court as against this appellant is set aside.The appeal is allowed.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
199,815,621 |
Since both the applications are related with the same crime, therefore, they are hereby decided by this common order.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant Munnalal is in custody since 27.10.2014, whereas remaining applicants are in custody since 17.11.2014 relating to crime No.591/2014 registered at Police Station Motinagar, District Sagar for offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 201 of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are reputed citizen of the locality.They do not have any criminal past alleged against them.The applicants Rameshwar and Shriram are youths of 26 and 20 years of age respectively.It is alleged against the co-accused Narayan that he assaulted the deceased Tejram on his face and head by a sharp cutting weapon.Tejram died due to injuries caused on his head.The applicants were not aware that the co-accused would assault the victim in such a manner.No offence under Sections M.Cr.C.No.20544/2014 302 or 307 of IPC is made out against the applicants either directly or with help of Sections 34 or 149 of IPC.At the most offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC may constitute against the applicants, which is bailable.The applicants are in custody, without any substantial reason.Under such circumstances, the applicants pray for bail.C.No.20544/2014 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 Pushpendra
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
199,816,636 |
Heard on the bail application.First bail application (M.Cr.C.No.10574/2014) was dismissed on 19-11-2014 on the ground of previous criminal history of the applicant.On perusal of case-diary, it seems that applicant has been arrested on 24-07-2015 in crime No.633/2014 registered at Police Station Janakganj District Gwalior for the offence punishable under Sections 399, 400, 402 of IPC, 25/27 of Arms Act and under Section 11/13 of M.P.D.V.P.K. Act.As per the prosecution case when applicant was planning to commit dacoity along with other co-accused persons, he was caught on the spot by police and one knife was also seized from the possession of applicant.Prayer bail bail has been made on the ground that applicant is in custody since one year and Crime No.452/2009 was registered for the simple offences like 341, 294 and 323 of IPC and second crime No.652/2012 was registered for the 2 M.Cr.Thus, one more opportunity be given to him and he be enlarged on bail.2 M.Cr.A copy of this order be sent for compliance to the Court concerned.Certified copy as per rules.(B.D. Rathi) Judge Anil
|
['Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
199,817,206 |
Item No. 01and In the matter of: Pradeep Kumar @ Pinku @ Pradip Kumar ...... Petitioner Mr. Tapan Dutta Gupta, Advocate Mr. Parvej Anam, Advocate ......for the Petitioner Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Advocate Mr. Imran Ali, Advocate Mrs. Purnima Ghosh, Advocate ......for the State Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for about 571 days.There is no specific allegation against the present petitioner.The learned counsel for the State strongly opposes the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner is very much involved in the racket of the immoral trafficking of women including minor girls.There is a statement of minor victim recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as also a Test Identification Parade Report, which implicate the petitioner.In view of the serious nature of the allegations and the materials available in the case diary against the petitioner, we are not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.The prayer for bail is thus rejected.The application being CRM 4667 of 2020 is dismissed.
|
['Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
19,982,066 |
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.The applicant has filed this fourth repeat application u/S 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Bahadurpur, District Ashok Nagar (M.P.) in connection with Crime No.62/2015 registered in relation to the offences punishable under Sections 302, 34 of IPC.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out.This repeat bail application has been filed after rejection of the earlier one on 16.09.2015 in shape of Mcrc No.9467/2015 which was rejected on merits.New ground raised herein is the enlargement of co-accused Tulsiram on bail.Case of the petitioner was considered on merits in which last bail application had been rejected.No other new ground has been raised.Accordingly, Mcrc stands dismissed with liberty to come again by raising new ground.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,998,232 |
The case of the prosecution, as could be discerned from oral and documentary evidence, can be briefly summarised as follows.Accused Marimuthu is the husband of deceased Malar.P.W.1 Saroja is the mother; P.W.9 Sabapathi is the brother; and P.W.8 Dhanalakshmi is the daughter of deceased Malar.The marriage between accused Marimuthu and Malar took place twenty years prior to the occurrence and they were living separately.The accused was a weaver by profession.P.W.8 Dhanalakshmi got married and was living with her husband at Bangalore.The only son of the accused died at the age of 14 and afterwards, the accused started consuming excess liquor, which led to frequent quarrels between the accused and his wife Malar.Malar was not keeping good health and P.W.1 Saroja went and stayed in the house of the accused.On 19.9.2006, at about 5.30 a.m. in the morning, accused Marimuthu started to leave the house and at that time, his wife Malar told him as to why he is roaming like a mental and the accused retorted by asking her as to why she called him mental and the accused took M.O.1 Wooden block from the ground and beat her with it on the head and right side of the neck and chin causing bleeding injuries.He treated her as out-patient and expressed opinion that the injury is simple in nature.P7 is the Accident Register Extract issued by him.Subsequently, he referred Malar to Government Hospital, Chennai.In the mean time, on receiving intimation from the Kancheepuram Government Hospital, P.W.16 Inspector Kanniappan, Sivakanchi Police Station, went to the hospital and found Malar unconscious and examined P.W.1 Saroja and recorded Ex.P11 statement given by her and returned to Station and registered a case in Crime No.681/2006 under Sections 324 and 307 IPC and prepared Ex.P12 F.I.R. and despatched the same.He went to the occurrence place at 10.00 a.m. and prepared Ex.P2 Observation mahazar and Ex.P13 Rough sketch in the presence of P.W.3 Venkatesan and another.He took M.O.4-series photos with negatives of the occurrence place and at 11.00 a.m. he seized M.O.1 Wooden block; M.O.2-Blood stained Cement Plaster; and M.O.3-Plain Cement Plaster from the occurrence place in the presence of the same witnesses under Ex.P3 seizure mahazar.He arrested the accused at 2.00 p.m. in Kancheepuram bus stop and subjected him to judicial remand on the same day.He gave requisition to the Court for sending the properties to chemical examination.He examined P.Ws.2 to 7 on the same day and recorded their statements.P.W.14 Dr. Manivel examined Malar at 10.35 a.m. on 19.9.2006 in Government General Hospital, Chennai, and admitted her as in-patient.P9 is the Accident Register Extract issued by him.P.W.15 Dr. Lakshmipathi treated Malar and C.T. Scan of the head was taken which revealed fracture of the left frontal bone, resulting in haemorrhage and fracture of middle cranial fossa.Malar died on 20.9.2006 at 11.50 a.m. Ex.P10 is the Death Report sent to the police.On receipt of it, P.W.16 Inspector Kanniappan altered the case into one under Section 302 and 334 IPC and prepared Ex.P14 Alteration Report and despatched the same.He conducted inquest on the body of Malar and examined witnesses and Ex.P15 is the Inquest Report.He sent requisition to conduct post mortem through P.W.13 Head Constable Kesavan.P.W.12 Dr. Vedanayagam conducted post-mortem on the body of Malar at 11.55 a.m. on 21.9.2006 and found the following:" Its condition then was Rigor Mortis present in all four limbs.P8 is the Post-mortem Certificate.P.W.16 Inspector Kanniappan examined P.W.14 Dr.Manivel and P.W.15 Dr. Lakshmipathi on 21.9.2006 itself and recorded their statements.He examined P.W.11 Dr. Senthilkumar on 22.9.2006 and 3.10.2006 and recorded his statement.He examined P.W.12 Dr.Senthil Kumar examined Malar at 6.15 a.m. on 19.9.2006 at Kancheepuram Government Hospital and found seven injuries, as detailed in Ex.P6 accident register extract issued by him.He has referred Malar to the Government General Hospital, Chennai and P.W.14 Dr.P.W.15 Dr.P.W.12 Dr.Vedanayagam conducted autopsy on the body of Malar and he has stated that during internal examination of the head, a depressed communited fracture of the left frontal bone, sub dural haemorrhage over the left cerebral hemisphere and communited fracture involving both anterior and middle cranial fossa were seen.He has expressed opinion stating that the deceased would appear to have died of effects of head injuries sustained.P8 is the post mortem certificate issued by him.P.W.15 Dr.Lakshmipathi and P.W.12 Dr.Accepting the testimony, it can be concluded that Malar died of the injuries sustained during the occurrence.Accused Marimuthu is a weaver by profession and there is evidence to show that he had sufficient earnings to build a house and provide amenities to the family and he had also given his daughter in marriage.His only son died at the age of 14, which led to his excess drinking.The accused tried to withdraw from drinking, which resulted in head-ache and other symptoms.Once he self-inflicted injuries on his stomach with knife and recovered thereafter.On the occurrence day at 5.30 a.m., he was about to leave the house and at that time, his wife Malar asked him as to why he was roaming like a mental and the accused retorted by saying why she is calling him "mental", and losing the power of self-control, by grave and sudden provocation, he picked up the wooden block which was lying on the ground and attacked Malar with it on her head, resulting in bleeding injuries.(The Judgment of the Court was made by C. NAGAPPAN, J.) Appellant Marimuthu is the sole accused in Sessions Case No.330 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kanchipuram, and he has preferred this appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on him in the case.For the sake of convenience, in this Judgment, the appellant will be referred to as accused.The learned Additional Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the charges under Sections 302 and 324 IPC and convicted and sentenced him to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo six months Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to undergo three years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo three months Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 324 IPC.To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 16 and marked Exs.P.W.1 Saroja tried to prevent and the accused attacked her with the same wooden block on the right forehead and he threw the wooden block on the ground and left the place.Malar was lying unconscious with injuries and P.W.1 Saroja took her to Government Hospital, Kanchipuram.P.W.11 Dr. Senthilkumar examined Malar at 6.15 a.m. on 19.9.2006 at Government Hospital, Kanchipuram, and found the following -1. 1 x 2 x 5 cm found lacerated injury lateral to left eye.2. 1 x 3 x 5 cm found lacerated injury left forehead.3. 5 x 10 cm swelling left (n.c.).4. 1 x 3 x 5 cm found lacerated injury upper lip.Bleeding from nose.6. 1 x 2 x 5 cm found lacerated injury right forehand.7. 10 x 10 cm swelling left face.P6 is the Accident Register Extract issued by him.P.W.11 Dr. Senthilkumar also examined P.W.1 Saroja at 7.15 a.m. on 19.9.2006 in the hospital and found the following -"Injury:1 x 3 x 2 cm found lacerated injury right forehead."Appearances found at the post-mortem: A moderately built symmetrical female body.Old healed burnt scar seen all over the Anterior chest and Abdominal wall and both thighs." Injuries, Sutured wounds seen on theRight eyebrow with 1 suture and 2 cm in length.Outer angle of the left eye with 2 sutured and 3 cm in length.Above the left eye with 4 sutured and 5 cm in length.Upper lip on its left side with 2 suture and 3 cm in length.Lacerated wound:Seen over the mid frontal region of size 3 x 1 cm x 0.5 cm.Seen below the left ear 3 x 2 x 1 cm.Contusion seen on its lower lip on size 4 x 1 cm.Multiple reddish brown abrasion of variable size seen over the occipital region.Swelling and deformity seen over the left angle and the mandible.O/D Head contusion over the left parietal temporal region of size 10 x 8 cm.A depressed communited fracture of left frontal bone involving left orbit root of size 8 x 5 cm.Extra-dural haemorrhage over the left frontal region 5 x 3 cm.Laceration over the left frontal lobe 4 x 3 x 0.5 cm.Sub-dural haemorrhage seen over the left cerebral hemisphere.Sub arachnoid haemorrhage seen all over the Brain surface.Communited fracture involving both anterior and middle cranial fossa is seen.O/D Thorax.No rib fracture.C/S All chambers empty.O/D Abdomen Stomach empty.100 ml at Black coloured fluid thick of blood.Hyoid and spinal column intact."He expressed opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of effects of Head injuries sustained.Vedanayagam on 30.10.2006 and recorded his statement.P16 Chemical Examiner's Report and Ex.P17 Serology Report were received in the Court.He completed the investigation and filed the final report against the accused.The accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC and he denied complicity.The accused besides examining himself as D.W.3, examined D.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.D1 to D4 on his side.The learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the charges under Sections 302 and 324 IPC and imposed sentence as stated earlier and hence, the present appeal.The prosecution case is that accused Marimuthu attacked his wife Malar on the head with wooden block resulting in her death and he also attacked P.W.1 Saroja with the same wooden block on her right forehead, resulting in injury.To prove the occurrence, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 Saroja and she has testified that her daughter Malar was unwell and hence she was staying in her house, and at 5.30 am, on the occurrence day, the accused started to leave the house and at that time, his wife Malar asked him as to why he is roaming like a mental and the accused retorted by asking her as to why she called him "mental" and took up M.O.1, wooden block from the ground and hit Malar with it on her head, right side of neck and chin, resulting in bleeding injuries and Malar fell unconscious and P.W.1 Saroja tried to prevent the attack and the accused attacked her with the same wooden block on the right side of the head resulting in injury and the accused left the place throwing the weapon on the ground and P.W.1 took her daughter Malar initially to Kancheepuram Government Hospital and thereafter to the Madras General Hospital and the victim succumbed to the injuries and P.W.1 gave the complaint.P.W.1 Saroja has testified the attack made by the accused at the time of occurrence on her daughter Malar as well as on herself, and in short, the entire occurrence has been narrated by her in detail.At the end of her chief examination, she stated that she did not remember as to whether thepolice enquired her in Kancheepuram Government Hospital, since one and half years had lapsed and she only identified her left thumb impression as Ex.P1 in the complaint - Ex.P11, and for that reason, the prosecution sought for permission to treat her as hostile and that has been given and in no way, it affects her testimony.She is an injured witness and her testimony is clear, cogent and credible and nothing is elicited in the cross-examination to discredit her testimony.11. D.W.1 to 3 were examined on the side of the defence.D.W.1 Dr.There was no intention for the accused to commit the murder of his wife Malar.In view of the above materials available on record, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the accused lost the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation and acted on the spur of moment, can be accepted.If it is so, Exception 1 to Section 300 I.P.C. is applicable to the facts of the case and the offence would fall under Section 304 Part I IPC and the accused is liable to be convicted for the same.During the occurrence, the accused had also attacked P.W.1 Saroja with wooden block on her head, resulting in simple injury and the conviction and sentence imposed on him by the trial Court for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. are correct and proper.In the result, the conviction and sentence imposed on accused Marimuthu under Section 302 I.P.C. are set aside and he is convicted for the offence under Section 304 Part I, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and the conviction and sentence imposed on accused Marimuthu for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. are confirmed and the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.pb/ksvTo:The Additional District and Sessions Judge Fast Track Court-II Kancheepuram.The Additional District and Sessions Judge Fast Track Court-II Kancheepuram, through the Principal District & Sessions Judge Chingleput Kancheepuram District.The Inspector of Police Siva Kanchi Police Station Kancheepuram District.The Section Officer Criminal Side Section High Court Madras 104
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
199,825,726 |
The first respondent suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 16.05.2013 statedly due to negligent driving of motor vehicle described as HR-50B-4848 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle), and has been rendered permanently disabled.He filed accident claim case (MACP No.442/2013) on 08.01.2014 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the tribunal) in the wake of detailed accident report (DAR) submitted by the police pursuant to the registration of First Information Report (FIR) No.83/2013 of Police Station Parliament Street, under Section 279/338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1908 (IPC).MAC Appeal No. 907/2016 Page 1 of 5In the claim proceedings, the appellant insurance company was impleaded as the second respondent it having concededly issued an insurance policy against third party risk in respect of the offending vehicle at the instance of the second respondent, who is described as owner of the said vehicle.The tribunal upheld the case of the claimant about accident having been caused and injuries having been sustained due to negligent driving of the offending vehicle.The said findings have not been challenged and have attained finality.The tribunal concluded that the claimant had suffered functional disability to the extent of 90%.It found that the income of the claimant at the relevant point of time was Rs.14,000/- per month and, on that basis, calculated loss of income in the sum of Rs.24,19,200/- and after adding other components under the various heads of expenses of medical treatment, and non-pecuniary damages, etc, the total compensation in the sum of Rs.51,40,927/- was awarded with interest, liability in such regard having been fastened against the insurance company.The appeal of the insurance company is pressed on three grounds.It is argued that the decision on functional disability to the extent of 90% was uncalled for.Reference in this context is made to the evidence of Dr. Vijay Kumar Jain (PW-2) who had conceded that the claimant was in a position to walk around with support and can also engage in some sitting job, the assessment of permanent physical impairment to the extent of 90% being in relation to bilateral lower MAC Appeal No. 907/2016 Page 2 of 5 limb.It is pointed out that the disability has not been assessed by the medical board with reference to the whole body or in the nature of functional disability.It is further the contention of the insurer that claimant's own witness (PW-3), the proprietor of Rhytham Restaurant with which the claimant claimed to have been employed at the relevant point of time itself showed the salary earned was Rs.9,000/- and, yet, the tribunal junked the said evidence and accepted the claim about the salary being not less than Rs.14,000/-, this on the basis of submissions made with reference to copy of the appointment letter of (what is described as) previous employer of the claimant, no formal evidence about such previous employment having been adduced.The insurer also questions the computation of damages under the other heads and stating that they are unduly high on the wrong assumption of functional disability being 90%.MAC Appeal No. 907/2016 Page 2 of 5The contention with regard to extent of functional disability needs further inquiry.It is seen from the tribunal's record that the claimant had been referred to Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi for medical opinion as to the disability and its extent.Report pursuant to the said direction came on record as Ex.It simply describes the person examined as one Sunil, male 35 years.The Government hospitals issue such disability certificate in a detailed format where care is taken to describe the person examined fully including by addition of his photograph.No such precaution has been taken.The disability certificate does not even indicate the parentage or address of the person examined.This, in addition to the evidence of PW-2 as referred to above, impels one to conclude that there is a case MAC Appeal No. 907/2016 Page 3 of 5 for fresh assessment and evaluation of the disability and its extent.Ideally, this should be undertaken from a hospital other than the one where the claimant was earlier referred.MAC Appeal No. 907/2016 Page 3 of 5On being asked, the counsel for the claimant fairly conceded that formal evidence with regard to previous employment also should have been adduced if that were to be the basis for the calculation of income.The counsel submitted that the appeal may be allowed and the matter remitted to the tribunal so that not only the extent of disability may be re-evaluated but he may also get another opportunity to adduce proper evidence as to his employment and earnings.In above facts and circumstances, the appeal is allowed.The impugned award is set aside to the extent it calculated the compensation that is to be awarded.The tribunal shall take necessary steps to have the claimant re-examined by a board of doctors of a Government hospital other than the one where the claimant was earlier examined and secure a proper certificate, and also take formal evidence in such respect so as to reach appropriate findings on the question of functional disability.For such purposes, and also for purposes referred to above, the claimant shall be called up to lead additional evidence followed by opportunity to the opposite party to lead evidence in rebuttal, if any.Needless to add, given the nature of medical condition claimed, the tribunal shall render its fresh decision expeditiously.MAC Appeal No. 907/2016 Page 4 of 5In terms of order dated 26.10.2016, the insurance company had been directed to deposit Rs.30 lacs with upto date interest with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch and to keep the same in fixed deposit.By order dated 25.05.2017, forty percent (40%) out of the said deposited amount was allowed to be released.The amount already released shall be suitably adjusted in the award to be passed afresh by the tribunal.The balance, lying in fixed deposit with statutory amount, shall be presently refunded to the appellant insurance company.The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
|
['Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
199,831,179 |
rmi Crl.O.P(MD)No.4714 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.2882 and 2883 of 2019 04.03.2020http://www.judis.nic.in4/4The other contentions urged by the petitioners are rather factual in nature.While exercising my jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., I cannot go into them.Therefore, leaving open the petitioner's defences and contentions, this criminal original petition stands dismissed.O.P.(MD)No.4714 of 2019On all other occasions, the petitioner can be represented by his counsel.It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the matter.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.04.03.2020 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No rmi To1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Sivagangai-CCIW Police Station, Sivagangai District.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in3/4 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4714 of 2019 G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
|
['Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
199,833,715 |
No.1/State.Heard on I.A.No.16676/2017, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the M.Cr.C. The application for grant of leave to appeal is time barred by 6 days.Due to inadvertence, the application could not be filed in time.Accordingly, I.A.No.16676/2017 stands allowed and disposed of.Also heard on the question of grant of leave to appeal.As per the prosecution story, allegation against respondent No. 2 is that he, on the pretext of marriage, developed physical relation with the prosecutrix (PW-2) and thereafter refused to marry her.FIR was registered against respondent MCRC-14551/2017 No. 2 at AJK Police Station, Betul vide Crime No. 19/14 under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(XII) and 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. After investigation, charge- sheet has been filed.Respondent No. 2 denied the allegation and deposed that it is a case of false implication and the prosecutrix was having an affair with him which lasted for a period of four years and he never gave any promise to marry her.Learned trial Court, after appreciating the statement of prosecutrix (PW-2) and the fact that at the time of incident, the prosecutrix was a major and aged above 18 years came to the conclusion that it is a case of consent and therefore, acquitted respondent No. 2 from the charges levelled against him.Paragraph 3 of the statement of the prosecutrix reads as under :**eSa d{kk nloh rd i<+h gwaA eSa viuk vPNk cqjk vPNs ls le>rh gwaA eSa egsUnz dks fjiksVZ fy[kkus ds pkj lky igys ls tkurh gwaA ;g lgh gS fd egsUnz gekjs xkao dk gh gS Lor% dgk fd ckgj ls vk;k gS egsUnz ds firkth gekjs xkao ds gh gSA ;g ckr lgh gS fd 'kq: ls gh esjk egsUnz ls izse laca/k jgk gS blfy, ge nksuksa vkil esa 'kknh djuk pkgrs FksA geus pkj lky rd izse laca/k gksus ds dkj.k egsUnz ls laca/k cuk;s Fks blesa dksbZ tksj tcjnLrh ugha dhA** From perusal of the aforesaid, we find that it is a case of consent.No external or internal injury was found on the person of the prosecutrix.At the time of incident, she was above 18 years of age.Learned trial Court appreciated the statement of the prosecutrix and gave the finding in paragraph 14 onwards on the admission made by the prosecutrix.Accordingly, finding no merit in the application for grant of leave to appeal filed by the applicant, the same is hereby dismissed.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,998,346 |
ORDER This order will answer the reference under Section 4(1) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').The Central Government vide notification No.S.O.960 (E) dated 27.9.2001, in exercise of the powers conferred under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act, declared Students Islamic Movement of India (hereinafter for short referred to as 'SIMI') to be an unlawful association.Under proviso to Sub-section (3) of the Act, the Central Government also declared the said association to be unlawful with immediate effect, as in its opinion the circumstances so warranted.The Central Government by another notification No.S.O.961 (E) dated 8.10.2001, under Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act, constituted this Tribunal, and made the reference under Section 4(1) of the Act for adjudicating whether or not there is sufficient cause for declaring the said association unlawful.The notification was accompanied by a resume of facts and grounds on the basis of which the said notification was issued, as required by Rule 5 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules").On receipt of reference, notices were issued, calling upon the SIMI to show cause with 30 days from the date of service of notice, as to why it should not be declared unlawful.The notices were directed to be served by ordinary process as well as by publication in the national and local newspapers and by pasting on notice board of the offices of District Magistrates and Tehsildars.The case set-up by the Central Government in brief is that SIMI came into existence on 25.4.1977 in the Aligarh Muslim University as a front organisation of youth and students having faith in Jamait-e-Islami-Hind (JEIH).It aims at achieving Shariat based Islamic rule through Islamic Inqualab.It does not believe in the nation state, therefore, it also does not believe in the constitution or the secular order.It regards I dol worship as a sin and its holy duty to end such worship.It is stated that SIMI organisation has been indulging in anti-national, militant and objectionable activities and is known to have launched a country-wide campaign since November 1996 to mobilize support for the caliphate (Rule of Islam) for Muslim community.It advocates self-determination in Jammu and Kashmir and is in close touch with the militant outfits in jammu and Kashmir, including pro-Pak Hizb-ul-Muzahideen (HUM) and Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front.The leadership of SIMI also extended full support to Punjab extremists and Jammu and Kashmir insurgents.Cassettes containing provocative and fundamentalist speeches of Pan-Islamic leaders like Qazi Husain (Pak JEI leader) and Sheikh Mohd. Yasin (HAMAS) were played at the conference.In an in-camera meeting of selected SIMI leaders at Kanpur, it was decided to promote militant ideas among the Muslim students and youth, directed against Hinduism and establish clandestine links with militant outfits like the Lashkaer-e-Toiba.It is further pleaded that SIMI had published posters captioning the advent of a 'new Mahmood of Ghaznawi' in the context of the Babri Masjid.The circulation of these posters has the potential of hurting the sentiments of Hindus, polluting the minds of various religious groups and disturbing peace and communal harmony.As pert of their anti-India propaganda SIMI has also published a calender containing distorted and misleading historical facts about the accession of Kashmir to India and giving an impression that Kashmiri Muslims had been suppressed and exploited for long.P.C. The reasons for banning SIMI with immediate effect are given as under:-(a) SIMI is in close touch with militant outfits and is supporting extremism/militancy in Punjab, Jammu & Kashmir and elsewhere;It is claimed that SIMI organisation was founded on April 25, 1977 in Aligarh by educated and enlightened citizens of India.It is a Deeni (religious) secular organization and its activities are apolitical and non-communal besides being spiritual and religious.It believes in unity of God and unity of humankind.Islam having an international presence, every Muslim has a right to aspire to be a part of International Islamic Order.It has been denied that during Ikhwan conferences, the anti-national and militant postures of SIMI were manifested in the speeches of its leaders who glorified pan Islamic Fundamentalism, used derogatory language for deities of other religions and exhorted Muslims for Jehad.It is denied that SIMI has published objectionable posters and literature which are calculated to incite communal feelings and which question the territorial integrity of India.It is pleaded that no poster has been displayed or literature published by SIMI to incite communal feeling and which question the territorial integrity of India.They also filed additional affidavits and documents when they appeared as witnesses.Affidavits along with documents were also filed by the concerned officers of respondent Nos. 2 to 11, in support of the notification.Thereafer parties also examined their witnesses.Ye Door Apne Ibrahim Ki Talash Main Hain.Hinduo Ka Ek Ilaz Inse Padhao Namaz.Parlok Main Jahainnum Ki Aag Ke Karak.Ayodhaya to Jeruselam Jehad will go on.The respondent No. 1-SIMI examined RW-2, Shakir Azim, Secretary of their Tamil Nadu Unit, a lecturer in Mohd. Sadar College of Arts and Science at Chennai.He stated that they got the calendars from the Head office of SIMI in Delhi and wee circulated amongst its various units containing preaching of SIMI.It also contains narration of the sufferings of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.He admitted that SIMI believes that Muslims of Jammu and kashmir have a right of plebiscite for self determination.In cross-examination, he stated that 'political - religious State, comprising the Muslim community and the lands and the people in its domain are called Caliphate all over the world.I have not heard of the expression International Islamic Order." He further admitted that on 25th June, 199, two." The said case is admittedly pending trial.Admittedly, on 10th January, 2001, one sticker bearing monogram of SIMI was found pasted near the guard post of SRK Hotel of Jamia Milia Islamia University, Okhla, New Delhi in which three mosques, i.e. Masjid Kartaba, Masjid Babri & Masjid Akha with symbols of cross, swastic and star respectively were shown in tears, with Hindi translation of Quaranic Aayaat No. 2:14, which says that person who prevents people from offering Namaz and damages the mosques is the most cruel man.The intent was to instigate he sentiments of Muslims to strive for the liberation of these Mosques.A case under Sections 153A/153B/505(1) read with Section 124, IPC was registered at P.S. New Friends Colony.Investigation revealed the identity of accused Shahid Badar as the All India President of SIMI.He was arrested and the case is pending trial.On 7th October, 2000, another case FIR No. 489/2000, under Sections 124A/153B IPC was registered on the basis of calender published by SIMI which was examined by the Government of NCT.The calendar contains references that are likely to create enmity and communal disharmony as well as prejudicial to the national integration, legal proceedings against the authors and the publisher of the calendar were initiated.Investigations were taken up.The calendars presents distorted facts about association of Kashmir to India and gave an impression that Muslims have been persuaded for long in Kashmir.It is stated that "the self styled champions of human rights he British sold Kashmir Kashmiris to Raja Gulab Singh for a mere 75 lakh rupees.Allama Iqbal learned: "dekhan o kisi jua khiyaban forkhtand.Laumey frukhland che arzan frokhtand".The tillers, the crops, the lakes and orchards they sold.A whole nation they sold--and for a pittance.It shows that Kashmiri Muslims were subjected to extreme repression at the hands of Gulab Singh and his descendants for one hundred and one years.It is claimed that desecration of the Holly Quran was a common occurrence.For beggar (forced labour) any number of Muslims were lifted from their Homes and driven away like cattle.It was not always that al of them returned to their kith and kin.It claimed that Muslim women bit a cow and under Raja Hari Singh's order her head was shaved, her tongue chopped off and she was paraded in the streets The skins of Mili Khan and Sabz Aliwer peeled off and stuffing with rubbish and they were left hanging on a tree.They claim that Kashmir is today subjugated oppressed and poverty stricken.January, 2000 issue (i) Front page of the magazine, and at page 29, an article, "Bandh Lo Sar Par Kafan Phir" written by Asif Hussain contain objectionable material which attract Section 153-A of the IPC, 1860 as it promotes or attempts to promote enmity, hatred or il-will between different religious groups n grounds of religion, which is prejudicial to maintain communal harmony.Copy of FIR No. 304/2001 registered at P.S. Kamla Market under Section 121/121A/122/123 etc. IPC and under Sections 4/5 of the Explosive Substances Act; and copies of the disclosure statements of the accused persons as well as connected documents are marked PW-1/1A to PW/1E respectively, showing recovery of 1.9 Kg.of RDX, four detonators, two remote control detonating devices and a wireless set, etc. effected rom Ghulam Mohidin Shah.Transcripts of floppies, CPU and audio-video cassettes, and disclosure statements of Shahid Badar and Said Nachan were recorded and copies of magazines seized and scrutinised, marked PW.2/1C.33. PW-3, Satyavir Dagar, Inspector, District Investigation Unit, South Distt, New Delhi, who is his evidence proved his affidavit Ex.PW-3/1; he investigated the case FIR No. 489/2000 dated 7.10.2000, P.S. New Friends Colony, with respect to the calendar for the year, 2000, published by SIMI received from Ministry of Home Affairs through the Home Department of the Government of Delhi, containing distorted faces regarding accession of Kashmir to India, disharmony between various sections of the Indian Community.FIR No. 535/2000 was also registered on the basis of monthly magazine Islamic Movement and other documents, which are collectively marked PW-3/1A.He registered FIR No. 643/2001 on 25.11.2001, on the basis of 13 magazines seized from the possession of Mohd. Hakib Iqbal at Batla House Chowk, Jamia Nagar.Copy of the seizure memo of the magazine as well as disclosure statements of the accused is marked PW-10/C and PW-10/D respectively.PW-24, Hukum Chand S.I. Special Cell, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi, who in his evidence proved his affidavit Ex.PW-24/1; He on 19.5.2001, registered FIR No. 269/2001 under Sections 153-A/153-B/505(1)B&C & 124A IPC, PS New Friends Colony, New Delhi.On 10th January, 2001, some stickers were found pasted on the walls of SRK Hostel, Jamia Millia University, Okhla, Delhi.On those stickers three marks, namely, Masjid Kartaba (Spain), Masjid Babri (U.P.) and Masjid Aksha (Philistine) were printed.On Masjid Aksha cross mark, on Masjid babri Swastic mark and on Masjid Kartaba star mark were also printed.he also proved on record copies of stickers.Copy FIR is marked PW-24/A; and copy of confessional statement is marked PW-24/D.In the State of Uttar Pradesh, as per the material on record, 12 criminal cases were registered from 28th March, 1999 to 27th September, 2001 against the persons, some of whom are admittedly activists of SIMI for various heinous offences including the following:-(ii) On 9th August, 2000 at 11:30 pm.in Mohala Qureshi, there was a bomb explosion.Three persons were seriously injured in the said explosion and they later on died.Inquiries revealed that the persons who had died were students of Aligarh Muslim University.A case FIR No. 988 dated 9th August, 2000, under Sections 4/5 Explosive Substances Act and Sections 420/467/468/121/121A/122/123/124A IPC, P.S. Sadar Bazar Agra.Investigations revealed that they had come to Agra for the purpose of some practical training.During investigations on 3rd September, 2000, Maroof Ahmed and Abdul Mobin of Aligarh Muslim University were arrested large quantity of RDX, pamphlets and magazines were recovered.One Gulzar of Jammu and Kashmir was also arrested, and on his disclosure Ex. PW-5/1E several other incidents in U.P. were solved.The accused confessed that he had been participating in weekly meeting of SIMI known as "Izaatmaas".Confessional statements of Maroof Ahmed and Mobbin, Ex. PW-5/1C and Ex.PW/5/1D also show that they are members of SIMI indulging in unlawful activities.(ii) On 16th March, 2001, in a firming incident ADM (Finance) Shri C.P. Pathak was killed on he spot and his orderly Ram Chander and S.P. City, Pankaj Pathak were badly injured.Case vide FIR No. 72/2001 under Sections 302/307/147/148/153 IPC at P.S. Mool Ganj, Kanpur was registered.Four persons, namely, Mohd. Wasif, Mumtaz @ Maulana, Haji Atiq and Safaaq were arrested.Mumtaz in his confessional statement admitted that he is an active member of SIMI and had been pursuing the guide-lines laid down by SIMI and has been indulging in terrorists activities with a view to achieve its objectives and that he through SIMI leaders came in touch with militant outfits Hizbul Muzahideen.Mohd. Wasif also made similar confessional statement marked PW-6/E. He also stated that he is an active member of SIMI and he came in touch with militant outfit organization Hizbul Muzahideen.On his disclosure statement, he led to the recovery of 200 grams of RDX, 2 kg of potassium chloride, timer and other material used in making the country-made explosive was recovered, 9 hand-grenades were also recovered and a separate case vide FIR No. 73/2001 was registered.In his disclosure statement Ex.PW-12/10, he confessed that he met Amir, Zamir, Najir office-bearers of SIMI.Nazir had taken him to Kashmir where he was given training in handling arms and ammunitions.He further confessed that he was persuaded for al that on the ground that atrocities are being committed by Indian Army on the Muslims in Kashmir.These facts stand proved by the evidence of PW-12, Dharam Pal Singh, Inspector, P.S. Raipurwah, Kanpur and his affidavit is Ex.iv) On 14th August, 2000, there was a bumb blast in Sabarmati Express at Railway Station, Rosa Gaon, 10 persons were killed and 44 were injured.Consequently, a case vide FIR No. 148/00 under Sections 150(2)/151 Railways Act and Section 3 Explosive Substances Act and Sections 302/307/338/120B/121/122/123/124 IPC at GRP Barabanki was registered.During investigations, three persons were arrested.Mohd Akil, Maroof Ahmed and Abdul Mobin in their confessional statement submits that they are the active members of SIMI and they had been participating in the meetings of SIMI and they had kept the bag containing bag in Sabarmati Express at the instance of Guljar.They confessed heir involvement in their disclosure statements which are PW 18/D collectively.v) On 3.8.2001, 200 gms.The reference is answered accordingly.SIMI entered appearance through its All India President, Shahid Badar.States of Maharashtra, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Delhi also entered appearance and supported the notification declaring SIMI to be unlawful.Parties were directed to file their written statements Along with the documents on which they proposed to rely.Learned counsel for Union of India made the statement that the Background Note and documents filed along with the notification be treated as their statement.SIMI-respondent No. 1 filed the written statement/objections, through its President, to which a rejoinder was filed by the UOI.It was intended to create terror in the minds of minority Muslim community and an "anti national" image out of ordinary Muslims in the country.As per the request of parties hearings of the Tribunal were held in Delhi as well as in the States.The Central Government in support of its case examined PW-41, B.K. Haldar, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, who proved his affidavits Ex.PW-41/1 and Ex.PW-41/4; and the notification Ex.PW-41/2; the background note prepared by Mr. Jag Ram, Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs Ex.He also proved Summary chart of cases registered against members of SIMI during 1997-2001 in different States and the supporting documents marked PW.41/3-A (collectively), copies of posters, calenders and pamphlets published by SIMI marked PW-41/3-B and other notifications marked PW-41/3C. He deposed that the Government received the material regarding unlawful activities of SIMI from the States and other agencies; that SIMI has close links with extremist and militant organisations in Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir and supports the claim for secession of Indian territory; that during "Ikhwan" conferences SIMI had glorified Islamic fundamentalism, used derogatory language against Hindu deities and exhorted Muslims for "Jehad"; that SIMI had published objectionable literature and pamphlets, instigating communal disharmony in the country and engineering communal disturbances and disruptive activities in various parts of the country.On the basis of this material, the Govt. took a decision to ban SIMI, declaring it to be an unlawful organisation under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)Evidence was also led on behalf of the ten respondent-States.Nodal Officers and the Investigating Officers, who investigated the cases registered against the members of SIMI have been examined.The Nodal Officers proved the affidavits of the Investigating Officers working under them and the documents filed along with those affidavits.In some cases, Investigating Officers also appeared as witnesses and proved their affidavits.Some confessional statements made by the accused persons have also been proved.Respondent-SIMI examined nine witnesses.RW-1, Shahid Badar, All India President, SIMI supported his case and proved constitution of SIMI Ex.RW-2, Shakir Azim, Secretary, Tamil Nadu Unit; RW-3, Human Ahmad, President of U.P. Zone; RW-4, Mohammed Hasan President of Rajasthan Zone; RW-5, Mohd. Ikrar, Secretary, Madhya Pradesh Unit; RW-6, K.T. Mohd., President, Kerala Zone; RW-7, Shamsul Haque, Secretary, West Bengal Unit; RW-8, Mohd. Athar Qureshi, President, Hyderabad Unit; and RW-9, Irshad Khan Salim Khan, Zonal President of SIMI Unit in Maharashtra appeared as witnesses in support of the case of SIMI.These witnesses proved their respective affidavits and have stated that the activities of SIMI are lawful, social and educational.I have heard Sh.K.K. Sud, learned Additional Solicitor General, Sh.P.C. (annexure-I).They have also filed posters, pamphlets, articles, speeches, denigrating the Hindu religion and instigating Muslims to fight against Hindus.The slogans on some of the posters read:-Waiting, How Long.Waiting for another Gaznavi.The above slogans clearly prove the involvement of SIMI in questioning the unity and integrity of India, instigating communal strife, hurting sentiments of other religions and various social groups thereby disturbing peace and communal harmony.The pamphlet/publication caling Kashmir the "Kosovo of India" showing that Kashmir is not to be the part of India, artile calling for "Islamisaion of India" and the speeches by activists further show that they had no faith in the Constitution of India.While denying the allegations against SIMI Along with the affidavit, he has claimed that SIMI was never involved in questioning the unity and integrity of India, instigating communal strife, polluting the mind of people, disturbing peace and spreading communal disharmony; and that SIMI association and its members have faith in the Constitution of India.However, this does not find support from their own evidence.persons, Shah Jahan and Abu Thadeer were arrested while distributing copies of SIMI Sethi Madal, containing inflammatory and objectionable writings and FIR No. 722/9 was registered against them.However, he denied that they were the members of SIMI He further admitted that on 4th December, 2000, Manzoor, Hakkim and Shabeer were arrested by police of Tamil Nadu while pasting objectionable posters at Coimbatore.He admitted that case FIR No. 722/99, under Sections 124A/153A and 153B was registered at P.S. Kattur on 25.6.1999 against seven persons including Shamimul Islam, Syed Abdur Rahman Umari and Khader Basha.Admittedly they were he members of SIMI.he FIR reads: "We found that they were in possession of copies of Magazines "Seithi Madal" of Students Islamic Movement - June 1999 issues containing 8 pages.Each copy was enclosed with May 1999 Seithi Madal issue a special issue relating to KOSOVO.An article with captions Kashmir: KOSOVO OF INDIA was found in the first and fifth pages of June month issue.The wording of the article was framed in such a way that it would create il feelings among the Muslims against India.Hence he accused were arrested.A number of mosques were razed to the ground.Inams restrained from delivering sermons.In 1931 the Khattev of Jammu Idgah was nabbed out while delivering the Khatba.These facts stand proved by the evidence of PW-6, Bijender Singh Tyagi, SHO, P.S. Kotwali, Kanpur Nagar, and his affidavit is Ex.(iii) On 3rd August 2001, during the course of investigation, one Wasif was arrested.From his house search one factory made .30 bore pistol, 3 magazines, 24 cartridges, 1.38 bore pistol one magazine, 6 cartridges were recovered without license.A case vide FIR No. 72/2001 was registered.RDX, 2 kg.Potassium Chloride, Power circuits, Remote Circuits, Detonators, Rocket Cells, Bumb making Chemicals were recovered from the possession of Mumtaj Ahmed, FIR Nos. 83/2001 under Sections 3/4/5 Explosive Substances Act was registered.Similar articles/materials were recovered from Gulam Jilani and Mohd. Zuber and FIR No. 85/2001 under Sections 4 & 5 of Explosive Substances Act and FIR No. 70/2001 and FIR No. 71/2001 under Sections 25/27 Arms Act & Sections 3, 4, 5 Explosive Substances Act were registered.During investigations, they confessed that they are the active members of SIMI and they have been participating in the terrorists activities and in touch with Kashmere militants.RW.3 Human Ahmed in his evidence, has admitted some of the accused persons mentioned are the members of SIMI.Other accused persons are the members of SIMI stands proved by the disclosure statement of the accused persons made during investigations as referred to above.37. RW-4, Dr. Mohammad Hasan, President, SIMI Unit, Rajasthan in his affidavit admitted pendency of six cases from 1998 to 2001 in different districts.FIR No. 136/98 under Sections 153A/295A IPC P.S. Kotwali, Bikaner where around 300 people of Muslim community wee present, case was registered against Yaseen Patel, Muzaffar Ali and Niyamat Ali, who are stated to be members of the SIMI.Perusal of FIR No. 136/98 reveals that the case was registered on the basis of speeches delivered in front of Masjid wherein Hindu Deities, Gods & Goddesses were ridiculed and abused.Prima facie it reveals that they have been abusing Hindu Gods and Goddesses with an intent to cause disaffection between different communities.During the Naved-e-saher on 10th, 11th and 12th September, 2000 at Indore, members of SIMI exhibited posters instigating the Mohamaddan youths saying "Pas bode na bano aur sulah ki darkhwast naa karo, tum hi galib rahoge".They also published poster containing "Vah din bhi babri masjid dikhayenge ek din, sujid se tujhe apane sajayenge ek din, Inshaallah" showing three weeping mosques and also written "Ye dor apane ibrahim ki talash mein hai".Cases under Sections 153A/153B/295A were registered against them.RW-5, Mohd. Ikrar, Secretary, Madhya Pradesh State supporting the case of SIMI in his affidavit admitted the pendency of 40 cases in different districts of State of Madhya Pradesh.The evidence led by the other States and the respondent-SIMI through RW-6 to RW-9 is practically on similar lines and further discussion on their evidence is not required.It may also be noticed that apart from the evidence lead by the Central and the State Government, which was made available to respondent-SIMI, the Central Government also produced original files.Perusal of the files showed that the Central Government had received intelligence reports from other agencies, and together with material which was available with the Government, it formed its opinion to declare SIMI as an unlawful association and imposing the ban with immediate effect.For the foregoing reasons, I hold that there is sufficient cause for confirming the notification issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act, declaring SIMI to be an unlawful association and the same is hereby confirmed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
199,847,308 |
Heard on IA No.39 & 1828 of 2015, second applications for suspension of jail sentence of appellant No.1 Kuldeep Chaudhary @ Kuldeep Yadav s/o Shivkumar @ Bablu.Learned counsel for appellant No.1 submits that Dr. Prashant Rajput (PW-29) conducted postmortem of the deceased Omprakash and found some abrasions and contusions and he in paragraph No.7 of his deposition has admitted that the death was not possible due to the injuries and the patient Omprakash at the time of admission, was unconscious and was unconscious throughout on 30th and 31st of October, 2010 and no fracture was found on the body of the deceased.He has also drawn our attention to paragraphs No.6 and 7 of his statement and submitted that at the time of deciding the first application of appellant No.1, these facts were not brought to the knowledge of the Hon'ble Court, and therefore, his first application was dismissed on merit.He further submitted that the learned trial Court wrongly relied upon the oral dying declaration of Gauri Shankar (PW-4) brother of the deceased; Geeta (PW-5) wife of the deceased; and Rajan (PW-6) son of the deceased and submitted that these are the changed circumstances to consider this repeat application afresh.As per the record, by order dated 02.09.2014, first suspension application was dismissed by passing detailed order, which reads, as under: -Shri R.S. Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent / State.Heard on IA No.5778/2014 an application for suspension of sentence of appellant No.1 Kuldeep and IA No.6924/2014 an application for suspension of sentence for appellant No.2 Yogesh @ Babi Singh.Learned ASJ Barwaha in ST No.50/2011 vide judgment dated 05.04.2914 convicted and sentenced the appellants as under, whereas acquitted the three co-accused.Learned counsel for the appellant No.1 submits that the deceased-Omprakash died due to diabetes.Prosecution star witness-Mahendra has not supported the prosecution case.The deceased was admitted in a serious condition in Sudarshan hospital, Barwani.Doctor O.P. Tegar deposed that he was unconscious when he was brought to the hospital.Thereafter he was shifted to MY Hospital, Indore.Treating Doctor deposed that he was conscious till death.In these circumstances, oral dying declaration by the deceased to his brother- Gaurishankar and wife-Gita is doubtful.There is no legal evidence to connect the appellant No.1 with the crime.The theory of dying declaration come forward after four days in the statement recorded U/s 161 and for this delay no plausible explanation has been offered by the prosecution.The appellants have a good case during trial.They were on bail and have not misused the liberty, therefore, their jail sentence be suspended till the pendency of this appeal.Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent / State submits that during treatment deceased was regained, and he told to his brother- Gaurishankar and his wife-Gitabai that he has been assaulted by the appellants.Doctor Prashant Rajput conducted the autopsy and he found many anti-mortem injuries on the parts of the body of the deceased.There is no reason to disbelieve this version.Learned trial Court after evaluating the evidence convicted the appellants.Thus, the applications are liable to be dismissed.We have gone through the judgment recorded in the light of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.Learned ASJ has convicted the appellants on the basis of oral dying declaration and other circumstances.The appellants have not offered any explanation as to why they have been falsely implicated in this case.We are of the view that the appellants have failed to make out a case for suspension of jail sentence, therefore, the applications are liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed.Thus, IA No.5778/2014 and IA No.6924/2014 are disposed of."As per last paragraph of page 1 and page 2, learned counsel for the State, at the time of arguments of the first application for suspension of jail sentence, submitted that Dr. Prashant Rajput as well as treating doctor of MY Hospital, Indore and private hospital at Barwani were 5 brought to the knowledge of the Court and thereafter, this Court dismissed the application on merit.No affidavit of the earlier counsel was filed to support the contention that the statement of Dr. Prashant Rajput was not brought to the knowledge of the Court while arguing on the first application.In reply, learned Public Prosecutor has drawn our attention to paragraphs No.20 and 24 of the judgment and submitted that the learned trial Court after appreciating each and every aspect of the matter and on the basis of the oral dying declaration, which was made by the deceased before PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 and the circumstantial evidence, convicted the appellant and there is no change in the circumstances to consider this repeat application and prays for its rejection.As per statement of PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6, oral dying declaration was made by the deceased in which specific allegation has been made against appellant No.1 Kuldeep regarding causing of injuries to him.The same has been corroborated by the treating doctor.As per the postmortem report, the deceased sustained seven injuries, which reads as under: -"(1) Abrasion present lateral part posteriorly Right Arm lower part 1 x 1 cm size Blackish colour.(2) Contusion 3 x 3 cm size medial part of Left Arm.(3) Contusion 4 x 2 cm anterior lower lateral part of Right thigh.(4) Contusion 3 x 3 cm size anterior lateral part of Right Shoulder.(5) Contusion present size 3 x 2 cm over left medial malleolus.(6) Contusion present over medial mid part of Right foot anteriorly.(7) Abrasion 6 x 4 cm size over Posterior lateral mid part anterior Right thigh.Injury caused by hard and blunt object, caused within 1-5 days to death of person."Looking to the nature of the allegation made against appellant No.1 so also the fact that statement of Dr. Prashant Rajput was brought to the knowledge of the Court, there is no changed circumstances to consider this repeat application.IA No.39/2015 and IA No.1828/2015 have no merit and are accordingly dismissed.
|
['Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
199,848,237 |
As a result, he suffered bleeding injury.Thereupon, Susanta Dhali assaulted Shjyamal with a daa on his shoulder.They raised hue and cry and the villagers came to the post.The injured persons were shifted to Katwa S. D. Hospital by vans.Shyamal was referred to Burdwan Medical College and Hospital as his condition was serious.He died in the said hospital on the next day.The articles were identified by the witnesses in Court.PW 5, PW 6 and PW 8 are post occurrence witnesses.PW 5 is also a witness to the seizure of blood stained earth from the place of occurrence.Golam Mostafa (PW 7) held inquest over the dead body of the victim.He proved the inquest report (Exhibit 4).He dispatched the dead body of the victim under deadbody chalan (Exhibit 5).PW 9, 10 and 12 are Medical Officers who are attached at Katwa Sadar Hospital at the material point of time.They examined the injured witnesses as well as the deceased.He proved the treatment slip (Exhibit 7/1).He had also examined Sanjoy Sarkar and prescribed x-ray of scapula, right shoulder, right chest of the patient.He proved the prescription (Exhibit 8 and 8/1).Tapas Sarkar (PW 10) examined the deceased Shyamal Mondal on 12.04.2007 in the hospital.He found the neurological status of the patient was very poor.He was given primary management and thereafter referred to Burdwan Medical College and Hospital.He proved the treatment sheet (Exhibit 9).Dr. Somnath Mukherjee (PW 12) examined Shova Mondal and admitted her in the hospital with a suspected fracture injury.He also examined Sanjay Sarkar with head injury.He prepared bed head tickets (Exhibit 10, 11 and 12).Dr. P.S. Pal (PW 14) held the post mortem over the dead body of the victim and exhibited the post mortem report Ext. 15).Ramranjan Patra (PW 11) and Parimal Goswami (PW 13) are the investigating officers in the instant case.Parimal Goswami (PW 13) commenced the investigation.He took up investigation on the day of occurrence.He proved the endorsement on the written complaint by the then officer-in-charge and the formal F.I.R. He visited the P.O., prepared rough sketch map.He seized control earth and blood stained earth from the P.O. under proper seizure list.He took us through the deposition of P.W. 1, defacto complainant, and submitted although complaint was lodged after the death of Shyamal Mondal, an impression has been created that it was registered prior to his death.First information report is, therefore, an ante dated document.He further submitted that P.W.1 was a post occurrence witness.Hence, the incident did not occur in the manner as sought to be depicted through the versions of the aforesaid witnesses.Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to an order of acquittal.On the other hand, Mr. Arun Kumar Maity, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence of the injured eye witnesses viz., P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 corroborate one and another and clearly establish the foundation of the prosecution case.Their versions are supported by the medical evidence of P.Ws.9 and 12 who treated the injured persons including the deceased Shyamal Mondal at Katwa S. D. Hospital and the post mortem doctor (P.W.14).The appellants had come armed to the place of occurrence and indiscriminately assaulted the injured witnesses and Shyamal Mondal.These facts clearly establish the ingredients of the offences against the appellants.Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.P.W.1, Ajoy Mondal is the brother of the deceased and the de-facto complainant in the instant case.He deposed that a dispute broke between appellant No.5, Santosh Dhali and Sanjoy Sarkar in connection with a Kali puja.On the fateful day i.e. 12.4.2007, the appellants and others went to the house of Sanjoy and abused him and his family members.Sanjoy, his wife Tulu, Shyamal (deceased) and his wife Shova raised objection.Thereupon, the appellants started assaulting them with sabal, daa, kaste and bamboo stick.He, however, could not stated who assaulted whom.Shyamal was assaulted on the back side of the head with a bomboo stick.Sanjoy was assaulted with a crowbar on the back.Tulu was assaulted by a sickle and Shova was assaulted by a daa on her back.When he went to the place of occurrence, the accused persons fled away through the house of Sasanta.From the aforesaid narration, it appears that P.W.1, the de-facto complainant had arrived after the incident occurred and saw the appellants running away from the spot.Referring to the evidence of P.W.1, it has been argued that the written complaint was lodged after he received information about the death of the deceased and, therefore, the said complaint is an ante dated one.I am unwilling to read the evidence of the said witness in the manner suggested by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants.It appears from the record that the written complaint had been received by the police station in the evening of 12.4.2007 i.e. the date of occurrence at the time when Shyamal Mondal was admitted at Burdwan Medical College and Hospital.He died on the next day.However, if the entire evidence of P.W.1 is seen in the light of evidence of other witnesses particularly P.W.13 (I.O. who proved formal F.I.R. and commenced investigation on the day of occurrence itself i.e. 12.04.2007 and Ext.1, there is no doubt that the complaint was received in the evening of fateful day and not after the death of the deceased, Shymal Mondal.All these witnesses in unison have deposed that the appellants had come in a body being armed with daa, kaste, sabal and lathi to the place of occurrence.They entered the house of Sanjoy Sarkar and abused him and his family members.When Sanjoy and his wife (Tulu, P.W.2) raised protest, she was assaulted by Bimal Dhali with a sickle.Her husband Sanjoy Sarkar, P.W.4 was assaulted by lathi.Shyamal Mondal (deceased) and his wife Shova intervened.Thereupon, Susanta assaulted Shova with a daa on her back.Pintu assaulted Shyamal on the head with a sabal.He seized the alamats produced by a constable after post mortem examination of the deceased under a seizure list.PW 9, 10, 12 and 14 are medical witnesses.He drew the formal FIR (Exhibit 14).He seized sabal and one kaste from Banana garden under a seizure list.He collected papers relating to U.D. Case.He collected post mortem report from the hospital.On transfer of Parimal Goswami (PW 13) the investigation was concluded by Ramranjan Patra (PW 11) and he submitted charge sheet.Evidence of PW 2, PW 3 and PW 4 clearly shows that they were present at the time when the incident occurred and had suffered injuries in the course of the incident.Hence, presence of the said witnesses at the place of occurrence and the fact that they had suffered injuries in the course of the incident has been proved beyond doubt.Deposition of the said witnesses are substantially corroborative of one another and show that the appellants came in a body being armed with various weapons and started abusing Sanjoy Sarkar (PW 4) and his family members.As a result of such provocation, Sanjoy (PW 4), Shyamal Mondal (the deceased) and their wives (P.W.s 2 and 3) protested.Consequently, the appellants indiscriminately assaulted them and their wives resulting in grievous injuries on Sova Mondal (PW 3), Sanjoy Sarkar (PW 4), Tutul Sarkar (PW 2).They also deposed that in the course of the incident Pintu Singh, appellant No.5 hit Shyamal Mondal with a sabal on the back side of his head.Sushanta Dhali assaulted him with a dha on his shoulder.As a result of such fatal injuries, Shyamal Mondal died on the next day at Burdwan Medical College and Hospital.It has been argued that neither the injured witnesses nor the deceased gave out the names of their assailants before the Medical Officers.Evidence of PW 10 shows that the neurological status of Shyamal Mondal was very serious.Evidence of other medical officers PW 9 and 11 also shows that the injured witnesses had suffered serious injuries on their bodies.In view of the precarious condition of the deceased Shyamal Mondal the serious injuries suffered by the injured witnesses it is natural that they were unable to spell out the names of their assailants before the Medical Officers.However, in view of the consistency in their narration in Court and as the medical reports corroborate the serious injuries suffered by them in the course of the transaction, their credibility cannot be doubted due to the aforesaid omission.It has also been argued that there are embellishments/contradictions in the deposition of the witnesses when compared with their earlier statements to police.Deposition of the injured eyewitnesses are substantially consistent with one another.Even the manner of assault on them as well on the deceased find corroboration from the nature of injuries reflected in the treatment sheets as well as the post mortem report exhibited in the instant case.Post mortem report shows deep stitched injuries on the left parietal region as well as the vault of skull of the deceased.There is also a stitched injury over the left shoulder extending up to chest.The aforesaid injuries clearly corroborate the assault on the deceased by Pintu Singh on the head of the deceased with a sabal and by Susantal Dhali with a dha on his shoulder.Hence, I find little merit in the submission that the ocular versions of the witnesses do not find corroboration from the medical evidence.No doubt the appellants had come in a group and were armed.However, the manner in which the incident unfolded in the attending facts and circumstances of the case given an impression that the appellants shared a common object of causing grievous hurt to the victims but not their death.Suddenly in the course of the incident appellant No.1 and 8 had dealt murderous blows on the head and shoulder of the deceased.None of the other appellants had assaulted the deceased.Nor did they share the common object to murder Shyamal as the pre-existing dispute which prompted them to go in a body with arms to the place of occurrence was with Sanjoy (P.W. 5) and not with the deceased.No doubt they were armed and shared common object to cause grievous hurt but they certainly did not contemplate the murder of Shyamal as a likelihood in pursuance to the common object in the factual matrix of the case.Hence, in the backdrop of the facts of the case, I am of the opinion appellant nos. 1 & 8 who dealt murderous blows on the deceased are responsible for his death and the other appellants cannot be held to be constructively liable for their acts in the facts of this case.What could have been reasonably contemplated by the members of the unlawful assembly in the present case was one of rioting and grievous hurt but not one of murder of one of the victims.Hence, I am of the opinion that the conviction of appellant Nos.2 to 7 and 9 to 10 may be converted to under Section 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian penal Code instead of Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.The period of detention, if any, undergone by the appellant Nos.1 and 8 during the period of investigation, enquiry and trial shall be set off against the substantive sentence, as aforesaid, in terms of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Copy of the judgement along with Lower Court Records be sent down to the trial court at once for necessary compliance.Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given to the parties, as expeditiously as possible on compliance of all necessary formalities.I agree.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
199,546 |
Material facts relevant for disposal of present appeal are that on 26th of December, 2000 at about 1.00 p.m. a four-year old female child named Mona was playing in the street with other children.She was called by the appellant to his house and on her reaching there, he closed the door and allgedly committed rape on her.JUDGMENT B.N. Chaturvedi, J.1. Tried on a charge for committing rape on a four-year old girl child, the appellant was, eventually, convicted under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC and sentenced to five years RI and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default six months SI.Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the appellant has filed instant appeal.On reaching her house, Mona narrated the incident to her mother, Sulekha.The mother, in turn, informed her husband on phone in his office about the incident.Pawan Kumar Jha, father of the prosecutrix rushed back to his house.On an enquiry, Mona gave her account of the incident to him.The father, thereafter, went to the house of the appellant and knocked at his door.Though the appellant was inside his house, he did not respond.On an information being received, the police reached the place.The door was forced open as the appellant failed to respond even on police thumping his door.A bed sheet spread over the bed in appellant's room which appeared to bear semen stains was picked up and taken into possession by the police.Besides, four/five obscene books, lying under the bed sheet were also seized.Pawan Kumar Jha, father of the prosecutrix made his statement to the police, on the basis of which a FIR under Section 376 IPC was registered against the appellant at PS Dabri on the same date at 4.25 p.m. and the appellant was arrested.The panty, which Mona had been wearing at the relevant time, was produced before the investigating officer by the mother of the prosecutrix and the same was also taken into possession by the police.The prosecutrix and the appellant were got medically examined.The appellant faced trial on a charge under Section 376 IPC.On evidence, learned trial Judge concluded that the appellant was guilty of only an attempt to commit rape.He proceeded to inflict the punishment accordingly.With reference to statements of prosecutrix and her parents, certain contradictions were pointed out, which, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, rendered their testimony unworthy of credence and could not have formed basis of conviction.Such an argument ignores the very statement of the appellant in reply to question No. 12 of his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he admits that the bed sheet was seized from his room only.Another argument is that the prosecutrix and her parents made identical statements concerning alleged penetration, which is belied by the medical report, Ex.On medical examination of the prosecutrix vide Ex.PW-4/1, no external injury mark over her body or genitalia were found, nor there was trace of discharge.Maybe that the prosecutrix being a child, did not understand as to what actually constituted penetration and maybe that her parents gave an exaggerated account of the incident.Precision in describing the beastly act committed/attempted on her, cannot be expected of a girl child of a tender age such as the prosecutrix in this case.Further, exaggerated statements of the parents of the prosecutrix in regard to alleged penetration cannot justify their entire testimony being discarded.The last argument of the learned counsel for the appellant was that even if the incident, as alleged, had taken place in view of there being no penetration, at best, it could be held to have been a case of preparation to commit rape and not an attempt to rape as held by the learned trial court.Sequence of incident, as narrated by the prosecutrix, shows that the appellant called the prosecutrix to his house while she was playing in the street with other children, bolted the room from inside, pulled down her panty and made her to lie down and after undressing laid himself over her in a bid to sexually assault her.It appears that he could not succeed in penetrating due to premature ejaculation.The CFSL report, Ex.PW-6/1, confirms that human semen was found on the bed sheet Ex.The appellant would, thus, be found to have done all that what he could with an intent to commit rape on prosecutrix, but somehow failed to commit the crime he intended to.Suffices to make a reference to a Supreme Court decision in 'Madan Lal v. State of Jammu and Kashmir', AIR 1998 SC 386, wherein a Headmaster of a school, where the prosecutrix was studying , was charged with having committed rape on her and the prosecutrix made a statement that the accused had succeeded in penetrating his male organ into her vagina more than once but the medical report belied her this part of statement, the Supreme Court observed that the statement so made by the prosecutrix could have been on account of her inexperience who was being subjected to sexual harassment for the first time and that the same could not be read in isolation bereft of what she had deposed just prior to the aforesaid statement.In spite of statement of the prosecutrix being found in contradiction to the medical evidence, the prosecutrix was held to be a truthful witness.Pointing out the difference between preparation and an attempt to commit an offence, the Supreme Court said:-
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
199,550,076 |
Additional Commissioner of Customs" (supra) lays down the correct law in holding that it is permissible to impose penalty separately on partnership firm and its partners in adjudication S.R.JOSHI/PVR ::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 02/02/2016 00:00:43 ::: 53 Alt.Having recorded my respectful disagreement, I proceed to record my opinion on the issues which are arise for consideration of the larger Bench.::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 02/02/2016 00:00:43 :::The issues are pure questions of law.Jupiter Exports" reported in "2007(213) E.L.T. 641 (Bom.)" lays down the correct law which holds that simultaneous penalties cannot be imposed on the firm and the partners.In the written submissions the appellants have urged as under:-Difficulties have also been experienced in the implementation of certain other provisions.The trade has been pressing for certain changes and facilities.Jasjit Singh, the Addl.The reference would stands answered in the above terms.
|
['Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
199,553,829 |
in connection with Kotwali Police Station Case No.282/2013 dated 03- 05-2013 under Sections 498A/302 of the Indian Penal Code.Miss. Minoti Gomes, Md. Hafiz Ali. . . . . . ..For the petitioners.Accordingly, we refuse such prayer and reject this application.( INDIRA BANERJEE,J.) (INDRAJIT CHATTERJEE,J)
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
199,556,660 |
The Parcha filed by Sri Paritosh Shukla on behalf of the complainant is taken on record.Heard learned counsel for the accused-appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the complainant on bail application.Perused the record.By judgement dated 23.11.2018 passed by learned Vth Additional District & Sessions Judge, Aligarh, the accused-appellants have been convicted in Sessions Trial No. 662 of 2016, arising out of Case Crime No. 133 of 2016, P.S. Khair, District Aligarh and sentenced for the offence under Section 304 Part-II IPC, for ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo one month additional rigorous imprisonment and for the offence under section 148 IPC, for one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment of fifteen days.Submission of learned counsel for the accused-appellants is that the accused-appellants have been falsely implicated in this case.The injuries caused to the deceased were of lathi and danda.There was only one grievous injury caused to the deceased.There was no intention to kill the deceased.They undertake that they will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted.Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that learned trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused appellants after appreciating evidence on record.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of accusation against appellants and also that there is no chance of early hearing of this appeal, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a case for bail during pendency of appeal.Let the appellants-Allo @ Nitansh @ Nishant and Prashant @ Pushpendra convicted in Sessions Trial No. 662 of 2016, arising out of Case Crime No. 133 of 2016, under Sections 304 Part-II, 148 IPC, P.S. Khair, District Aligarh, be released on bail during pendency of appeal on their furnishing personal bonds and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.50% fine shall be deposited within a month from receipt of this order.As soon as personal bond and sureties are furnished, after keeping photostat copies of the same, original copies are directed to be transmitted to this Court forthwith from the trial court.List the appeal for hearing in due course.Order Date :- 31.5.2019 RCT/-
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
199,568,406 |
FIR No.20/2012 was registered under Section 23 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (in short JJ Act), Sections 366A/372/373/376/342/109/34 IPC and Sections 3/4/5 of the ITP Act at PS Kamla Market on the complaint of the prosecutrix S after she was rescued pursuant to the raid conducted at Kotha No.70, Third Floor, left side, G.B. Road by the local police in association with the NGO Shakti Vahini.Her father was a contractor of making bus stands.In the village she became friendly with a boy.That boy allured her to go to Delhi and that on reaching Delhi he would marry her.Impressed by his words, she left for Delhi along with him around 5-6 months ago.The boy brought her to Sialdah Railway Station where she was introduced to a lady whose name she does not know and the boy stated that she should accompany that lady to Delhi and he would come to Delhi after 3-4 days.She denied that she had voluntarily come to Delhi or that she was living at Kotha No.70 of her own free will.Thus there is an admission that the prosecutrix was living at Kotha No.70 as noted above.A.Nos.723/2014 and 724/2014 Page 6 of 10The age of the prosecutrix has been proved to be below 18 years as on the date when the offence took place and her MLC proves being subjected to sexual intercourse.A.Nos.723/2014 and 724/2014 Page 10 of 10A.Nos.723/2014 and 724/2014 Page 10 of 10Rekha and Sheetal challenge the impugned judgment dated April 25, 2014 convicting them for offences punishable under Sections 373/34, 366A/34, 342/34 IPC and Sections 3/4/5/6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (in short ITP Act) and the order on sentence dated May 01, 2014 by which they have been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of `10,000/- each Crl.A.Nos.723/2014 and 724/2014 Page 1 of 10 for offence punishable under Section 373/34 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and a fine of `10,000/- each for offence punishable under Section 366A/34 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of `5,000/- each for offence punishable under Sections 34/34 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of `2,000/- each for offence punishable under Section 3 ITP Act; rigours imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of `1,000/- for offence punishable under Section 4 ITP Act, rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and a fine of `2,000/- for offence punishable under Section 5(d) proviso (ii) and rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and a fine of `5,000/- each for offence punishable under Section 6 ITP Act.A.Nos.723/2014 and 724/2014 Page 1 of 10S came to Delhi along with that lady who took her to Majnu Ka Tila.A.Nos.723/2014 and 724/2014 Page 2 of 10That lady kept her for seven days at Majnu Ka Tila and then brought her to Kotha No.70, G.B.Road where she sold her to a lady named Sheetal for a sum of `30,000/-.The amount of `30,000/- was given by Sheetal to that lady in her presence.Thereafter Sheetal told her that the prosecutrix had reached Kotha and that she will now have to do prostitution.When S refused to do prostitution, Sheetal along with another lady, who was present at the Kotha, namely Rekha threatened her stating that she could not go anywhere now, she will have to live at the Kotha and sell her body for earning money.Thereafter Sheetal and Rekha forcibly put her into prostitution and contrary to her wishes she was forced to have sexual intercourse with the customers.Whatever money was given to her by the customers, was taken away by Sheetal and Rekha, who did not permit her to leave the Kotha.Thus action be taken against them.After registration of FIR, MLC of the prosecutrix S was conducted which showed that she was subjected to sexual intercourse.Her statement was recorded by learned Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C vide Ex.PW-9/B. During the course of trial her date of birth certificate was proved as Ex.P1 by PW-12 Dr.Thus six months prior to the date of registration of FIR, that is, in September, 2011, when she was sold to Sheetal and forced into prostitution by Sheetal and Rekha, she was aged 16 years and 5 months.Learned counsel for the appellants contends that uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix was insufficient to convict the appellants for the offences as noted above.The appellants have been acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 376/109 IPC and Sections 23/26 JJ Act, thus they Crl.A.Nos.723/2014 and 724/2014 Page 3 of 10 could not have been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 373 or 366 IPC.The prosecutrix S stated that she was forced to have sexual intercourse with the customers however, no customer has been convicted along with the appellants.Once there was no material to show that the premises was being used for prostitution, the appellants cannot be convicted for the offences punishable under the ITP Act. Further the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code being ancillary to the provisions of ITP Act, the appellants are entitled to be acquitted for the offences punishable under Indian Penal Code as well.If the premises was being used for prostitution, there would have been other inmates however, no other inmate has been joined in the search.The conduct of the prosecutrix is unnatural and she was a consenting party to the acts.No investigation has been conducted against Ajay who allured her and sent her to Delhi with another lady who in turn sold her.Father of the prosecutrix was deliberately not made a witness though he was informed by Shakti Vahini NGO.No public person was made to join the raiding party and thus the safeguards provided under the Indian Penal Code and the ITP Act have not been maintained.When the appellants were arrested, they were not informed that they were entitled to legal aid and that they could not be arrested after the sun set.Though the area is thickly populated with shopkeepers on the ground floor however, no shopkeeper Crl.A.Nos.723/2014 and 724/2014 Page 4 of 10 was joined in the raid.The MLC of the prosecutrix shows no injuries and thus sexual intercourse, if any, was consensual.A.Nos.723/2014 and 724/2014 Page 3 of 10A.Nos.723/2014 and 724/2014 Page 4 of 106. Learned APP for the State on the other hand contends that when raids are conducted at the instance of NGOs and they participate in number of raids, the witnesses from the NGO cannot be termed as stock witnesses.Besides a lady constable, the raiding team comprised of one more lady hence the provisions of search as mandated under Section 100 Cr.P.C. and Section 15 of the ITP Act were duly complied with.From the testimony of the prosecutrix it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that both Rekha and Sheetal were living on the earnings of the prostitution.Since the prosecutrix was a minor at the time when she was forced into prostitution presumption under Section 6 (2A) of ITP Act is required to be raised which has not been rebutted by the Crl.A.Nos.723/2014 and 724/2014 Page 5 of 10 Appellants.The offences punishable under Sections 366A and 373 IPC are independent of offence punishable under Section 376 IPC.Hence the provisions of Indian Penal Code cannot be said to be ancillary to the provisions of ITP Act. The defence raised by the appellants is an afterthought as no such suggestion has been given to the prosecution witnesses and no such plea has been taken in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Reliance is placed on the decision reported as 1970 Cri.L.J. 1279 Bai Radha vs. State of Gujarat which holds that non-compliance of Sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 15 while making a search is mere irregularity and the same does not vitiate the trial.A.Nos.723/2014 and 724/2014 Page 5 of 10The prosecutrix S deposed in sync with the statement on the basis of which FIR was registered and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded.The crux of the cross-examination is how she was brought back from her home so that she could get her statement recorded in the Court.She has stated in her deposition that one another girl had informed her family however, she could not take the courage to inform her family.She stated that a police officer called out her name and she came out, though no person from outside gathered at Kotha No.70 when the police came to rescue.Despite elaborate cross-examination nothing material could be elicited with regard to the non- involvement of Rekha and Sheetal or to show that the ingredients for Crl.A.Nos.723/2014 and 724/2014 Page 6 of 10 offences convicted of were not made out.She clarified that though the police used to visit the Kotha twice or thrice every week however she could not make complaint due to fear as other girls had told her that in case she complained to the police she would never be able to go back to her house.A.Nos.723/2014 and 724/2014 Page 8 of 10The explanations of both Rekha and Sheetal in their statements under sec 313Cr.PC are that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated.Before going to Maharashtra she was living at Kotha No.70, G.B. Road.Rekha and Sheetal examined as many as eight defence witnesses.Sushil Kumar, DW-1 has been produced to prove that the prosecutrix visited his office B-3, Hans Bhawan, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg to get prepared her PAN card, copy of which is exhibited as Ex.PW-9/DA.He could neither produce the receipt from the company from where the so called PAN Card was prepared nor did he take any acknowledgment.Raju, DW-2 stated that he was working as a cook at House No.70, Shradhanand Marg and he was preparing the food for Sheetal, Rekha and other girls.He identified Rekha and Sheetal and that he had given his SIM card to Sheetal in the year 2011 on her request as she had no ID proof.Sheetal was using her mobile phone.Saleem, DW-3, TSR Driver has been produced to show that the prosecutrix was going for shopping to various markets and used to hire his scooter.Shahid DW-5 who was running the shop in front of House No.70, G.B.Road, Delhi stated that the prosecutrix used to go to make purchases and he used to send paranthas from his shop to House No.70 through the rickshaw wala or servants.Pradeep Kumar, DW-6 who was working as a cook stated that no food was brought from outside.The version of Saleem, TSR Driver, even if accepted, would show that the prosecutrix was permitted to go with restricted number of people and thus a Crl.A.Nos.723/2014 and 724/2014 Page 9 of 10I find no merit in the appeals.The judgment of conviction and the order on sentence are upheld.TCR be returned.(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE JUNE 01, 2016 'vn' Crl.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
101,189,761 |
(i).P.W.1 (Manga) is the mother of the deceased Gomathi, that P.W.2 is the brother and that P.W.9 is the paternal uncle of the deceased Gomathi.The first accused is the son of the second accused.On 18.06.2007, the deceased Gomathi was given in marriage with the first accused.During the time of marriage, the parents of the deceased assured to give 5 sovereigns of gold as a dowry, but contrary to the assurance made by them, they had given 1= sovereigns of gold jewels to the first accused.Before the marriage with the deceased, the first appellant has got married with the P.W.8 (Manimekalai).Subsequent to the said marriage, due to the misbehaviour committed by the second accused, P.W.8 left the matrimonial home and went to her parent's house.After hiding the details of the first marriage, the first accused approached the family of the deceased and got married with the deceased.After the marriage in the matrimonial house, both the accused demanded the deceased to bring 3= sovereigns of gold and Rs.2,00,000/- as a dowry.The deceased informed the demand made by the accused to her mother, but P.W.1 and P.W.2 consoled her and send back her to matrimonial home.After few days, PW1 and PW2 heard the news that the Gomathi committed suicide.(ii).On 02.10.2007, on receipt of the complaint from P.W.1, P.W.12, the then Inspector of Police, Mallur Police Station registered a case in Crime.No.439/2007 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. Ex.P.10 is the First Information Report.After registration of the case, the copy of the F.I.R was forwarded to the Deputy Superintendent of Police and R.D.O for enquiry.After receipt of the copy of the F.I.R., P.W.13 (Mr.Chandrasekaran), the then Deputy Superintendent of Police took up the case for investigation.He proceeded to the scene of occurrence and in the presence of PW4 (Jayapal) and one Mr.Further, he drawn a rough sketch under Ex.Subsequent to the preparation of those documents, he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.(iii).In the meanwhile, P.W.10 (Mr.Kajamohideen), the then R.D.O after receiving the copy of the F.I.R, went to the Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital and in the presence of witnesses and Panchayatars, he conducted enquiry and prepared inquest report under Ex.Further, he gave opinion as the deceased committed suicide due to the harassment made by the second accused as well as due to the demand of dowry.P.7 is the opinion given by the RDO.After the preparation of the inquest report, he entrusted the dead body to P.W.7 (Perumal), who is the then Head Constable attached to the Mallur Police Station.In turn, he handover the dead body to the Doctor for conducting autopsy.(iv).(ante mortem)."During the course of post mortem, he collected the viscera and sent it to the chemical examination.In a report given by the chemical examiner, it was mentioned that there is no poisonous materials were found in the dead body.Accordingly, P.W.6 gave the final opinion that the deceased was died out of asphyxia.(v).In continuation of the investigation, on 04.10.2010, P.W.13 examined the Doctor and recorded his statement.Being the family member of PW1 he knows the occurrence happened in the deceased house.He has stated previous to the marriage, PW1 offered to give 5 sovereigns of gold to the appellants.Thereafter, during the time of marriage only 1= sovereigns of gold jewels were given to the first accused.He has further stated that after some time from the date of marriage, the deceased has came to his house and complained that the second accused is misbehaved with her.6. P.W.3 is the resident of Aatayampatty has stated during the time of occurrence, he was working in Bangalore.After knowing the death of Gomathi, he came to the occurrence place and on enquiry, he has stated that he knows misbehaviour committed by the second accused.7. P.W.4 is residing in Akaraipalayam, he has stated that on 02.10.2007 at about 8.00p.m., he heard the news about the suicide committed by the Gomathi, he has further stated when he was in the occurrence place, the police officers came and prepared an Observation Mahazar under Ex.P.W.5 Mohan is the marriage broker, he only arranged the marriage between the deceased and the first accused, he has stated before the marriage of deceased, PW1 assured to give 5 sovereigns of gold to the first accused but at the time of marriage, she gave 1= sovereigns of gold.9. P.W.6 is the Doctor working in Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital, Salem, has stated that on 03.10.2007 when he was on duty he received a requisition from the Revenue Divisional Officer for conducting autopsy over the dead body of Gomathi.04.07.2018msvIndex:yes/noInternet:Yes/NoSpeaking order: Non-speaking orderToThe Deputy Superintendent of Police,Salem Rural Salem Division,Salem District.Mallur Police Station,Salem District.(Crime No:439/2007)The first and second accused in S.C.No.251 of 2009 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem are the appellants in this appeal.They stood charged for the offences under Section 498(A), 304(B) and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. By a judgment dated 07.10.2010, the Trial Court convicted them and sentenced to undergo 1 month Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 498-A IPC.They were convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo 1 month Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. They have been further convicted and sentenced to undergo 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment under Section 304(B) IPC.It is further ordered by the Trial Court to run the sentences concurrently.Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, the appellants/accused are before this Court with the present criminal appeal.On receipt of request given by PW7, P.W.6, Dr.Kesavalingam, Professor of Forensic Medicine attached to the Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital, conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased.During the time of post mortem, he found the following injuries:An incomplete oblique ligature mark of 28 cms length and 0.5 cms breadth seen over front of sides of neck above the level of thyroid cartilage.On the back, it merges with the hairline.On right side, the upper border of ligature mark lies 9 cms below right mastoid process and on left side, it lies 5 cms below left mastoid process and in the centre, 10 cms above the suprasternal notch.O/d pale, dry and parchment like Hyoid bone- Intact.No neck contusion.All neck structures intact.On 05.10.2007, he altered the Section of law as 498(A), 304(B) IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After made alterations, he sent alteration report to the Judicial Magistrate.Further, in the same day near Palampatty bus stand, he arrested the both accused and sent them for judicial custody.On completion of investigation, he came to the positive conclusion that both the accused committed the offence under sections 498(A), 304(B) IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and filed a final report.Based on the materials available on record, the Trial Court framed charges against the accused as stated supra and the accused denied the same.In order to prove the case on the side of the prosecution, as many as 13 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.13 and 13 documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13, besides 1 material object.Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 (Manga) is the mother of the deceased, has stated in her evidence about the marriage of deceased with the first accused.She has stated that before the marriage, she offered to give 5 sovereigns of gold as dowry, but, she gave only 1= sovereigns of gold at the time of marriage.She has further stated that after the marriage, the second accused, who is the father-in-law of the deceased misbehaved with her daughter.So, after intimating the same to the first accused, the deceased was returned to her parental home.Thereafter, the deceased committed suicide.P.W.2 Arul is the brother of the deceased.Further, she complained the first accused also as he told to her to adjust with the second accused.When the same was questioned with the first accused, he consoled the deceased and made assurance that this incident have not been occurred in future.Further, he has stated in his evidence as after the said occurrence repeatedly the deceased complained against the second accused about his misbehaviour.He has stated after one week from the date on which the deceased complained about the misbehaviour of the second accused, she committed suicide.He has further stated after completing the process of post mortem, he collected the viscera and sent it the same to the chemical examination.After collecting the report from the forensic science department, he gave final opinion.According to him, there is no poisonous substances or alcohol found in the dead body.Further, the deceased is died on asphyxia due to hanging.P.W.7 Perumal is the then Head Constable, Kondalampatti Police Station, he has stated that after receiving the requisition letter from the Investigating Officer, he handed over the dead body in Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital, Salem, along with the requisition letter.P.W.8 Manimekalai is the first wife to the first accused, she has stated that she given in marriage with the first accused in the year 2000, in the matrimonial house, the second accused misbehaved with her.Hence, she left the matrimonial home and thereafter, both the accused are not take any steps to take back her to the matrimonial home.P.W.9 Tamilarasu is the brother of the deceased, he has stated in the trial Court as for the marriage of the deceased with the first accused, PW1 gave assurance to the first accused as 5 sovereigns of gold will be given at the time of marriage.P.W.10 is the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem, she has stated on 03.10.2007, on receipt of copy of the First Information Report from the Mallur Police Station, he went to the Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital, Salem.In the Hospital in the presence of witnesses, and panchayathars, he prepared inquest report.According to him, misbehaviour of the second accused and the intolerable pressure given by him to the deceased are the reason for committing suicide.Further, he stated that the demand of dowry is also one of the reason.P.W.11 Ravichandran is the photographer, he has stated that he is running a photo studio in the name and style of Jaishakthi, on 02.10.2007 as per the request made by the Mallur Police, he went to the occurrence place and took the photographs of the deceased in various angles.PW12 and PW13 are the police officers have stated about the receiving of complaint, registration of the case, details of investigation and about the filing of final report in this case.With reference to the above incriminating materials, both the accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and for which, they pleaded not guilty.However, they have not choose to examine any witnesses nor did they mark any documents on their side.The learned Trial Judge on perusal of the materials placed and on considering the arguments advanced by both sides, convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated above.Challenging the same, the present criminal appeal has been filed.Today, when the appeal is taken up for consideration, I have heard Mr.B.Vasudevan, learned counsel for the appellants and Mrs.T.P.Savitha, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent and also perused the records carefully.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that there are lot of contradictions in the evidence of PW1 to PW13, no evidence is available to attract the ingredients of Sections 498(A), 304(B) IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. He has further submitted that previous to the marriage, there is no agreement made between the PW1 and the accused with regard to the demand of dowry, but, without looking into these aspects, the Trial Court convicted the accused which needs interference.On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would contend that the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses with regard to the occurrence and other circumstances would establish that the second accused in this case misbehaved with the deceased.Further, both the accused demanded the deceased to bring more dowry.Considering the above circumstances in perspective manner, the Trial Court rightly convicted the appellants under Section 498(A), 304(B) and Section 4 of D.P.Act.Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court.I have considered the rival submissions made on either side.First of all with regard to the demand of dowry made by the accused, it is to be noted that previous to the occurrence, both accused had not demanded the PW1 to give 5 sovereigns of gold as a dowry.The averments made in the complaint given by PW1 has also disclosed the said fact.Further, on close scrutiny of the evidence given by PW1 and PW2, they have specifically stated that before committing suicide, the deceased has not told anything about the harassment committed by the accused.In the cross-examination of PW1, she categorically stated that when at the time the deceased was in her house, the first appellant frequently came there without any demand, which shows there is no wilful act on the side of the first accused for the purpose of getting dowry.Furthermore, PW 5 Mohan who is the marriage broker has stated in his cross examination, before the marriage, both the accused have not demanded dowry.The another witness PW 13 Investigating Officer has also stated, in the complaint given by PW 1, she has not raised any allegation against the accused in respect to the demanding of dowry.In the said circumstances, the other witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution has also not stated about the demand of dowry made by the both accused.Since the factum of demanding dowry is not proved upto the level of law expected it is not easy to hold that both the accused committed the offence under sections 498(A), 304(B) of IPC and Section 4 of D.P.Act.Further, it is to be noted as per the evidence given by PW1, the first accused set up a separate house for leading the happy life with the deceased.In the said circumstances, particularly, on analysing the evidence given by PW8, it appears that the second accused is having the habit of misbehaving with his daughter-in-law, culling out the entire circumstances shows only in order to avoid the misbehaviour of the second accused, the deceased committed suicide.The said circumstances did not attract the offences under Sections 498(A), 304(B) and Section 4 of D.P.Act.On the other hand, the misbehaviour of the second accused alone leads the deceased for committing the suicide resulted her death.Further she leads a life in a remote village.In the said circumstances, those incidents have to be reported only to her mother or her husband.On the other hand, the second accused is found guilty for the offence under Section 306 IPC.In the result, this criminal appeal is partly allowed.The bail bond, if any, executed by the first appellant shall stand cancelled.The fine amount, if any, paid by the first appellant shall be refunded to him.The learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, FAC,(I Additional Sessions Judge), Salem.The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras.R.PONGIAPPAN,J.96 of 201104.07.2018
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
101,196,234 |
P.W.1-Sundaramma is the mother of the appellant and thus, wife of the deceased-Rajamani.The appellant is the eldest son.P.W.2-Poonkodi is the grand daughter of the deceased.P.W.3-Pandu @ Pandian is the close relative of the deceased.P.W.10 turned hostile and so also P.Ws.2 to 4 though they were not the eye witnesses.P.W.5, who is the grandson of the deceased, has stated that he has seen the appellant running with the countrymade gun marked as M.O.1(unlicensed).P.W.7 has deposed that he has been informed about the death and he knew about the frequent quarrel the appellant used to indulge with his father.P.W-8-Munidasan is the Village Administrative Officer, before whom the confession statement is stated to have been made followed by recovery.P.W.9-Sampath, who is the Inspector of Police, Alangayam, has inspected the place of occurrence and prepared Ex.P4-Observation Mahazar.P.W.10, the sister of the appellant speaks about the occurrence.According to her, the appellant picked up quarrel and shot the deceased, which was seen by her in the new moon light.She has further stated that she saw the body of the deceased-father first and in the new moon light.According to her, she alone saw thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 occurrence, but did not know the gun, which was used.She further acknowledged the fact that her father used to hunt.P.W.11, the daughter of the deceased once again speaks about the motive.Sivasubramaniyam is the Doctor, who conducted the post-mortem has given Ex.P7-post mortem report.P.W.13-Kirubhakaran is the Assistant Director of Forensic Department and he had authored Ex.P9-Chemical Analysis Report of the gun.Jayakumar is the Head Constable, who went to the Tirupattur Government Hospital on 08.06.2011 and handed over the requisition letter given by the Investigating Officer for conducting post mortem on the body of the deceased and thereafter handed over the body to the relatives.Mohan, the Inspector of Police is the Investigating Officer, who went to the place of occurrence and prepared Ex.P14-Rough Sketch and Ex.Observation Mahazar in the presence of the witnesses.He also examined the witnesses and conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased and prepared Ex.P17-Inquest Report.He also gave Ex.M.M.SUNDRESH, J.The appellant, being the sole accused in S.C.No.179 of 2013 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupattur, Vellore District, charged and convicted for the life for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment and for three years under Section 3 read with 25(1)(b) of Indian Arms Act, 1959 and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment, while getting acquittal under Section 294(b) IPC, has filed this criminal appeal.Prosecution Version:It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant being the son of the deceased-Rajamani indulged in a quarrel on 07.06.2011 at about 10.30p.m., and thereafter, came back and shot him with a country made gun resulting in instantaneous death.P6-requisition to conduct autopsy.He has arrested the accused on 15.01.2012 at about 11.30p.m., and recovered M.O.1-gun through recovery mahazar Ex.P.W.18 is the Inspector of police, who took up the further investigation and examined the witnesses and the doctor.Before the trial Court, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses in total as stated above and marked Exs.P1 to P23 apart from the material object recovered M.O.1-country made gun.After framing charges, the appellant was placed with the incriminating materials and questioned under Section 313-A of the Criminal Procedure Code.There was only mere denial by the appellant.The trail Court rendered conviction against the appellant sentencing for life while acquitting him under Section 294(b) IPC holding that motive having been proved and the evidence of P.Ws.1, 7,10 and 11 are sufficient enough to convict the appellant and accordingly rendered conviction.Reliance has also been made on the evidence of P.W.12-The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that 1st of June, 2017 was the new moon day.There was no light available during night time.P.W.10 ought not to have been present in the place of occurrence since she was married and living somewhere else.P.W.1 has turned hostile and so also the other witnesses.Motive has not been proved as the other witnesses turned hostile.There is no evidence to show that the appellant was owning the gun.Even as per the evidence of P.W.10, her father used to hunt.The evidence of P.W.10 is unnatural.He has also stated that he did not know anything about the occurrence.He is also the interested witness.No reliance can be made on the confession statement made.The statement has been obtained while in police custody.The witness, who signed the confession statement has not been examined.Even P.W.1 has stated about the estranged relationship.P.W.5 being grandson of the deceased speaks about the subsequent conduct of the appellant having seen the appellant running away with M.O.1-Gun.Similarly, P.W.10 has stated that he saw the deceased being shot by the appellant.Even here, she has stated that she did not know which gun it was.It is her clear evidence that the appellant picked up the quarrel with his father prior to the occurrence.Therefore, only other questionhttp://www.judis.nic.in 9 to be decided is as to whether homicide is to be termed as murder or otherwise.Though the prosecution witnesses have stated that the deceased was having food, Ex.Even P.W.10 has not seen the occurrence in full.P7 shows that the injury that caused death was on the lungs.There was only one single shot.Considering the facts and circumstances, we are inclined to sentence the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of 10 years.However, insofar as the offence under Section 3 read with 25(1)(b) of The Indian Arms Act is concerned, as we have already concluded in our discussion, the appellant/accused had used an unlicensed firearm.In such view of the matter, we would like to confirm the conviction imposed by the trial court for offence under Section 3 read with 25(1)(b) of The Indian Arms Act and the sentence imposed thereunder require no interference at the hands of this court.Thus, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant/accused to simple imprisonment for three years for offence under Section 3 read with 25(1)(b) of The Indian Arms Act stand maintained.Though we are confirming the conviction and sentence as imposed by the trial court for offence under Section 3 read with 25(1)(b) of The Indian Arms Act, we direct that the aforesaid sentence would run concurrently along with the sentence imposed by this courthttp://www.judis.nic.in 32 under Section 304(Part I) of IPC in modification of the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court under Section 302 of IPC.Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant-Saravanan under Section 302 of I.P.C. in S.C.No.179 of 2013 dated 24.01.2017 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupattur, Vellore District, are modified and instead, he is convicted for the offence under Section 304 (Part I) I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years.The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court for offence under Section 3 read with 25(1)(b) of The Indian Arms Act stand confirmed.Both the sentences shall run concurrent.
|
['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', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
101,201,098 |
The appellant seeks to assail the judgment and order dated 24-10-2002 passed by the learned IInd Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Sessions Trial 422/1997, by and under which the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the "accused") is convicted for::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2018 02:11:46 ::: 2 apeal603.02 having committed offence punishable under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short) and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to payment of fine of Rs.2,000/-.The accused is, however, acquitted of offence punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of the IPC.::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2018 02:11:46 :::Heard Shri S.D. Chande, learned Advocate for the appellant and Shri A.M. Kadukar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.The learned Sessions Judge, having acquitted the accused of offence punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of the IPC, which finding is predicated on the premise that the sexual relationship was consensual, has convicted the accused of offence punishable under Section 417 of the IPC on the premise that the prosecutrix was induced to consent to sexual relationship due to false promise of marriage.It is axiomatic that if the consent is vitiated due to a promise which was never intended to be honoured and which constitutes offence of cheating, the acquittal of the accused of offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC is debatable.However, neither the State nor the prosecutrix has challenged the acquittal of the accused of offence::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2018 02:11:46 ::: 3 apeal603.02 punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of the IPC.::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2018 02:11:46 :::(i) to deliver any property to any person, or(ii) to consent that any person shall remain any property,::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2018 02:11:46 ::: 4 apeal603.02 or::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2018 02:11:46 :::(b) intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.The submission of the learned Advocate for the accused is that even if the evidence of the prosecutrix is accepted, neither deception nor fraudulent or dishonest inducement is established.The evidence on record is grossly insufficient to prove that the promise to marry, assuming that such a promise was made, induced the prosecutrix to have sexual intercourse, which she would not have had but for the promise, is the submission.The submission is that it is not sufficient for the prosecution to prove that a promise was made which was not fulfilled.The prosecution must prove that the accused never intended to fulfill the promise and the promise was at the very inception falsely made.Having given my anxious consideration to the evidence on record, and in particular to the testimony of the prosecutrix who is::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2018 02:11:46 ::: 5 apeal603.02 examined as P.W.3, I find considerable merit in the submission of the learned Advocate for the accused.The deposition of the prosecutrix would reveal that she and the accused were in relationship and, as would appear from paragraph 1 of the examination-in-chief, she and the accused had physical relationship even prior to the incident.The prosecutrix states that the accused met her near the tank in the village on 01-8-1994 and said that the prosecutrix should accompany him for registration of marriage.The prosecutrix accompanied the accused to Amravati where both saw two movies from 12-00 noon to 6-00 p.m. The accused brought the prosecutrix to village Dhamori by bus and then took her to Bailmarkheda to the house of his sister Ramabai who drove them out.The accused and the prosecutrix then walked to village Dhamori and halted at the S.T. Stand premises.One Balu Chaware gave a quilt to the accused who asked the prosecutrix to have sex, which she refused.The prosecutrix states that since the accused had promise to marry the next day, she consented to sexual intercourse and in the night between 01-8-1994 to 02-8-1994 the prosecutrix and the accused had sexual intercourse twice.In the morning, the accused took the prosecutrix to the house of Anil Ingle at Amravati and left.The next day, the father of the prosecutrix lodged a report, Vijay Ingle, Ambadas Chechre::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2018 02:11:46 ::: 6 apeal603.02 and Ashok Bhise came to the house of Anil Ingle and took the prosecutrix to Police Station Kholapur.::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2018 02:11:46 :::::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2018 02:11:46 :::The cross-examination of the prosecutrix reveals that she and the accused were in an intense relationship since long.It would be relevant to reproduce the following portion of the cross-examination :In 1992 I failed in X standard.At that time centre was Khartalegaon.But I failed.There after I was attending stitching classes at Dhamori.I then never appeared for S.S.C. examination.Since before one year of the incident I had affairs with the accused.Accused used to meet me since about one or two years of the incident.Accused belongs to my caste.I and accused had decided to perform registered marriage.It is true that my parent were opposing my marriage with the accused.I was waiting that I would complete 18 years of my age.I was 19 years before the incident in question.I was acquainted with Balu Chaware, Ramrao Dholwade and Baldeo Pawar, and they were acquainted with me, but I was not talking with them.There were exchange of love letters between me and::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2018 02:11:46 ::: 7 apeal603.02 accused.I and accused had decided to marry.::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2018 02:11:46 :::What emerges from the cross-examination is that it was a mutual and bilateral decision taken by the accused and the prosecutrix to marry, which renders suspect the very substratum of the prosecution case that the accused deceived the prosecutrix by falsely promising marriage and the deception induced the prosecutrix to consent to sex.I have already noted that paragraph 1 of the examination-in-chief indicates that the accused and the prosecutrix had sex even prior to 01-8-1994 on which, they according to prosecution, the false promise was made.The prosecutrix admits in the cross-examination that she had decided to marry the accused and that she was not inclined to return to the village and that she was told that since her father had lodged a report she should return to the village.If the evidence of the prosecutrix is holistically considered, it is difficult to conclude that the accused did not ever intend to marry the prosecutrix and that he made a false promise only to induce the prosecutrix to consent to sex.As I have noted, the prosecutrix and the accused appear to have been in::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2018 02:11:46 ::: 8 apeal603.02 sexual relationship even prior to the date of incident.That apart, what emerges from the evidence is that the accused and the prosecutrix returned since the father of the prosecutrix lodged report.It is true that it has come on record that the accused did not marry the prosecutrix and indeed the suggestion given to the prosecutrix is that because the accused did not marry the prosecutrix, the report came to be lodged.Surprisingly, a suggestion is also given to the prosecutrix that she lodged the report since she was deceived.However, in the teeth of the evidence on record, I am not inclined to give weightage, more than absolutely necessary to the stray suggestion given to the prosecutrix.The suggestion, surprising it is, does not dilute the duty of the prosecution to prove by adducing cogent evidence that the prosecutrix was deceived by a false promise to marry which was dishonestly given and that the prosecutrix consented to sex only due to the said promise.The evidence of the prosecutrix, is quite to the contrary.::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2018 02:11:46 :::Fine paid by the accused, if any, be refunded to::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2018 02:11:46 ::: 9 apeal603.02 him.::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2018 02:11:46 :::The appeal is allowed.JUDGEadgokar ::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2018 02:11:46 :::::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2018 02:11:46 :::
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,012,099 |
Since her father married second time, her step-mother began to torture her.Unable to bear such oppression and finding no other option, she fled away from the house of her father and took shelter in the hotel of one Dhanu Thakur at Kakdwip and started to work there as maid servant.Sometime thereafter father of the appellant took her in his farm house on 30th Poush, 1398 B.S. and she started to work there as a maid servant.Mother of the appellant also lived there in the said farm house for a few days.Appellant also gave her some medicine for abortion.He assured her that he would marry her.In bona fide belief that the appellant would keep his promise/assurance, PW-1 Pratima took such medicine and destroyed the foetus.Later on when the appellant wanted to marry Pratima, his parents drove him out from their house.PW-1 Pratima was also driven out from their house.JUDGMENT Sujit Barman Roy, J.This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12-11-1998 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Diamond Harbour, South 24 Parganas in ST.No. 1(3) of 1997 convicting the appellant under Section 376, I.P.C. and sentencing him thereunder to suffer R.I. for eight years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for further two years.Appellant was also convicted under Section 420, I.P.C. and was sentenced thereunder to suffer R.I. for six years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for further one year.Learned trial Court also directed that 75% of the fine, whenever realised, shall be paid to the victim girl Pratima Das as compensation.P.P. who represents the State.About two or three days after her arrival there, appellant's mother left the farmhouse for their residential house at Kakdwip.PW-1 Pratima Das worked there at the said farm house as a maid servant and she also used to cook food for them.However, sometime thereafter on 19-1-1992 at about 8/8.30 a.m. appellant suddenly embraced and forcibly kissed her.Simultaneously, she was forcibly laid on the bed and raped by the appellant.Appellant gagged her mouth with clothes.At that time appellant assured her that appellant would marry her.Because of this assurance given by the appellant, she lived with the appellant as wife and almost every day and night appellant had sexual intercourse with PW-1 Pratima.Consequently, she conceived and became pregnant.Time and again appellant promised that he would marry her.However, subsequently, appellant was dilly-dallying so far as her marriage with appellant is concerned.It was further stated in the said complaint that the appellant really wanted to marry her but because of vehement objection from his parents, appellant could not marry Pratima.Thereafter parents of the appellant were trying to give marriage of the appellant with another girl.Accordingly, on the basis of the aforesaid allegation made in the complaint, a prayer was made therein to forward the said complaint under Section 156, Cr.P.C. to police authorities for investigation etc. In view of the aforesaid prayer, learned S.D.J.M. forwarded the said complaint to the concerned Police Station, and, accordingly, on that basis an FIR was registered against the appellant under Section 376/420, I.P.C.After usual investigation, police submitted a charge-sheet against the appellant and others under Sections 376/420, I.P.C.Upon commitment learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 376/420, I.P.C. against the appellant and others to which they pleaded not guilty.On conclusion of the trial appellant alone was convicted and sentenced as already stated.Others were acquitted.From the evidence on record as well as from the complaint it appears that the prosecution story in short is that first such occurrence took place on 19-1-1992 at about 8/8.30 a.m. On that day in the morning at the above noted time, the appellant forcibly embraced and kissed the complainant and she was forcibly laid and thereafter, appellant tried to rape her.At that moment when PW-1 tried to raise alarm, appellant gagged her mouth with clothes and assured the complainant that the appellant would marry her, Thereafter, only appellant had sexual intercourse with the complainant.Since then for about two months they lived together as husband and wife and had cohabitation.From the conduct of the complainant and the statements, she made in her complaint as well as in her deposition it is apparent that as the appellant promised to marry her, complainant gave her consent to have sexual intercourse with the appellant.It is not in dispute that at the time of occurrence complainant was an adult and she reached the consent giving age.It is equally apparent from the complaint that the appellant was really serious and eager to marry the complainant.But the parents of the appellant stood in the way and vehemently raised objection against the proposed marriage between the appellant and the complainant.375 and 415, I.P.C.We have heard Mr. Dipak Sengupta, learned Counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. S. Moitra, learned Additional P.P. for the State.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
101,213 |
The brief facts necessary to decide this petition are that one Neelam (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') was found hanging on 25.9.2004 in her matrimonial house.She was declared dead in the hospital.She had died an unnatural death.Two sons were born out of the wedlock.The other revision petitioner is brother in law of the deceased.The statement of the deceased's parents and brother were recorded by the police on the day of the death.Those statements were that the deceased was living happily in the matrimonial home since the inception of marriage, and there were no disputes regarding any issue.The deceased was ill, according to them, as she was suffering from epilepsy/giddiness since a couple of months.They also stated that no body could be blamed for her death.It is alleged that on the next day i.e. 26.9.2004 the father of the deceased made a contrary statement.On the basis of this statement an FIR was lodged by the police against the Petitioners.Certain allegations were made with regard to harassment, beatings given to the deceased by her in-laws and dowry demands right from the eighth month of the marriage.The allegations were general in nature; the Petitioners allege that the deceased's said relatives did not mention as to when such harassment was caused to her.The deceased's father had also stated that she had made a phone call to him on 24.9.2004 and complained that she was beaten by her in-laws for many days and was not given anything to eat and drink.The Petitioners urge that had there been any dowry demands or harassment such as denial of food and water to the deceased, then her parents and brother would not have stated that their daughter was living happily in her matrimonial house.JUDGMENT S. Ravindra Bhat, J.These present Criminal Revision Petitions are preferred by the Petitioners against the charges framed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge under Sections 498A/304B Indian Penal Code (IPC) by his order dated 6.11.2006On the basis of these statements, the trial court charged the Petitioners for committing offences under Sections 498A/304B IPC.Counsel for the Petitioners further urged that the couple were married for the last 6 years and there was never any complaint regarding harassment, etc. The Petitioners' counsel urges that there was no dying declaration of the deceased alleging that they were responsible for her death.The Post mortem report did not corroborate the allegations of beatings, apart from the ligature marks on the neck of the deceased which were due to hanging.There was no other external injury found on the body of the deceased.The Police, on 25.9.2004 recorded three statements; one by the deceased's father, secondly of her mother and the third of her brother.All of them stated that the deceased was happily married; there was no quarrel on any issue.According to them, the deceased fell ill, as she was suffering from epilepsy/giddiness.They also stated that no one could be held responsible for her death.On 26.9.2004, the father of the deceased recorded another statement with the Police.It is on basis of this statement an FIR was lodged against the Petitioners.He stated in the statement that he had spent around Rs. 9 lakhs for the wedding, and that after some time the deceased's husband and in laws started beating her for bringing less dowry.The father stated that the Petitioners, on the deceased first child's birth demanded a Maruti car and Rs. 2 lakhs in cash but the deceased carried just Rs. 1 lakh to the matrimonial house for which she was again harassed.The father stated that this continued until the birth of the second son, when again a demand for another car and Rs. 2 lakhs was made.He further stated that the deceased on 24.9.2004 at about 7.00 pm called him up, weeping and complained that she was harassed by her in-laws and husband, that she was not given anything to eat or drink.She had also mentioned that her life was under threat.Her father stated that he would pick her up the next day.He also stated that his daughter was killed by the Petitioners.The trial court charged the Petitioners for committing offences under Sections 498A/304B IPC, the extracts of the order dated 6.11.2006 are as follows:The Complaint shows allegations of dowry demand and harassment on account of dowry soon after marriage and a day before her death she made a telephone call stating about the harassment meted out to her.The phrase soon after death is not to be interpreted strictly but according to the facts of the case.Where after marriage the deceased was harassed on numerous occasions on account of dowry and the deceased last complained to her parents, a day before her death, do not take out the case from the purview of phrase 'soon before death'.Hence a charge Under Sections 498A/304B/34 IPC be framed against all the above said accused personsThe learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners Mr. D.C.Mathur argued that the statement of the father of the deceased contain allegations pertaining dowry demands, harassment and beatings by the in-laws.The facts narrated above are that the death occurred on 24.9.2004 On that date three statements were recorded.They were by the father, mother and brother of the deceased.
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
101,214,849 |
As per the suicidal note of the deceased that he had already paid the entire loan amount and still the applicant was pressurizing him to give some more money.However, there is no such situation.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.It is alleged against the applicant that he gave some loan to the deceased and he demanding for return of that loan.If the deceased would have paid the entire loan amount, the he could proceed against the applicant in the police station to lodged an FIR etc. Demanding refund of loan, does not amount to any harassment.The overt-acts of the applicant do not fall within the purview of Section 107 or 109 of IPC, and primafacie no offence under Section 306 of IPC is made out against the applicant.The police is unnecessarily harassing the applicant.Under these circumstances, the applicant prays for anticipatory bail.The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.This order shall remain in force for a period of 60 days and in the meanwhile, if the applicant so desires, may move an application for regular bail before the competent Court.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
101,215,891 |
SURESH KAIT, J."Order dated 25.3.2014 "The petitioner has handed over copies of certain emails, which she states, have been circulated by her.This is my request orally.W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 47 of 100(viii) Dr Anupam Goel(ix) Dr Akshay Shukla(x) Dr Manoj Bhargava(xi) Dr Mohan Bhargava(xii) Doctors who attended to petitioner in Max Saket emergency on 12 August 2011(xiii) Dr Alka Ashmita Singhal(a) Direct the Government of India through the PMO (respondent 5 herein) to ascertain and declare the conflict of interest if any regarding Suresh Prabhu and this writ petition and/ or the Madhepura and Marhowra Projects and tenders; to ascertain and declare any dealings (financial or otherwise) between Suresh Prabhu, his son or their companies and General Electric Company and/or its affiliates; and to ascertain and declare whether Mr.Suresh Prabhu has been made aware of this writ petition and of the full evidence of corruption, fraud, forgery, bribery and illegal lobbying concerning the tenders for the Madhepura and Marhowra Projects;(b) Direct the Government of India through the PMO (respondent 5 herein) to ensure that SureshPrabhu as Railway Ministe rdoes not act unlawfully in connection with the Marhowra and Madhepura locomotive factory Projects and that no attempt is madeto cover up the complaints of corruption, fraud, forgery, bribery, FCPA violations, tender manipulation, and illegal lobbying that are pending against General Electric Company in connection with the Projects and tenders for the proposed diesel and electric locomotive factories at Marhowra and Madhepura;(c) Direct Advocate Om Prakash to disclose who instructed him to oppose the Petitioner's representations to the President and Prime Minister against Suresh Prabhu's appointment as Rail Minister;(d) Issue notice of criminal contempt to Advocate Om Prakash for obstruction of court proceedings on 20 November 2014 when he prevented the petitioner from addressing the court by shouting at W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 65 of 100 her and by shouting her down with the specific intent to prevent her from addressing the court and to prevent her from responding to his invalid objections;These applications are as under:-(b) Declare that K R Radhakrislman has unlawfully impersonated as the authorised signatory of respondents 16 and 7 in this matter as part of a criminal conspiracy to defraud this Hon'ble Court with intent to file false and unauthorised affidavits and to cover up the complaints of corruption, fraud, forgery and manipulation of the Railway Madhepura & Marhowra Projects and tenders pending before this court against respondents 1,6 and 7 andto deny the petitioner/whistleblower/witness her rights for whistleblower protection against respondents 1, 6 and 7;(c) Declare that the three vakalatnamas signed by K Radhakrishnan and filed on December 7, 2012 and refiled on December 11, 2012; and the three vakalatnamas signed by KRadhakrishnan and filed on December 17,2012; and the W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 79 of 100 vakalatnama allegedly signed by Bradford Berenson on 9May 2013 and the two vakalatnamas signed by KRadhakrishnan and filed on July 16, 2013 are all invalid, unlawful and defective;W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 79 of 100(d) Declare that the alleged Power of Attorney executed by Alexander Dimitrief on 4May 2012 purportedly on behalf of General Electric Company and filed in this court under which KRadhakrishnan claimed to be authorised signatory for General Electric Company (respondent 1) is unlawful, fraudulent and violates the Board Resolution of General Electric Company numbered 10855 adopted by the Board of Directors of General Electric Company in its Board of Directors Meeting on 6 November 2009;(e) Declare that the alleged Power of Attorney executed by Bradford Berenson on 29 April 2013 purportedly on behalfof General Electric Company and filed in this court under which K Radhakrishnan claimed to be authorised signatory for General Electric Company (respondent 1) is unlawful, fraudulent and violates the Board Resolution of General Electric Company numbered 10855 adopted by the Board of Directors of General Electric Company in its Board of Directors Meeting on 6 November 2009;(f) Declare that the alleged copies of the Board Resolutions of respondents 6and 7(GE India Industrial Private Limited and GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited) dated 7May 2012 and dated 17 December 2012 filed in this writ petition and under which K Radhakiislinan claims to be authorised signatory for respondents 6 and 7are fraudulent, forged, invalid and fabricated documents and these documents do not constitute K R Radhakrishnan as the authorised signatory and representative ofrespondents 6 and 7for this writ petition;(g) Declare that Mr Nanju Ganpathy/ AZB &Partners cannot appear in Civil Writ Petition 1280 of2012 on behalf of respondents 1, 6 and 7as the vakalatnamas filed by them on December 7, 2012 and refiled on December 11, 2012 and the vakalatnamas filed by them on December 17, 2012 and the vakalatnamas filed by them on 16 July 2013 are all defective and invalid and declare that Mr NanjuGanpathy/ AZB &Partners have no authority to represent respondents 1, 6 and 7 in these proceedings;(o) Issue direct notice on the writ petition once again to respondents 1,6 and 7 by dasti email and directing these respondent to appear in this matter through properly authorised counsel/advocates and to file their response to the pleadings through a duly authorised signatory duly empowered to sign court pleadings on behalf of these respondents;(p) Direct the court registry to return the defective vakalatnamas filed on December 7, 2012 and refilled on December 11, 2012 and to also return the defective vakalatnamas filed on December 17, 2012 and July 16, 2013 by NanjuGanpathy/AZB & Partners in compliance with the Supreme Court's decision in Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram kalewar Prasad Singh (2006) 1 SCC 75];(q) Clarify that notice on the writ petition to respondents 8,9,10 and 11 as issued by this court on November 19, 2012, can be served dasti by email and courier only and not by all permissible modes of service;The relevant paras of the counter-affidavits of the Ministry of Home Affairs and Delhi Police read as under:-The local police may provide security, if, as per their local threat assessment, such security is considered necessary.Whereas it is submitted that with regards to the provision of security to whistle Blowers, the Government of India has authorized the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) as the designated agency to receive written complaints for disclosure on any allegation of corruption or misuse of office and recommend appropriate action in respect of employees of the Central Government or of any Corporation established under any Central Act, Government Companies, societies or local authorities owned or controlled by the Central Government.It is further submitted that if CVC is of the opinion that the complainants or the witnesses need protection, it shall issue appropriate directions to the concerned Government Authorities, i.e. Delhi Police, in the instant case.Similarly, for her relocation to a safe house on security considerations, it is for the CVC to take a view as to its necessity and give appropriate directions to the Delhi Police.A copy of Resolution No. 371/12/2002-AVD-III, dated 21.04.2004 and CVC Office Order No. 33/5/2004 dated 17.05.2004 under file No.004/VGL/26 and its enclosures, is annexed along with and is marked as ANNEXURE A."W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 95 of 100The contents of para 42-43 are denied except which are specifically admitted hereinunder.When the bailiff tried to take the possession the same was resisted by the petitioner leading to seeking of police protection by the owner.The copy of proceedings leading to recovery of possession of the rented premises from the petitioner are annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-R3/2 (Colly).It is submitted that after the possession of the premises were taken over, the whereabouts of the petitioner could not be ascertained despite attempts being made through enquiry from various bar Association offices.The copy of letter sent to bar association offices are annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-R3/3 (colly).The petitioner has lately sent a complaint through mail to the commissioner of Police regarding grievance of parking at the Indian Habitat Centre.The complaint is being looked into by the Concerned police station and a concerned officer from the police station Lodhi Colony as tried to contact the Petitioner but despite efforts the petitioner couldn't be contacted either due to her unavailability at her room or due to her mobile being switched off.She states that she shall be filing copies of the same supported by an affidavit, in the Registry.We have heard the petitioner from 3.45 p.m. to 5.04 p.m. Re-notify on 27th March, 2014 at 3:30 PM.SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 46 of 100 S.P. GARG, J"W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 46 of 100Order dated 27.3.2014 "We have heard the petitioner from 3:32 PM to 4:48 PM.Re-notify on 1st April, 2014 at 3.30 PM.SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J S.P. GARG, J"Order dated 01.4.2014 "We have heard the petitioner from 3:33 PM to 5:05 PM.Re-notify on 03.04.2014 at 3.30 PM.SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J S.P. GARG, J"Order dated 22.4.2014 "Today the petitioner, who appears in person, states as follows:"I have claimed a grave threat to my life from the State including the police.I have informed this Court in writing that since January 2014 I have been sleeping in my car outside Gate No.8 of the Delhi High Court.I have also been informing this Court in writing and through affidavits filed in this matter that the police has failed to comply with the protection orders issued by this Court; and that I am not only being harassed and targeted with police complicity during the night but I am also being poisoned by deliberate exposure to toxic chemical, including nerve agents and organophosphates, during the night.I fear for my life.I have been waking up breathless during the night on account of such poisoning, and I apprehend that if this continues, it will result in cessation of breathing and will cause death; and I further apprehend that the police W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 47 of 100 will then be used to cover up such murder.I have been making police complaints about these incidents since January 2014 in writing but the police has failed to even respond to these complaints.In view of this, I am making an oral request to this Hon?ble Court that it issue the directions to the Registrar General of this Court; to the Delhi Police Commissioner; and to the local SHO; to ensure that the CCTV security camera recordings maintained both by the Court and by the police in the area where I am parking my car at night and along the roads leading to that spot; be preserved, because this will be valuable evidence in support of my complaints to the police.I have been informed by the Delhi Police security that such recordings are normally preserved only for a month.I am, therefore, seeking directions from this Court that these recordings be preserved for longer than that until my complaints are addressed and investigated.I am also submitting that such an order will also result in providing me some measure of protection because those harming me, including the police, will get the message that the evidence of what is going on around my car during the night is being preserved pursuant to the directions of this Court.Further, I have also requested the Hon?ble Court to direct the Registrar General to preserve CCTV footage from the three court lobbies today because I noticed that a policeman was instructing two other policemen to target me; and CCTV footage might provide evidence of contact between the General Electric lawyers and those policemen.Further, one Sub Inspector Umed Singh from Police Station Nizamuddin, who is present in Court, was also seen by me speaking with General Electric lawyers outside the Court."We have recorded the above verbatim so that there may be no doubt about the submissions of the petitioner, who also happens to be a qualified and practicing Advocate registered at the Bar.This matter has been pending for some time.There is extensive controversy raised by the petitioner on almost every aspect of the matter.Apparently, she is also making serious allegations against the respondents including the Police Authorities to the extent of alleging a deliberate intent to murder her in a premeditated conspiracy.As and when such an application is moved, the same shall be duly considered by this Court.We have now invited the petitioner to continue where she left off on the previous date of hearing.We have heard the petitioner from 3:50 PM to 5:31 PM.Re-notify on 24.04.2014 at 3:30 PM.SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J S.P. GARG, J"SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J S.P. GARG, J"V.K.SHALI, J G.P.MITTAL, J"Order dated 06.5.2014 "List this matter before some other Bench (of which neither of us is a member) on 8th May 2014 subject to order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice.W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 49 of 100S.MURALIDHAR, J VIBHU BAKHRU, J"G.S.SISTANI, J V.KAMESWAR RAO, J"Prakash next submits that the petitioner should be restrained from making such scandalous emails against the persons by referring to the writ petition, which is pending and has become infructuous (which is disputed by Ms.Sapra).Prakash also submits that as many as twenty six Judges have recused from hearing this matter for one reason or the other or on account of the emails being addressed by the petitioner with respect to them.Sapra submits that the Judges have recused not because of her but for valid reasons.Sapra submits that as a citizen she has the right to make a complaint against the Railway Minister or any other person in case there is evidence of corruption.G.S.SISTANI, J A.K.PATHAK, J"List this matter on 10.12.2014 before another Bench subject to and after obtaining Orders from Hon'ble the Chief Justice.G.S.SISTANI, J A.K. PATHAK, J"PRATIBHA RANI, J JAYANT NATH, J"Order dated 19.1.2015 "Petitioner has been heard with respect to the writ petition and its prayers.Order dated 20.1.2015 "We have heard the petitioner further.List for further arguments on behalf of the petitioner on 22 nd January, 2015 at 3.30 P.M.VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J P.S. TEJI, J"Order dated 22.1.2015We have also heard the petitioner today for one hour.Petitioner on the earlier dates and today has argued her case not only the writ petition, but she has prayed that various applications which have been filed by her be taken up and decided.VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J P.S. TEJI, J"Order dated 03.2.2015The petitioner states that she has moved an application for transfer of this case because she has no faith in this Bench, however in our opinion we are not bound to recuse ourselves as prayed by the petitioner.It is noted, and which is seen from the perusal of the record of this case, that twenty eight Judges of this Court have recused from hearing this matter on account of similar stance of the petitioner before those Benches, and against which Benches the petitioner has made uncalled for remarks and allegations.The prayer made for this Bench to recuse is thus rejected.The petitioner is once again directed to commence her arguments on merits in the writ petition.Petitioner has now commenced her arguments in the writ petition.VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 54 of 100 P.S. TEJI, J"W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 54 of 100(underlining added)In spite of hearings being granted to the petitioner, petitioner never seems to be satisfied with the hearings given.Endeavors of Benches of this Court to give relief by passing interim orders, though such interim orders really need not have been passed in favour of the petitioner, had made no difference to the petitioner who has continued with her wayward ways of seeking recusal from different Benches and for arguing quite a few irrelevant points.The record shows that petitioner was holding on to a rented accommodation and from which ultimately she was evicted by means of judicial process initiated by the landlord and it is possibly for this reason one of her prayers was 're-location to a safe house'.Petitioner has made wild and baseless allegations against her neighbours of they trying to poison her and similarly against Max and Apollo Hospitals for allegedly giving false reports and trying to poison her.Petitioner has also made false and repeated allegations against the police of trying to kill her.CM No. 5007/2013 Heading "AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE SEEKING URGENT DIRECTIONS FROM THE COURT FOR CRIMINAL PROSECUTION OF MR K JAYANAND, (HIS ACCOMPLICES AND CO-CONSPIRATORS), GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, GE INDIA INDUSTRIAL PRIVATE LIMITED, AND OF THE PRINCIPAL CORPORATE OFFICERS OF GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY AND GE INDIA INDUSTRIAL PRIVATE LIMITED (MR JEFFREY IMMELT, MR.(A) Issue notice to the Medical Council of India and to the Medical Council of Delhi both in the writ petition and in this application, and direct them to take cognizance of the Petitioner's complaints that in June, July, August, and September 2011, the following hospitals and doctors participated in the conspiracy and attempts to murder/eliminate the petitioner (a whistleblower) as described hereinabove Apollo Hospital, Delhi(i) Dr. Alok Aggarwal(ii) Dr Hariharan(iii) Dr Nalin Nag(iv) Dr P K Ghosh Max Gurgaon and Max Saket Hospitals(i) Dr Sushum Sharma(ii) Dr S K Das/ Dass(iii) Dr Ashish Jain(iv) Dr Nevin Kishore W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 61 of 100W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 61 of 100(v) Dr Sandeep Budhiraja(vi) Dr Debajyoti Chaudhuri(vii) Dr Nisha Dabas(viii) Dr Anupam Goel(ix) Dr Akshay Shukla(x) Dr Manoj Sharma(xi) Dr Mohan Bhargava(xii) Doctors who attended to petitioner in Max Saket emergency on 12 August 2011(xiii) Dr Alka Ashmita Singhal(xiv) Dr Varun Katyal(xv) Dr Sonali Vatsa (B) Direct the cancellation of the medical licences of the following hospitals and the disbarment from medical practice of the following doctors Apollo Hospital, Delhi(i) Dr Alok Aggarwal(ii) Dr Hariharan(iii) Dr Nalin Nag(iv) Dr P K Ghosh Max Gurgaon and Max Saket Hospitals(i) Dr Sushum Sharma(ii) Dr S K Das/ Dass(iii) Dr Ashish Jain(iv) Dr Nevin Kishore(v) Dr Sandeep Budhiraja(vi) Dr Debajyoti Chaudhuri W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 62 of 100W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 62 of 100(vii) Dr Nisha Dabas(viii) Dr Anupam Goel(ix) Dr Akshay Shukla(x) Dr Manoj Sharma(xi) Dr Mohan Bhargava(xii) Doctors who attended to petitioner in Max Saket emergency on 12 August 2011(xv) Dr Sonali Vatsa (C) Direct the State respondents and other appropriate authorities to investigate and prosecute the following doctors and their accomplices (including other un-named doctors and hospital administrators) for conspiracy and attempt to murder/ eliminate the petitioner (a whistleblower who has exposed General Electric corruption) Apollo Hospital, Delhi(i) Dr Alok Aggarwal(ii) Dr Hariharan(iii) Dr Nalin Nag(iv) Dr P K Ghosh Max Gurgaon and Max Saket Hospitals(i) Dr Sushum Sharma(ii) Dr S K Das/ Dass(iii) Dr Ashish Jain(iv) Dr Nevin Kishore(v) Dr Sandeep Budhiraja(vi) Dr Debajyoti Chaudhuri W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 63 of 100W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 63 of 100(vii) Dr Nisha DabasFurther, for looking into corruption, a statutory body being the CVC exists, and it is not that merely if the petitioner utters 'mantras' of corruption therefore merely on that ground alone PIL should be entertained.This we are stating because in innumerable number of pleadings of the petitioner and in the hearings before the Court, allegations are made that the respondents are wanting to cover up corruption and in fact petitioner has also (without directly saying so), made innuendoes against different Benches of this Court of trying to cover up corruption by not giving the reliefs as claimed in the writ petition by allowing of the writ petition.In our opinion, if a petitioner in a PIL is allowed to keep on expanding the contours of the PIL petition to keep on including every subsequent tender then a PIL will never come to an end.We therefore refuse to look into the allegations made by the petitioner in her various applications and affidavits by which even the subsequent tender process of the year 2013 is being questioned by the petitioner.It is impermissible to expand the scope of the writ petition to a totally new cause of action, and we therefore decline the prayer of the petitioner to expand the scope of the writ petition to allow the petitioner to question the 2013 tenders, much less on account of gross mala fides of the petitioner as already detailed above and whose entitlement to file a PIL on the subject matters, we reject lock, stock and barrel.None of the neighbours of the petitioner can be said to have tried to poison the petitioner.None of the hospitals and the doctors alleged by the petitioner have also ever tried to poison or kill the petitioner.There is no basis whatsoever in the allegations against Delhi police and some of its W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 94 of 100 personnel trying to kill the petitioner or harass the petitioner.All allegations made by the petitioner are baseless and self-serving allegations which merit total and complete rejection by this Court.In fact, petitioner is not a whistle blower but is a disgruntled ex-employee of the respondent no.1 and whose services were terminated prematurely and seeing the conduct of the petitioner so far as this writ petition is concerned, we are sure that G.E obviously would not have been able to tolerate the employment of the petitioner with it.W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 94 of 100(ii) We would also like to note that issues of threat perception and threat assessment are left to the requisite authorities being the Delhi Police and the Ministry of Home Affairs and both these authorities have filed affidavits in this Court that there is no threat perception to the petitioner and we completely agree with the stands taken by the Delhi Police.However the concerned official has given strict instructions to the security at the India Habitat Centre and also to the Beat staff of the local police to look after and secure the petitioner.The copy of D.D. entry showing the visit by W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 97 of 100 police official from Police Station Lodhi Colony are annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-R3/4 (colly).W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 96 of 100W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 97 of 100The complaints made till date by the petitioner to the police have been duly enquired into and found to be highly imaginative and/or an exaggerated narration of fact which discloses no cause for apprehension to either her life or person.The allegation of being drugged/poisoned at the house by the neighbour through holes in her tenanted house were enquired and no such hole was found to have existed.Further allegation of poising through overhead water tank were also frivolous in as much as there exist a single tank on the top through which water is supplied to all the 3 floors of the rented premises and no such problem was informed by anyone living in the other floors of the building.The petitioner had made numerous complaints however nothing substantial was found in the complaint despite enquiry/investigation by the police officials.It is submitted that the allegation of terrorization/intimidation by the Delhi police are entirely false and frivolous.The allegation of conspiracy by the police to isolate the petitioner are also baseless and ill founded.The allegation of being terrorized by alleged harassment by the police are also baseless."We completely agree with the stands taken up by the Delhi Police and the Ministry of Home Affairs in this regard.Petitioner in the guise of making allegations of threat to human life has in fact caused W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 98 of 100 misery, harassment and turmoil to innumerable number of people including her neighbours, Delhi Police, doctors and even advocates of this Court.Though it may not be relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition, it may be noted that the petitioner who is an advocate has been restrained from going into the canteens of the lawyers of this Court because petitioner kept on making allegations even against lawyers that lawyers were trying to poison her.Petitioner therefore only has access to this court as a lawyer for approaching the courts and not for using the areas to which other advocates have access such as canteens etc.W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 98 of 100The present writ petition was never a genuine PIL and it was only an action of a disgruntled employee who was thrown out of her employment and such a petitioner/employee through this PIL is seeking to take vendetta against her erstwhile employer with whom she has enmity.In view of the above, the various orders passed by this Court, and the wild and reckless allegations made by the petitioner against all and W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 99 of 100 sundry including Hon'ble Judges of this Court and the Supreme Court, the present is a classic case of abuse of PIL process where the writ petition must be and is accordingly dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 2 lacs to be deposited within 3 months with the Delhi High Court Legal Aid Services Authority and payment of which costs shall be a condition precedent for the petitioner to initiate any fresh independent litigation on any of the subject matters of the present proceedings.All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 99 of 100VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J P.S.TEJI, J MARCH 02, 2015 ib/dkg/KA W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 100 of 100W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 100 of 100
|
['Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
101,216,192 |
For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.Let the record of the courts below be sent for.Also heard on IA No. 4496/2016, an application for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 337 (11 counts) of IPC fine of Rs. 500 on each count, under Section 338 of IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 6 months and fine of Rs.100/- & under Section 304-A of IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 2 years and fine of Rs.200/-.It is further submitted that applicant is in jail since 07.05.2013 and the fine amount has already been deposited by the learned counsel for the applicant.Learned Panel Lawyer opposed the prayer of the applicant.In view of the aforesaid submission and taking into account the period of detention of the applicant and that there is no likelihood of the revision being heard in near future, I deem it appropriate to suspend the jail sentence imposed on the applicant.Accordingly, without commenting on merits, this application (I.A.No.4496/2016 ) is allowed.Hanumant Singh shall remain suspended and he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousands only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate, for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 6 t h September, 2016 and on such further dates as may be directed by the Registry of this Court in that regard.Certified copy as per rules.(Alok Aradhe) Vacation Judge sarathe
|
['Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
101,229,383 |
and a diary was also lodged at Beliaghata P.S. on the return of the victim.P.W.6 had purchased medicines for the victim and administered them to his wife.The treatment was done by one Dr. S.K. Hajra and not in any hospital.The incident was informed to P.W.6 by the victim after 3 to 4 days of the incident at his house.P.W.8 is the owner of A Section of Chalantika Lodge and from the Salary Register produced it appears that the appellant no.1 was working in 8 the said lodge.Between 26th September 1996 and 30th September 1996 the appellant no.1 was on leave.P.W.9 who is the owner of Block 'B' of Chalantika Lodge.He produced the acquittance roll for the first time in Court.This related to the second appellant.The acquittance roll had not been produced before the I.O.P.W.12, the I.O. has admitted that no sketch map was prepared for Abakash Lodge and in the Sketch Map prepared by him there is no mention of Chalantika Lodge.Non-mentioning in the Sketch Map of the Lodge by name will not disprove the case of the prosecution as the I.O. in his evidence has specifically stated that the place of occurrence was Chalantika Lodge.Therefore, the place of occurrence has been identified.Therefore the order of conviction and sentence be upheld.Having considered the submissions of the parties, the charge levelled against the appellants was initially under Sections 342, 376 and 323 IPC in respect of Chalantika Lodge and 376/34 IPC in respect of Abakash Lodge.In respect of the Charge under Section 323 I.P.C. the appellants have been acquitted.Therefore, that leaves us with the charge under 9 Sections 376 and 342 I.P.C. There is no Charge under Section 342 I.P.C. framed against the appellants in respect of Abakash Lodge.The appellant no.2 was not medically examined as will appear from the evidence of P.W.7 (I.O.) who has further gone to state along with P.W. 12 (I.O.) that the medical report of the appellant no.2 was not collected.In fact P.W.7 did not find anything incriminating against the appellant no.2 in the Chargesheet.Therefore without the appellant no.2 being medically examined, the order of conviction and sentence passed against him cannot stand and is accordingly set aside.P.W. 5, the victim has stated in her evidence that she was wrongfully confined by the appellant No.1 at Chalantika Lodge.She has also stated in her cross-examination by the defence for the appellant No.l that the windows of the said hotels could be closed from inside the room where she was staying.Therefore, she could have opened the said windows from inside.But no such attempt was made by her either in Chalantika Lodge or in Abakash Lodge, from where the assistance of the manager was taken to escape.She has not mentioned of any attempt made by her to escape from Chalantika Lodge.The victim has also stated that she has read upto Class- VIII and that she raised a hue and cry in both the said hotels.Boarders came to her rescue but they could not enter or help her as the doors were closed.Doors can be closed in two ways either from outside or from inside.If it was closed from inside, it was well within the powers of the victim to 10 open the doors and if it was closed from outside it could have been broken by the boarders who came to her rescue.Therefore, since 20th September, 1996 to 30th September, 1996 no attempt was made by the victim to flee from the clutches of the appellants or from the said lodge and although initially we were not inclined to deal with the term under Section 342 I.P.C. but in the light of such evidence we cannot but hold that even the charge under Section 342 I.P.C. was not established by the prosecution.Digha is situated in the Contai Sub-division of East Midnapore commonly known as Purba Midnapore.Therefore, the Contai Sub- divisional Hospital would cover the area of Digha.The victim has stated in her evidence that her paternal house was at Palpara, P.S. Patashpur under Contai Sub-division and that she after marriage used to go to her father's house.If that be so it is unlikely that the victim will not know the place where she was brought by the appellants.Therefore, to believe the victim that she never came to Digha prior to the incident is unbelievable.On 3rd October, 1996 admittedly the victim escaped.But the F.I.R. was filed only on 3rd April, 1997 and no reason has also been assigned nor any explanation given for such delay.No reason has also been assigned for the delay.On the contrary the victim is a married lady and a major and the reason for the delay of 6 months remains unexplained.While P.W.6, the husband of the victim has stated that medicines were purchased by him for his wife and that she was treated by one private doctor namely, Doctor S.K. Hajra.This was the first time when the victim was being administered medicines and no document in respect thereof has been exhibited.The boy aged 10-12 years who entered the room of the victim in Chalantika Lodge disclosed to her that she was taken to the lodge by a blue colour ambassador.But the boy has not been examined.The manager who helped the victim to flee from Abakash Lodge has also not been examined and it is quite possible that in the event the said two persons if examined their evidence would have gone against the case of the prosecution.No F.I.R. was filed on 4th October, 1996 i.e., immediately on return of the victim.Although P.W.6 has stated in his evidence that he sent a complaint 12 to Digha Police Station by registered post on 15.11.1996, P.W.12 has denied receipt thereof.P.W.6 has stated in his cross-examination that though he lodged a diary at Beliaghata P.S. but he did not remember the date on which it was lodged.Later in the cross-examination he has said after 3 to 4 days of the incident his wife, the victim narrated the incident to him and he did not lodge any information with Beliaghata P.S. or complain to Digha P.S. Therefore the evidence of P.W.6 regarding the filing the F.I.R. by registered post or otherwise prior to 3.4.1997 cannot be accepted.In fact the F.I.R. which was sent by registered post on 15.11.1996 according to P.W.6, the husband, cannot be believed in view of the evidence of I.O., P.W.12 who has categorically stated that he did not receive it.From a reading of the medical examination Report of the victim (Exhibit 5) no injury was found in the private parts of the victim.The victim in her cross-examination has stated that she tried to resist the appellants from committing forcible rape upon her by placing her two thighs together and it was because of such forcible sexual abuse that her private parts were injured and blood was coming out.She had also bitten the appellants who tried to commit forcible sexual abuse upon her.She had resisted them with her two hands and in fact blood was coming out from the cheek of the appellants.If this be true then violence was inflicted on her and some sign of violence would have been detected in her private parts.But this does not emerge from a reading of the medical report.No bruise has also been found on her.Admittedly, there were two.Chalantika Lodge and Abakash Lodge.P.W.12 in his evidence has stated that he started the investigation and prepared the sketch map.According to him, no sketch map of Abakash Lodge was prepared.Therefore, Abakash Lodge was not fixed.He has further gone to state in his evidence that the sketch map prepared by him relates to Chalantika Lodge although he admits that there is no mention in the sketch map of Chalanatika Lodge.He tried to explain P.O. mentioned in the index as Chalantika Lodge.This in fact is not what appears from the sketch map and the explanation sought to be given in his evidence therefore, cannot be accepted.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 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.
|
101,235,930 |
He has his shop at Marol Naka, Andheri (East), which runs in the name and style of N.P.Jewelers.At the material time, one Palash Patra and one Santo Maiti were working with him as his employees, in his shop.On 6th August 2006, Sanjay Das (PW1) was in his shop with his employee Palash.The third one - Santo Maiti - had gone out.At about 9.55 a.m., one person entered in the shop.He was having a avk 2/19 ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2015 23:58:57 ::: 9-APPEAL-649-2009.doc revolver in his hands.He threatened Sanjay Das to keep quite.At that time, another person entered into the shop.He was having a knife with him.He gave blows to Sanjay Das and asked him to sit.Sanjay Das, therefore, was inclined to instinctly believe the appellant to be the third culprit.Even if he did not intend to deliberately speak a lie, avk 11/19 ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2015 23:58:57 ::: 9-APPEAL-649-2009.doc the statement made by him that he identified three persons in the T.I.Parade obviously shows his determination to support the prosecution case that the three who were prosecuted were the culprits.dated 7th March 2009 delivered by the 4th Ad-Hoc Additional Sessions Judge at Sewree, Mumbai, in Sessions Case No.536 of 2007 convicting the appellant, who was the accused in the said case, of offences punishable under Sections 392 and 341 of Indian avk 1/19 ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2015 23:58:57 ::: 9-APPEAL-649-2009.doc Penal Code (IPC).The learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge imposed a sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for 4 years and a fine of Rs.500/- with respect to the offence punishable under Section 392 of the IPC, and a sentence of Simple Imprisonment for 1 month and a fine of Rs.200/- with respect to the offence punishable under Section 341 of the IPC.Being aggrieved by the conviction and the sentences imposed upon him, the appellant has filed the present appeal.::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2015 23:58:57 :::2 The prosecution case, as put forth before the trial court, in brief, be stated thus :::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2015 23:58:57 :::Then, the third one entered in the shop and closed the door thereof.The third person then collected all the jewelery articles from the shop and put them in a plastic bag which was already with him.The person with the revolver then asked Sanjay Das for the key of the safe.Sanjay Das did not tell him anything, but then that person lifted the key which was on the drawer and went inside the inner room, opened the safe and took some cash.At that time, Santo Maiti, who had gone outside, came back and knocked the door of the shop.The hands of Sanjay Das had been tied with rope by one of the said three persons i.e. the second person, who had entered the shop with a knife.When the culprits were attempting to run away, Sanjay Das, who had by that time succeeded in loosening the rope tied on his hands and had got himself freed, caught the person who was holding the plastic bag containing the robbed property.Then, the person who was having revolver started beating Sanjay Das, as a result of which, the avk 3/19 ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2015 23:58:57 ::: 9-APPEAL-649-2009.doc person who had been caught by Sanjay Das escaped.Sanjay Das, however, then caught the person having revolver.Sanjay Das started shouting chor-chor.Members of public gathered there.::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2015 23:58:57 :::Two of the culprits ran away but the one who had been caught by Sanjay Das could not run away and was handed over to the police.Some part of the robbed property was recovered from the possession of the said person, whose name was revealed to be Ashraf Ali.3 In the course of investigation, two more persons came to be arrested - one Premsing Thakur, and the present appellant -Arshad Ali.He was said to be the second person, who had entered the shop of Sanjay Das, and who, as aforesaid, was having a knife in his hand.He is said to be the third person who had entered inside the shop and who had put the robbed property in a plastic bag and had taken the same away.::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2015 23:58:57 :::the other two - Ashraf Ali and Premsing Thakur - were prosecuted separately.The said case was decided on 16th April 2007 by another Ad-Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sewree, Mumbai, who convicted Ashraf Ali, but acquitted Premsing Thakur by giving benefit of doubt to him.5 I have heard Mr.Dilip Mishra, the learned counsel for the appellant, and Mrs.M.R.Tidke, the learned APP for the State.With their assistance, I have gone through the entire evidence adduced during the trial and the impugned judgment.He submitted that the nature of evidence available against the said Premsing Thakur and the nature of evidence available against the present appellant being the same, the appellant also should be acquitted.There is no substance in this contention, in as much as, Premsing Thakur and the appellant were tried separately in two different and separate trials.It is not that the evidence that was adduced against Premsing Thakur during that trial that led to his acquittal was identical to that brought before the trial court in the present case.As such, only because the said Premsingh Thakur has been acquitted, the appellant cannot be acquitted, and the case against the appellant needs to be viewed independently on the basis of the evidence that was adduced against him.As a matter of fact, the judgment of acquittal of Premsing Thakur would not even be relevant in the trial of the appellant.::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2015 23:58:57 :::7 It is clear that the appellant made good his escape from the spot.It is also clear that the appellant was not previously known to Sanjay Das or the other witnesses - Palash avk 6/19 ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2015 23:58:57 ::: 9-APPEAL-649-2009.doc Patra and Santo Maiti, who had seen the culprits.During the trial, Palash Patra and Santo Maiti were not examined as witnesses.::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2015 23:58:57 :::The evidence against the appellant consists of his identification as one of the three culprits, made by Sanjay Das, and the circumstance of the recovery of a part of the robbed property at the instance of the appellant, and allegedly, pursuant to the information disclosed by him.8 Since the other witnesses who could have identified he appellant have not been examined, the identification evidence consists solely of Sanjay Das.This evidence, therefore, needs to be carefully examined.The appellant was apprehended on 11th March 2007 i.e. after about seven months from the incident.::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2015 23:58:57 :::taken to Arthur Road jail by the police and there he identified all the three culprits, who had entered the shop.This suggests that all the three culprits were placed in the identification parade, but this, admittedly, is incorrect, and not the case of the prosecution at all.The other two - Ashraf Ali and Premsing Thakur - were tried together in a separate case, but even at that time, there was no question of Ashraf Ali being put for identification in any T.I.Parade, in as much as, he was apprehended on the spot.Thus, this statement of Sanjay Das, which is admittedly incorrect, creates a doubt as to whether the T.I.Parade was held at all.11 We may, nevertheless, examine the evidence of Smt.Raeesa Gill, the Special Executive Officer, who is said to have conducted the T.I.Parade in the Arthur Road jail.According to her, Sanjay Das as well as Palash Patra, both, took part in the T.I.Parade, and both of them identified the appellant as one of the culprits.In her cross examination, she, however, stated that the accused persons were shown to her by the jail authorities in an avk 8/19 ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2015 23:58:57 ::: 9-APPEAL-649-2009.doc open place.She stated that she had no talk with the appellant, and that, she did not ask him whether he had been shown to the identifying witnesses by the police.::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2015 23:58:57 :::12 The learned trial Judge has held the evidence of the T.I.Parade unsatisfactory.He observed that Sanjay Das had sufficient opportunity to see the culprits properly and could identify them.The learned Judge did not pay much attention to the contention advanced by the defence that Sanjay Das claimed avk 9/19 ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2015 23:58:57 ::: 9-APPEAL-649-2009.doc to have identified three culprits in one identification parade, which was obviously and admittedly wrong, as the learned Judge was of the view that from the circumstances, 'it was obvious that only the appellant was placed in the T.I.Parade.' In this regard, it is not possible to agree with the learned Judge.The question was not about the factual position, but the question was - what inference should be drawn from the claim of Sanjay Das that he identified three culprits in one parade, when that was factually incorrect and when that was not the case of the prosecution at all.::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2015 23:58:57 :::13 When there were a number of shortcomings in the T.I.Parade as observed by the learned trial Judge himself, the evidence of the T.I.Parade could not be usefully taken into consideration to corroborate the evidence of identification of the appellant as one of the culprits, as given by Sanjay Das during the trial.It may be added that a defective T.I.Parade can be worse than not holding any T.I.Parade at all, as, after the defective identification parade, the subsequent identification made by an identifying witness in the court, is likely to be of the person seen by him during the T.I.Parade, and not of the persons seen by him at the time of the offence.The memory of the identifying witness would be about the person seen by him in the T.I.Parade and not about the person seen by him at the time of the incident.::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2015 23:58:57 :::14 Sanjay Das had already deposed in the previous trial held against the other two accused Ashraf Ali and Premsingh Thakur, and was clearly aware of the fact that the appellant against whom he was deposing, was the third culprit.In the instant case, therefore, it would be difficult to rely on the evidence of identification, which was done after a period of about seven months from the date of incident, without any corroboration.::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2015 23:58:57 :::15 It may now be examined whether the other circumstance, viz., the recovery of part of the robbed property allegedly at the instance of the appellant, leads sufficient corroboration to the evidence of identification of the appellant as the culprit.16 In this regard, the case of the prosecution is that on 16th March 2007, the appellant disclosed certain information before Maruti Jadhav, the Investigating Officer (PW8) and panchas - Jagdish Bishnoi (PW3) and Shashikant Dabhade, pursuant to which the police party and panchas were led to the avk 12/19 ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2015 23:58:57 ::: 9-APPEAL-649-2009.doc jewelery shop of Atish Parekh (PW5) at Khadki, near Pune, from where gold ornaments of different descriptions totally weighing 65 grams came to be recovered.To come to a conclusion as to whether part of the robbed property was indeed recovered pursuant to the information disclosed by the appellant, the evidence of the panch Jagdish Bishnoi (PW3), the jeweler Atish Parekh and Maruti Jadhav, Investigating Officer (PW8) needs to be examined.Jagdish Bishnoi does speak about his being called at the Police station on 16th March 2007, and the appellant who was in the custody of the police, disclosing certain information.He also states that after disclosure of the said information, the panchas and the police, by a private vehicle, left for Pune.That, they went to the shop of Sanghvi Jewelers which was pointed out by the appellant and then the appellant disclosed some further information.That, certain gold ornaments totally weighing about 6½ tolas were given to the police by the shopkeeper.These ornaments were shown to Jagdish Bishnoi in the court and he identified the Articles 20 Collectively, 21, 22, 23 and 24 as the same that were taken charge of by the police under a avk 13/19 ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2015 23:58:57 ::: 9-APPEAL-649-2009.doc panchnama.In the cross-examination, it was revealed that he himself is in the business of fabrication having his shop at Sahar Village.The shop is situated at a walking distance of about four minutes from Sahar Police Station.It is revealed that he was already acquainted with A.P.I. Jadhav.He was unable to give the number of the car by which the police party and panchas went to Pune, which he described as 'a white coloured Sumo car.' According to him, the information that was given by the shopkeeper was that the ornaments had been sold by the appellant to him about eight to nine months prior to the date, on which the police party and panchas had gone there.::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2015 23:58:57 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2015 23:58:57 :::17 The evidence of Atish Parekh also supports the case of the prosecution, as he indeed says that the appellant had come to the shop and had sold certain gold ornaments to him.Quite interestingly, he is unable to say how much was paid by him to the appellant for the said ornaments and says that he paid him 'Rs.30,000 to 35,000/-'.According to him, the appellant had come to him with his old customer, and that, that is why he avk 14/19 ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2015 23:58:57 ::: 9-APPEAL-649-2009.doc purchased the ornaments from the appellant.He was, however, unable to give the name or details of the said 'old customer.' Similar is the evidence of Maruti Jadhav, Investigating Officer (PW8) about the recovery of the ornaments allegedly at the instance of the appellant.::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2015 23:58:57 :::18 According to me, the evidence regarding the recovery of the part of the robbed property, at the instance of the appellant, is not satisfactory, for a number of reasons.19 Maruti Jadhav, Investigating Officer (PW8) has admitted in the cross-examination that before leaving jurisdiction and local limits of the Police station, it would be necessary to inform the superiors, but in this case, he had not given any letter to his superiors.He claimed that he left the Police station with the directions of one Police Inspector Shri Shrirang Dhumale.However, P.I.Shrirang Dhumale, who was examined as prosecution witness no.7, does not speak about any such direction being given by him to Maruti Jadhav.There is also no clarification avk 15/19 ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2015 23:58:57 ::: 9-APPEAL-649-2009.doc as to why the police party and the panchas went to Pune by a private vehicle and from where the private vehicle was brought.::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2015 23:58:57 :::There is also no record of the police party and the panchas traveling by a private vehicle to Pune.The crucial aspect, therefore is, 'whether the identity of the property said to have been recovered from the shop of Atish Parekh as being a part of the robbed property, is satisfactorily established.' Interestingly, it appears that, when the other two accused were prosecuted, as aforesaid, vide a separate sessions case, some property was said to have been recovered at the instance of Premsing Thakur - accused no.2 in the said case, and that the description of the property recovered at his instance, and that allegedly recovered at the instance of the appellant, is same.This has been observed by the avk 16/19 ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2015 23:58:57 ::: 9-APPEAL-649-2009.doc learned trial Judge also (paragraph 19 of the impugned judgment).The learned Judge, however, reasoned that during the robbery, a bunch of similar type of ornaments was taken away, and that, therefore, there would be nothing wrong if ornaments of similar description were recovered from the appellant and also from the other accused, who, as aforesaid, was tried separately.If one has to reason this way, the fact remains that the articles recovered are of a general description without any identification mark or special identification marks.Sanjay Das has admitted in his evidence that there were no special identification marks on the articles.What is further interesting to see is that the articles in question were not shown at all to Atish Parekh during his evidence.He was not asked whether the articles in question were the same which had been handed over by him to the police.::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2015 23:58:57 :::21 The evidence of recovery of the part of the robbed property at the instance of the appellant is open to a reasonable doubt.It may also be observed in this context that, in the first place, there was no reason for Atish Parekh, who deals in jewelery, avk 17/19 ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2015 23:58:57 ::: 9-APPEAL-649-2009.doc to keep the articles as it is for a period of about nine months, though he had purchased the same.Why did he keep those articles separately, is not clear.::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2015 23:58:57 :::22 For connecting a person with the offence of robbery on the basis that the robbed property came to be recovered at his instance, the identity of the property as the same must be established beyond reasonable doubt.When the property is an ordinary article found anywhere, it would be difficult to place reliance on the circumstance of the alleged recovery of such property at the instance of a person, to connect him with the offence of theft or robbery.23 In this case, neither the evidence of identification of the appellant as one of the culprits was satisfactory, nor was the evidence of recovery of a part of the robbed property at his instance, was satisfactory.Sanjay Das had already given evidence in a previous case and was fully aware of the facts of the case, and also the fact that the appellant, who was yet to the prosecuted, was the third accused in the case.::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2015 23:58:57 :::given the benefit of the doubt which indeed arises about the guilt of the appellant and should have acquitted him.The order of conviction being not in accordance with law, needs to be set aside.25 The appeal is allowed.The impugned judgment and order of conviction and the sentences imposed upon the appellant are set aside.The appellant is acquitted.The appellant, however, has committed the breach of the bail bond executed by him.The trial court shall, therefore, take necessary steps to recover the amount of the bond from the appellant and his surety, in accordance with law.The trial court shall report compliance to this court.The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2015 23:58:57 :::
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
101,241,441 |
In the said charge sheet, it has been alleged that A-1 whilefunctioning as Branch Manager was instructed by his Controlling Officers todisburse loans to the employees of Railways and other organisations onlyafter obtaining an undertaking from their employers (borrowers) that themonthly installment of repayment of loan will be deducted from theirsalaries as primary security and also to obtain a mortgage on the plotssold to the borrowers through M/s A.P. Enterprises.A-1 fraudulently anddishonestly disbursed 494 loans of Rs. 10,000/- each to various railwayemployees amounting to Rs. 49,40,000/- and credited the proceeds to theaccount of A-2 without obtaining the requisite undertaking from theemployers and without proper security of monthly installments to bededucted from their salaries.At therelevant time, A-2 was the proprietor of M/s A.P. Enterprises, Guntur.According to the prosecution, A-1 being a public servant and Branch Managerof the Central Bank of India, Guntur, entered into a criminal conspiracywith A-2 in order to defraud the Bank.This proposal was to bebacked by A-2 by arranging Foreign Currency Non-Resident (FCNR) Depositsfor the Bank and in return for the sanction of loans to the employees ofcentral and state government for purchase of house sites through M/s A.P.Enterprises and A-2 also offered to (a) procure approval from the competentauthorities responsible for disbursing salaries to the employees/borrowersto ensure that the amount so lent would be deducted from their salary and(b) equitable mortgage of the proposed land to be executed.6) It is further seen that the proposal of September, 1990 was forwardedby A-1 to the Zonal Office proposing the Scheme for 109 borrowerscontaining a mechanism whereby a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to 25,000/- would belent by the Bank to the Central Government employees (South CentralRailway) to purchase plots of land (approx.Further, A-2failed to register the plots in the name of almost 50% of thepurchasers/borrowers despite having received the proceeds and therebycausing wrongful loss to the Bank as well as to the purchasers.According to him, at the most, it mayamount to dereliction of duty.It is also his stand that, in any event,the Bank authorities themselves agreed to provide a loan to the extent of40% of the deposits mobilized by A-2 in the form of FCNR.8) It is highlighted by A-2 that as per the understanding, FCNR Depositswere provided to the Bank to the tune of Rs. 8 crores for a period of 3years on which the Bank earned enormous interest.It is also highlightedthat at the relevant time, the Bank had no deposits at all and the interestthey have to be paid which is in banking terms called as “call money” wasup to 70% to 75%.It was further projected that when the Bank was in needof money that too in the form of FCNR because of financial crisis, it was A-2 who took a lot of pains and provided such deposits to the tune of morethan Rs. 8 crores.It is also highlighted by A-2 that after the sanctionof the loans, the loanees, who were all central government employees wereselected by the Bank officials after verifying their genuineness, salarycertificates or otherwise etc.9) It is seen that A-2 has purchased 60 acres of land at GorentlaVillage, near Guntur and other places which fact was known to the employeesand approximately 463 plots were registered in the name of respectiveloanees/borrowers.It is the stand of A-2 that the said loanees handedover the Registered Sale Deeds to the Bank for creating equitablemortgages. A-2 further contended that he could not execute any furtherregistered sale deeds due to non release of 40% of the loan amount againstthe FCNR Deposits arranged by him to the Bank as agreed.It is alsohighlighted by A-2 that all the plots were approved by the authorities andthere were no encumbrance on the house sites procured by him.Inasmuch as the Bank itself got the decree for the entire loanamount including interest, A-2 never cheated the Bank or anybody in thisregard and he had no intention to cheat the bank or the purchasers of theplots who had availed the loans from the Bank.The proposal was recommended stating that the loans werefully secured against collateral security and temporary over draft facilitysecured against equitable mortgage of the landed property by theguarantors.On the basis of the proposal, when certainclarifications were sought for by the Zonal Officer, A-1 sent a letterdated 22.12.1990 to the Zonal Office stating: (i) the value of the land wasRs.90,000/- per acre; (ii) take home salary of the employees was Rs. 1,000and 2,500/- at Guntur and Visakhapatnam respectively and (iii) letters ofundertaking has already been obtained from government employees.Finally,on 22.12.1990, a letter was sent to the Chief Managing Director, CentralOffice, Mumbai for the consideration of A-2’s proposal.It is seen fromthe prosecution evidence that the proposal was forwarded on therecommendation of the Branch Manager (A-1) mainly on the basis of theavailability of FCNR Deposits.However, Exh. P-139 shows that on09.01.1991, a letter was issued by Central Office to the Zonal Office ofthe Bank with reference to the letter dated 22.12.1990 stating that theproposal is declined due to funds constraint.Subsequently, i.e., on07.02.1991, sanction for term loans varying between Rs. 10,000/-to 25,000/-each to 1,000 beneficiaries subject to the additional terms and conditionswas granted.As per the additional terms and conditions, a letter ofundertaking from every government employees has to be obtained.11) It is pointed out by the prosecution that on 30.04.1991, A-1 hadwritten a letter to the Railway Senior Divisional Personnel Officer todeduct monthly installments from the salary of employees who have availedthe loans and remit the same to the Bank which is evident from Exh. P-1.In reply to the above, vide letter dated 30.04.1991, the Senior DivisionalPersonnel Officer had stated that there is no provision to recover anyamount without the employee’s consent and that salary may be credited tothe Bank if desired by the employee, provided a bank account is opened inhis name and a consent is received from the employee.A perusal of theabove shows that the condition of sanction of loan even as per the view ofthe Zonal Office on which A-1 relied was not met before the disbursement ofamounts.12) The prosecution, in support of the charges leveled against A-1 and A-2, have examined in all 55 witnesses, however, the defence did not lead anyevidence.E.R. Somayajulu, Branch Manager was examined as PW-1, P.Sreenivasulu, Senior Personnel Officer, S.C. Railway was examined as PW-2,K. V. Subba Rao, the Manager, Central Bank of India, Regional Office wasexamined as PW-3, K.A.L.N. Sharma, Manager, RMV Extension Branch, Bangalorewas examined as PW-4, Namburi Madhavi, Typist and Accountant of A-2 wasexamined as PW-5, S.K. Galeeb, Broker was examined as PW-6, Gunti SubbaRao, another Broker was examined as PW-7, Vulchi Venkayamma, Landlady of PW-5 was examined as PW-8, P. Sesha Rao, the Manager, Central Bank of Indiawas examined as PW-9, the Railway Employees were examined as PWs.As per the additional terms and conditions for sanction of loans togovernment employees, a letter of undertaking from every governmentemployee has to be obtained.In the case on hand, as per the evidence of P.Sesha Rao (PW-9) – the Manager, Central Bank of India, for a total of 957borrowers, only 122 undertaking letters had been obtained.PW-1, BranchManager, Central Bank of India, in his evidence has stated that loans canbe sanctioned only after obtaining undertaking letters of the employer orthe disbursement officer of the employee.He stated in his examinationthat out of 957 loanee employees there were only 122 undertaking lettersfrom the employers.It is also brought to our notice that Shri K.A.L.N.Sharma (PW-4), who at the relevant time worked as Accountant in GunturBranch has proved Exh.97 which shows that A-1 falsely recorded that letterof undertaking from government employees has already been obtained.Inaddition to the same, the contents of the document (Exh. 97) have also beenproved by Shri R. Laxmana Rao (PW-47), Assistant General Manager, RegionalOffice.P-64, Exh.P-67, Exh.P-69, Exh.P-71, Exh.P-72, Exh.P-76, Exh.P-79, Exhs.15) In respect of 45 borrowers identified by the prosecution, there is nocertificate of authorization on record given by the Senior DivisionalPersonnel Officer (DPO) to deduct the salary and remit the same to thebank.Even though A-1 claims that all the transactions were genuine, onusshifts on him to show that he had complied with all therequirements/conditions.Proceeds of loan credited to the account of A-2PW-3, officer of Central Bank of India, in hisexamination has deposed that the amounts sanctioned by the Bank to variousemployees for the purchase of house site were credited to the account of A-The abovestatement of officer of the Bank is also strengthened by the evidence ofNamburi Madhavi - PW-5, Typist and Accountant of A-2 at the relevant time,who has stated in her statement that M/s A.P. Enterprises received in allRs.97,50,000/- from Central Bank of India, Guntur Branch to their creditthrough transfer by debiting from the loan accounts.In this regard, it is relevant to note that PW-3,who was the Manager of Central Bank of India, Bangalore, in his depositionhas stated that the account copy of A-2 shows withdrawal of amounts againstcheques.A-2 issued several cheques which were for cash in his own nameand several other persons including telegraph transfer.Decrees obtained:28) Though it is claimed by A-1 that several decrees have been obtained,it is evident from the evidence of PW-9 that suits were decreed against 956loanees, out of which 494 decrees are simple money decrees and 462 decreesare mortgage decrees.On the other hand,the evidence of PW-6 - broker of house plots, in his chief-examination hasalso stated that the value of lands is Rs.35,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- peracre.A-2, in his statement under Section 313 of the Code has stated thatthe value of the land is Rs.80,000/- to Rs.90,000/- per acre and notRs.35,000/- to Rs.50,000/- per acre.The above details also establish thejoint role played by A-1 and A-2 and their connivance.It also establishesthe active collusion of A-1 and A-2 in cheating the bank and the borrowers.31) Though A-2 has claimed that as requested by the authorities of theCentral Bank of India, he has provided FCNR deposits to the Bank, in fact,provided FCNR deposits to a tune of more than Rs. 8 crores for a period of3 years for which the Bank earned enormous interests.Out of the above mentioned 494 borrowers, 45persons have been identified by the prosecution.It also came to lightthat A-2, after having received the proceeds of the above 45 borrowers,fraudulently and dishonestly did not get 45 plots registered in their namesnor the borrowers get the loan amount from the Bank.(d) Against the said conviction and sentence, A-1 and A-2 filed CriminalAppeal Nos. 602 and 617 of 2001 respectively before the High Court ofAndhra Pradesh at Hyderabad.However, applications wereaccepted and monies were disbursed even after April 30, 1991 vide Exh.P-60, Exh.P-62, Exh.P-63, Exh.In fact, A-1 knows all the procedures andreleased the amounts to the credit of A-2 without fulfilling therequirements/conditions.We have already stated that A-1 was the custodianof the Branch and he has to take the entire responsibility.16) It is the claim of A-1 that all the loans had been sanctioned onlyafter obtaining undertaking letters of the employers/disbursement officersof the employees.The documents, viz., Exhs.P-110-137 have beenproved by PW-2, Senior DPO, Railways, who asserted in his examination inchief that only the Senior D.P.O. is the competent authority to giveauthorization to any bank for remittance of loan instalments from salariesof employees.In other words, if any officer subordinate to Senior D.P.O.issues any authorization, it would not bind South Central Railways.Aperusal of Ex.P-113 shows that the undertaking letter in the instant casehas been obtained from the Chief Traction Foreman, S.C. Railways, who isnot the competent authority to deduct the salary from the employeesaccount.17) Learned Additional Solicitor General -Mr.Sidharth Luthra took usthrough the evidence of railway employees,viz., PWs 10-46 and 48-52 whereinthey admitted that they have not given any undertaking for deduction ofsalary in lieu of the loan for the purpose of purchase of house plots.Itis also highlighted that A-1 in his statement under Section 313 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Code’) has acceptedthat Exhs. P-53 to 95 are the respective loan applications of 43 loaneesout of 957 loanees and were signed by him.He also stated that he obtainedundertaking letters from all the loanees on the registration of sale deedsfor the plots in their names.When such is the position, the statementmade by A-1 that he had obtained undertaking letters from all the loaneesis factually incorrect.As a matter of fact, the trial Court and the HighCourt, after verification of the oral and documentary evidence, has notedthat only 122 undertaking letters have been obtained out of 957 loanees.The above factual details show that A-1 failed to obtain undertakingletters and misrepresented about the same to the higher authorities of theBank.We have already noted and it was also brought to our notice thatobtaining of the undertaking letters was one of the important pre-requisitefor sanctioning of the loans.The claim of A-1 that it is only meredereliction of duty cannot be accepted but as rightly argued by the counselfor the CBI, it was a dishonest representation with intention to cheatcausing wrongful loss to the bank and the borrowers/purchasers of the plotand obtaining the undertaking letters was one of the pre-condition forsanctioning of loans, which A-1 has not fulfilled.Pre-inspection:18) PW-1, in his examination has asserted that as per the Manual ofInstructions of the Central Bank of India, a pre-inspection report isnecessary for disbursement of any loan.He also asserted that inspectionof immovable property is necessary before disbursement.While elaboratingthe same in his evidence, he highlighted that it is necessary to verify thetitle deeds and these have to be obtained by the Branch Manager as securityfor the loan by way of the equitable mortgage.In addition to the evidenceof PW-1, the prosecution has pressed into service, the evidence of PW-3.In his examination, PW-3 has stated that as per the instructions of A-1, heverified the names of the persons shown in the list given by A-1 withmuster rolls available at South Central Railway, Guntur Section.19) It is relevant to note the evidence of PWs 6 and 7, who were thebrokers of the house plots, who have stated in their examination in chiefthat the lands in question were rain fed lands before forming into plots.It is further seen from his evidencethat at one point of time when bank officials visited the plots oncomplaints being received by them for non-allotment of the same, A-2destroyed the crops on the land and placed survey stones.This factualinformation shows that the land which was sold to the Bank and theborrowers was (a) agricultural land; (b) land for which permission wasnever granted; and (c) rain fed lands and the conduct of destroying thecrops to mislead officials leads to dishonest intention.A-1being a Branch Manager cannot delegate the responsibility of pre-inspectionand reports thereon to anyone and he was permitted to sanction loans anddisburse the amounts only after his satisfaction.About the relationshipof A-1 and A-2, PW-5 an employee of A-2 stated in her deposition that A-1visited the office of A-2 many a times.In fact, this has been admitted byA-1 in his 313 statement that he visited the office of A-2 though forinspection only.In this regard, itis useful to refer the statement made by A-1 under Section 313 of the Codewherein he admitted that he was obtaining equitable mortgage and as no saledeeds were present for 494 loanees, hence, getting equitable mortgage doesnot arise.24) The evidence of PW-3 shows that for all the 957 loanees, no SavingsBank accounts were opened at the bank except for few.It is brought to ournotice that the letter (Exh. P-2) from Senior D.P.O Railways to A-1 showsthat only after employees consent to the amount being deducted, it can becredited to the bank provided that a bank account is opened for therespective employee.It is the responsibility of A-1 and in fact he didnot ensure that bank accounts were opened for the employees which wouldensure crediting of installments into the bank account.In view of thematerials available, the prosecution has rightly established that A-1 haswillfully evaded his duty of opening bank accounts leaving the Bank withoutany recourse to receive monthly installments.25) PW-4, who was working as an Accountant in the Central Bank of Indiaduring the period from August, 1988 to November,1991, has deposed thatall the applications for advance and their letters and term loan agreementsincluding sanction and disbursement covered by debit vouchers (Exhs.The stand of A-2 that his failure to allot 494 plots was becauseof the default of the Bank in not releasing 40% of FCNR deposit is notacceptable as the materials placed by the prosecution shows that he hasreceived the entire amount of 957 loan proceeds, though the present case islimited to 45 loanees identified by the prosecution.27) The materials placed by the prosecution clearly establish that A-2received monies from the Bank corresponding to the loans supposedly drawnby the Railway employees.These amounts were intended for the purpose ofpurchase of plots.Further, it makes it clear that 126 loanees createdequitable mortgage and expressed willingness for sale of plots and creditof the proceeds to their respective loan accounts, which was approved bythe Regional office.It is further seen that 30 borrowers sold their plotstowards discharge of their loan accounts and only one loanee liquidated theloan.The prosecution established that the bank suffered a loss ofinterest, despite suits filed were decreed for non-payment of the decretalamounts.In such a situation, it is relevant to mention a decision of thisCourt in K.G. Premshanker vs. Inspector of Police & Anr.(2002) 8 SCC 87and R. Venkatkrishnan vs. CBI (2009) 11 SCC 737) wherein it was held thatthe claim in the suit cannot override the criminal prosecution.Payments made to A-1 by A-2:A perusal of the same showsthe details regarding various payments made by A-2 to A-1 on differentdates and in different names.It shows that on 06.03.1991, a sum ofRs.25,000/- was paid by way of cash to N. Subba Rao (A-1).Again on07.04.1991, another sum of Rs.25,000.- was paid by cash to the same person.On 14.05.1991, a sum of Rs. 35,000/- was paid by way of cash to N.S. Raoand again on 28.05.1991, a sum of Rs.20,000/- was paid by way of cash toN.S. Rao (Both N. Subba Rao and N.S. Rao denotes the same person, i.e. A-1).PW-5 has also stated that she was asked by A-2 to preserve thedocument (Ex. P-104) which was accordingly preserved by her at her house.The statement of PW-5 coupled with the entries in Ex. P-104 makes it clearthat A-1 is liable to be prosecuted under Section 13(1)(d) read withSection 13(2) of the P.C. Act and is rightly convicted by the Courts below.30) Regarding the value of the land, it is seen that A-1 without anyenquiry, allowed A-2 to represent higher value which was subsequentlydiscovered by the evidence of PW-6 to be Rs.35,000/- to Rs.50,000/- whichis much lesser to the value of Rs.90,000/- as quoted.
|
['Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
101,245,166 |
Heard on admission.Heard on I.A.No.9229/2018, which is an application for urgent hearing during the summer vacation.Accordingly, the application is dismissed as having been rendered infructuous.Also heard on I.A. No.9227/2018, which is an application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant.The appellant-accused has filed this appeal against the conviction and sentence dated 23/05/2018 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Chattarpur (M.P.) in S.T. No. 24/2014 convicting the appellant-accused under Section 450 of the IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, Section 506 (ii) of the IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 3 months and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and Section 43 (iv) of POCSO Act and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs. 3,000/-, with default stipulation.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and he is in custody since 23.05.2018 and final disposal of this appeal will take time.It has further been submitted that there is no cogent evidence about the age of the prosecutrix, she was above 18 years and the prosecutrix was a consenting party for commission of sexual intercourse.In these circumstances, if the appellant is not released on bail, his purpose to file appeal will be futile.Therefore, the application filed on behalf of appellant be 2 CRA-4155-2018 allowed and the period of his remaining jail sentence be suspended and he be released on bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State has opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.List this case for final hearing in due course as per listing policy.(J. P. GUPTA) JUDGE Digitally signed by SHALINI Sha SINGH LANDGE Date:2018.12.17 20:57:07 -08'00'
|
['Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
101,249,119 |
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik, below Exhibit 1 in Criminal Bail Application No.925 of 2018 is quashed and set aside.iii) The application for anticipatory bail moved by the appellant/accused is allowed.iv) In the event of arrest of the appellant/accused in Crime No.35 of 2018 registered with Nashik Taluka Police Station, at the instance of respondent no.2/First Informant Nirmala Potinde, the appellant/accused be released on bail on his executing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and on furnishing surety in like amount.threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the accusation against him so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police officer.vi) The appellant/accused shall not in any manner tamper with the prosecution witnesses.vii) The appellant/accused should attend the concerned Police Station as and when required by the Investigating Officer for the purpose of investigation.viii) The appeal is disposed off.
|
['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 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.
|
1,012,494 |
ORDER S.K. Verma, J.P. C. The prayer in the application is that proceedings in criminal case No. 44 of 1963 (State v. Fazlul Haq) under Sections 183, 448 and 454, I. P. C. be quashed.The facts giving rise to this application may be briefly summarised as follows.A suit, No. 162 of 1955, was filed in the Court of the 1st Additional Civil Judge of Kanpur by the applicants' own sister Smt. Sultan Jahan Begam for partition of certain family properties including a shop and a running business styled as Messrs. Mohd. Hafeez Mohd. Siddiq, 42/137 Meston Road, Kanpur.On the 18th of November, 1960, the learned Civil Judge appointed one Sri Daya Shanker Mehrotra as Receiver of the properties in suit.On the 19th of November, 1960, the applicants were in possession of the shop in dispute and they moved an application on the same date for the transfer of the case in the Court of the learned District Judge, and the proceedings in the case were stayed.On the 19th of November, 1960, the applicants came to Allahabad to file an appeal against the order of the learned Civil Judge dated 18-11-1960 appointing Sri Daya Shanker Mehrotra as Receiver.On the 20th of November, 1960, the applicants received a telegram from Kanpur informing them that the applicants' locks on the shop in dispute had been tampered with.They thereupon went to Kanpur and entered the shop to find out whether any articles had been removed or not.The Receiver lodged a protest against the applicants' entry into the shop and the Police was also sent for.On the 20th of November, 1960, a report was lodged by the Receiver alleging that the applicants had removed the Receiver's locks on the shop in dispute.In the meantime the applicant's first appeal from order against the order of the learned Civil Judge dated 18-11-1960 appointing Sri Daya Shanker Mehrotra as Receiver, which had been filed some time after the 2oth of November, 1960, was admitted and this Court stayed the operation of the order of the learned Civil Judge.The learned Judicial Officer thereafter directed the Police to submit a charge-sheet.In consequence, the Police submitted a charge-sheet under Sections 183, 448 and 454 Indian Penal Code against the applicants.The gravamen of the offence allegedagainst the applicants is that they committed trespass by interfering with the Receiver's possession over the shop in dispute.I have taken the facts summarised above from the affidavit filed in support of this application and those facts must be taken to be correct, as no counter affidavit has been filed to controvert them.
|
['Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
101,255,309 |
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 10th JANUARY, 2017 .............................::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:27 :::Brief facts leading to filing the Appeals as unfolded during the trial are summarized as under.[i] On 17/08/2014, Ramchandra Shamrao Pawar [P.W.3], P.S.I. attached to police station CIDCO, Aurangabad lodged complaint to the effect that at about 15.30 hrs.while he was present in police station, as day officer, he received phone call whereby he was informed that in the house adjoining to "Rathi Sansar building" located in Sikandar Colony, Misarwadi, two women and one man are behaving in indecent manner and they have been caught and detained by the people from that locality.On receipt of the information, P.S.I. Pawar [P.W.3] instructed the police personnel on mobile duty as well as bit-marshal to visit the said place.The man brought to police station, disclosed his name as Ganesh Tatyarao Jadhav [accused No. 1].On enquiry with the prosecutrix, she disclosed that Muskan w/o Shaikh Rashid @ Rafiq [accused No. 2] and one woman by name Shammo [accused No. 3] had taken Rs. 700/- from Ganesh Tatyarao Jadhav [accused No. 1] and send prosecutrix to have sexual intercourse with him.Out of Rs. 700/- taken from accused No. 1, amount of Rs. 300/- was paid to her.She further disclosed that Shammo [accused No. 3] ran away from the spot.::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:27 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:27 :::Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 28/10/2015 passed in Sessions Case No. 328/2014 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, the appellants have preferred these Appeals.By the impugned Judgment, the appellant Ganesh @ Gorakh Tatyarao Jadhav [accused No. 1] has been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 376 of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 read with section 3 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [for short, 'POCSO Act'] and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- [Rupees Two Thousand].The appellant Nos. 2 and 3 viz. Muskan w/o Shaikh Rashid @ Rafiq [accused No. 2] and Naziya Begum w/o Shaikh Afazal [accused No.3] were held guilty of offence punishable u/s 109 of the Indian Penal Code and section 17 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 ::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:27 ::: 4 Cr.Appeal 845....2015 - [J] years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-[Rupees Two Thousand] each.After some time, ::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:27 ::: 5 Cr.Appeal 845....2015 - [J] the police personnel brought two women and one man to police station.On enquiry, those women disclosed their names as Muskan w/o Shaikh Rashid @ Rafiq [accused No. 2] and Diksha d/o Vijay @ Dilip Jamdade [P.W.1] [hereinafter referred as "prosecutrix"].On the basis of enquiry made with the prosecutrix, P.S.I. Pawar lodged complaint.On the basis of complaint lodged by P.S.I. Pawar [P.W.3], the offences u/ss 3,4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 came to be registered against the accused persons.::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:27 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:27 :::Tatyarao Jadhav [accused No. 1] and the prosecutrix were referred for medical examination.The Investigating Officer has obtained copy of school leaving certificate received from the Head Master of Saint Tukaram Primary School, Ambedkarnagar, Aurangabad showing date of birth of the prosecutrix.The muddemal was sent to the Chemical Analyzer for examination.Further investigation was then conducted by Mr. Rajkumar Dongare, Police Inspector [P.W.10].[ii] On conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet was prepared and filed in the Sessions Court at Aurangabad.In the due course, the case was assigned to the file of District Judge - 3 and ::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:27 ::: 7 Cr.All of them pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:27 :::[iii] In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses.The accused have not entered into the witness box nor examined any witness.On the basis of cross examination of the prosecution witnesses and statement recorded u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the defence of the accused appears to be of total denial.On conclusion of trial the appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment as stated above.Being aggrieved the appellants have preferred these ::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:27 ::: 8 Cr.Appeal 845....2015 - [J] Appeals.::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:27 :::I have heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsel representing for the appellants and the learned A.P.P. for the State and carefully perused the record and proceedings.If we consider the overall case of the prosecution, then the prosecution has approached with the case that on receipt of the telephonic information to the effect that two women and one man are behaving in indecent manner, the police personnel visited the place and caught those persons and brought them to the police station.On the basis of the enquiry made, it was revealed that accused Nos. 2 and 3 were running prostitution racket.On the basis of the information received from the prosecutrix, Mr. Pawar, P.S.I. [P.W.3] lodged complaint.Initially, the offence was registered u/ss 3,4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic ::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:27 ::: 9 Cr.During the course of investigation, the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded.::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:27 :::From the perusal of the reasons and findings recorded by the trial Court, it appears that the trial Court has convicted the appellants mainly for the reason the prosecutrix found to be below 18 years of age.Learned counsel for the appellants have contended that the reasons and findings recorded by the trial Court are totally perverse and unsustainable in law.They have submitted that the trial Court has erred in reaching to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the age of the prosecutrix as below 18 years.It is pointed out that at the time of ::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:27 ::: 10 Cr.Appeal 845....2015 - [J] medical examination, the prosecutrix has disclosed her age as 18 years.It is further pointed that the prosecutrix has stated in evidence that she has studied up to 5th standard.However, she has not stated the school in which she has studied.School leaving certificate at Exh. 77, as relied by prosecution, reflects that the girl as named in the certificate had joined the school in 6 th standard and left the school when she was in 7th standard.No primary evidence was brought on record to prove the exact birth date and age of the prosecutrix.The parents of the prosecutrix were not examined by the prosecution.::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:27 :::Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that there is no cogent, convincing and reliable evidence to sustain the conviction u/s 376 of the Indian Penal Code as well as POCSO Act. It is pointed out that it is nowhere the case of the ::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:27 ::: 11 Cr.Appeal 845....2015 - [J] prosecution that minor girl was subjected to sexual intercourse.As per the case set out, the prosecutrix [P.W.1] was habitually indulged in to prostitution.She has deposed that prior to the incident, she has undergone sexual intercourse for 5 to 6 times with different persons as she was unemployed.The medical report also reveals that she was habituated to sexual intercourse.Dr. Jaidip [P.W.5] has specifically deposed that no evidence of forcible sexual intercourse detected during the examination of prosecutrix.It is further pointed out that the prosecutrix has deposed in her cross examination that she has attained menstruation 3 to 4 years prior to the incident.She has categorically admitted that accused No. 1 had not approached her directly nor forced her to have sexual intercourse with him.In this view, the learned counsels submits that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt against the accused.It is further pointed out that though accused Nos. 2 and 3 have been held guilty of committing offence u/s 17 of the POCSO Act, charge u/s 17 of the POCSO Act was never framed ::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:28 ::: 12 Cr.Appeal 845....2015 - [J] against them.Similarly, accused Nos. 2 and 3 were never charged for committing the offence of abetting the act of commission of rape so as to punish them u/s 109 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:27 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:28 :::The learned counsels for the appellants have argued that except the bare words of the prosecutrix that accused No. 1 had committed sexual intercourse, there is no evidence to corroborate the testimony of the prosecutrix.In this context, learned counsels have invited attention to the testimony of Dr. Jaideep Solanke, Medical Officer [P.W.6] who has examined the prosecutrix immediately after the registration of the offence.In his Examination-in- Chief itself, he has deposed that from the physical examination of the prosecutrix, it was seen that no features suggestive of forcible sexual intercourse found during her medical examination.He has further stated that she may have sexual intercourse with consent.No injury was noticed on any part of the body of the prosecutrix including the private part.The hymen was found to be ruptured with old healed ::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:28 ::: 13 Cr.Appeal 845....2015 - [J] injury and she was found to be habituated with sexual intercourse.It is further pointed out that on examination of vaginal swab, vaginal smear by Chemical Analyser, no semen was detected which suggests that the victim had not undergone the sexual intercourse prior to her medical examination.In cross examination, Dr. Jaideep Solanke, [P.W.6] has categorically stated that from physical examination it was seen that there was no forcible sexual intercourse with prosecutrix.It is, therefore, contended that the prosecution has failed to prove that accused No. 1 had committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix immediately before they were caught and detained by the neighbours from the locality.::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:28 :::Learned A.P.P. has strenuously contended that the prosecutrix was found to be minor in age and, therefore, the consent of the prosecutrix was immaterial.By referring the testimony of the prosecutrix and the school leaving certificate [Exh.77] showing the age of the prosecutrix as 17 years 10 ::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:28 ::: 14 Cr.Appeal 845....2015 - [J] months, learned A.P.P. submits that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:28 :::In order to appreciate the submissions advanced, I have carefully scrutinized the evidence on record.The conviction of the accused is mainly based upon the testimony of prosecutrix [P.W.1].She has deposed that she has studied up to 5 th standard and residing with her mother,brother and sister.She further deposed that she met with accused No. 2 near T.V.centre.Accused No. 2 enquired about her work and thereafter she was asked to come along with her so as to provide work to her.Both of them asked her to have sexual intercourse with accused No. 1 and also agreed to pay money to her for that purpose.Thereafter, some people from the locality caught them and handed over to police.She further deposed that her date of birth is ::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:28 ::: 15 Cr.Thus, if we go by the testimony of the prosecutrix, then the act of sexual intercourse with her by accused No. 1 was voluntary and without any force.It further shows that the prosecutrix agreed to have sex with accused No. 1 by accepting money.::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:28 :::Thus, it is clear that accused Nos. 2 and 3If we consider the cross examination of the prosecutrix, then it is amply clear that the prosecutrix, was doing the labour work.She has entered in to prostitution due to poverty.She has further deposed that she had knowledge of the sexual intercourse and she has ::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:28 ::: 16 Cr.Appeal 845....2015 - [J] attained menstruation prior to 3 to 4 years of the incident.It establishes the fact that the prosecutrix was fully matured girl and acted voluntarily to have sex with the customers in the brothel run by accused Shamo.From the case put-forth by the prosecution and the fact deposed by the prosecutrix, it is established that the prosecutrix has voluntarily undertaken the profession as sex worker for monitory consideration.::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:28 :::The accused though tried for the offence punishable u/s 3,4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and they were acquitted by the trial Court.In my view, the prosecutrix can not be treated as witness whose testimony to be treated as wholly reliable and can form sole basis to convict the accused.It has been brought on record that the prosecutrix has voluntarily indulged ::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:28 ::: 17 Cr.Appeal 845....2015 - [J] into act of prostitution for monitory consideration.She has undertaken the profession as sex worker on her own.In this view, it is unsafe to place reliance on the testimony of such witness without corroboration.As discussed, there is no corroborative evidence to establish that immediately before they were caught and handed over to police, they had undergone sexual intercourse.In absence of proving the offence u/s 376 of the Indian Penal Code, the conviction of accused Nos. 2 and 3 with the aid of section 109 of the Indian Penal Code is also not sustainable.::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:28 :::The crucial question in the instant case is whether the prosecution has proved that the prosecutrix was minor at the time of incident.As discussed, the prosecutrix has disclosed her date of ::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:28 ::: 18 Cr.In order to prove the school leaving certificate [Exh.77], the prosecution has examined Mr. Prakash Sonawane [P.W.9], the Head Maser of Saint Tukaram Primary School, Ambedkarnagar, Aurangabd.He has admitted in the cross examination that the date of birth has been recorded on the basis of previous school leaving certificate produced at the time of admission of the prosecutrix in 6 th standard.He has admitted that he has not separately verified the date of birth of the prosecutrix on the basis of birth certificate other than the previous school leaving certificate.If we consider the evidence in its totality, ::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:28 ::: 19 Cr.Appeal 845....2015 - [J] then there is no cogent, convincing and reliable evidence to conclusively establish the date of birth of the prosecutrix and to establish the fact that she was minor at the time of commission of the offence.::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:28 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:28 :::The prosecutrix has stated that she has studied up to 5th standard.She has not stated anything about the school in which she had studied.The school leaving certificate produced at Exh. 77 refers to one Diksha Deelip Jamdhade, whereas the prosecutrix has disclosed her name as Diksha d/o Vijay @ Dilip Jamdhade.In the school leaving certificate produced at Exh. 77 it is shown that said girl was admitted in 6th standard and left the school when she was in 7th standard.Prosecutrix has not deposed anything about the school in which she studied up to 5th standard.She has also not stated anything about her admission in 6 th standard in Saint Tukaram school and leaving school in 7th standard.The date of birth recorded in the school admission register was recorded on the basis of the previous school leaving certificate.It is pertinent to note that ::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:28 ::: 20 Cr.Appeal 845....2015 - [J] extract from the school admission register, on the basis of which school leaving certificate [Exh.77] was issued, not placed on record.No doubt, u/s 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, there is presumption of the correctness of the entry recorded in the school record as taken in discharge of official business.But, the production of such school leaving certificate itself is not sufficient to raise presumption and to conclusively establish the date of birth of prosecutrix.::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:28 :::The prosecution has not examined the parents of the prosecutrix to establish that the date of birth of prosecutrix as 19/08/1997 or 29/08/1997 and at the time of incident she was minor.In fact, it was a lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer to properly conduct the investigation and to collect the requisite evidence.::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:28 :::Anand Purohit ::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:28 ::: 22 Cr.In para No. 15 of the said Judgment, the Apex Court has observed as under :::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:28 :::" To render a document admissible u/s 35, three conditions must be satisfied, firstly, entry that is relied on must be one in a public or other official book, register or record, secondly, it must be an entry stating a fact in issue or relevant fact, and thirdly, it must be made by a public servant in discharge of his official duty, or any other person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by law.An entry relating to date of birth made in the school register is relevant and admissible u/s 35 of the Act but the entry regarding to the age of a person in a school register is of not much evidentiary value to prove the age of the person in the absence of material on which the age was recorded. "It has been further observed that :::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:28 :::The authenticity of the entry would depend as on ::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:28 ::: 24 Cr.Appeal 845....2015 - [J] whose instruction/information such entry stood recorded and what was his source of information.Thus, entry in school register/certificate requires to be proved in accordance with law.Standard of proof for the same remains as in any other civil and criminal case. "::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:28 :::Thus, on considering the overall evidence on record and legal position, as discussed above, I am of the view that there is no cogent, convincing and reliable evidence to conclusively establish that at the time of alleged commission of the offence, the prosecutrix was minor in age.The evidence, as produced in the form of school leaving certificate [Exh. 77], can not be treated as conclusive evidence to prove the date of birth of the prosecutrix, vis-a-vis her age as minor.On reaching to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the age of the prosecutrix as minor, I have no hesitation to hold that the conviction of accused No. 1 is not sustainable in ::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:28 ::: 25 Cr.Appeal 845....2015 - [J] law.As discussed, there is no evidence that accused No. 1 has committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix against her wish and desire.On the contrary, the evidence on record clearly demonstrates that the sexual intercourse was voluntary and consentual.The prosecutrix [P.W.1] has deposed that accused Nos. 2 and 3 have accepted Rs. 700/- from accused No. 1, who had come there as customer.She has deposed that after receiving the amount, she was sent with accused No. 1 to have sex with him.Both of them then entered into the room.While they were inside the room, the persons from the locality came there and later-on they were brought to the police station.There is absolutely no evidence that accused No. 1 committed sexual intercourse against the wish and desire of the prosecutrix.::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:28 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:28 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:28 :::26 Cr.Appeal 845....2015 - [J]The evidence on record spell out that accused No. 1 had sex with the prosecutrix as a customer.The prosecutrix has admitted that she was in business of prostitution much prior to the date of the incident.She has deposed that 5 to 6 times prior to the incident, she had sex with various persons and that too for money she received from those persons.Even if we consider the case of the prosecution in its entirety and accept the allegations made against the accused are correct, still, in my view, no case is made out to sustain the charge u/s 376 of the Indian Penal Code.As discussed above, the accused No. 1 visited the brothel run by accused No. 3 Shammo.At the brothel, the prosecutrix was present.Accused No. 1 paid an amount of Rs. 700/- to accused Shammo, who was running the brothel, for having sex with the prosecutrix.Out of Rs. 700/-, amount of Rs. 300/- was given to the prosecutrix for having sex with accused No. 1 who visited the brothel as a customer.Thus, if the allegations are taken in its entirety, still it makes out the case that the ::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:28 ::: 27 Cr.Appeal 845....2015 - [J] prosecutrix has agreed to have sex with accused No. 1 for monetary consideration.No element of deception or compulsion exist in the case.It is nowhere the case of the prosecution that the prosecutrix was compelled to have sexual intercourse with accused No. 1 by any of the accused.She voluntarily undertook the business of prostitution and that too for money.It is nowhere the case of the prosecution that the prosecutrix was subjected to prostitution against her wish and desire.On the contrary, the prosecutrix was doing the prostitution on her own will to earn money.::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:28 :::In my view, the act committed with criminal intent can alone constitute an offence under law.In absence of criminal intent on the part of a person, such act can not be termed as an offence in the eyes of law.The offence of rape also requires a mens-ria on the part of accused to commit such offence.In the case in hand, no such criminal intent can be inferred on the part of accused to commit offence of rape as defined u/s 375 and made ::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:28 ::: 28 Cr.Appeal 845....2015 - [J] punishable u/s 376 of Indian Penal Code.Undisputedly, the accused No. 1 visited the place as a customer to have sex with the sex worker in the brothel run by accused Shammo.There was no reason for accused No. 1 to conduct enquiry about the age of the prosecutrix.The evidence on record clearly shows that the prosecutrix was fully grown up girl.Even as per the case of the prosecution, the prosecutrix was at the verge of attaining the age of majority.In such a situation, it was not expected on the part of accused No. 1 to have made enquiry with the prosecutrix about her age before having sex with her.So also, there was no reason for accused No. 1 to ascertain the age of the prosecutrix.In absence of any criminal intent on the part of accused No. 1, the act in question on his part can not be termed as an offence punishable under the law and particularly the offence u/s 376 of the Indian Penal Code.In fact, initially, the F.I.R. was registered for commission of ::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:28 ::: 29 Cr.Appeal 845....2015 - [J] offence u/ss 3,4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic [Prevention] Act. While charge sheeting accused, the charge u/s 376 of Indian Penal Code and POCSO Act been added.Besides the charge u/s 376 of the Indian Penal Code, the accused were charged u/ss 3,4 5 of the Immoral Traffic [Prevention] Act. However, they have been acquitted by the trial Court for offences under Immoral Traffic [Prevention] Act. The prosecution has not challenged the acquittal of accused under the said provisions of law.In this backdrop, I have no hesitation to hold that the reasons and the findings recorded by the trial Court are not sustainable in law.::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:28 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:28 :::As discussed above, the prosecution has failed to conclusively prove the age of the prosecutrix as below 18 years.In this view, the reasons and the findings recorded by the trial Court are perverse and not sustainable in law.::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:28 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:28 :::30 Cr.Appeal 845....2015 - [J]On perusal of the charge framed by the trial Court, it appears that the charge has been framed in a most casual manner.Accused Nos. 2 and 3 have been charged along with accused No. 1 for committing the offence u/s 376 of the Indian Penal Code.In fact, it is nowhere the case of the prosecution that accused Nos. 2 and 3 have committed the offence u/s 376 of the Indian Penal Code.On the contrary, the case of the prosecution as against accused Nos. 2 and 3 rest with allegations that they indulged into an act of running brothel and procuring, inducing or taking a person for the sake of prostitution.Accused Nos. 2 and 3 have been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 17 of the POCSO Act, though no charge u/s 17 of the POCSO Act has been framed against them.The Charge u/s 16 of the POCSO Act has been framed by the trial Court, which in fact defines the meaning of the word 'abetment of offence' which is made punishable u/s 17 of the POCSO Act. In absence of specific charge ::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:28 ::: 31 Cr.Appeal 845....2015 - [J] being framed against accused Nos. 2 and 3, their conviction is not sustainable in law.::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:28 :::As discussed above, the reasons and findings recorded by the trial Court are not sustainable in law.In the result, the Appeals are deserves to be allowed and the conviction awarded by the trial Court needs to be set aside.Hence, the following order.(i) Criminal Appeal Nos. 845 of 2015, 848 of 2015 and 941 of 2015 are allowed.(ii) The Judgment and Order dated 28/10/2015 passed in Sessions Case No. 328/2014 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad is set aside.(iii) Accused No. 1 Ganesh @ Gorakh Tatyarao Jadhav in Sessions Case No. 328 of 2014 is acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 ::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:28 ::: 32 Cr.::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:28 :::Fine amount, if any, paid by him be refunded to him and set him at liberty if not required in any other case.(v) Rs. 3,000/- [Rupees Three Thousand] be paid to Mr. P.S.Paranjape, learned counsel appointed to represent accused No. 1 ::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:28 ::: 33 Cr.Appeal 845....2015 - [J] Ganesh @ Gorakh Tatyarao Jadhav.appointed to represent accused No. 1::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:28 :::[V.L.ACHLIYA, J.] KNP/Cr.Appeal 845....2015 - [J] ::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:28 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:42:28 :::
|
['Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
101,267,825 |
11 md.In the matter of:Sukumar Basak and others ... Applicants/Petitioners Mr. Sananda Bhattacharyya .. for the applicants/petitioners Ms. Sreeparna Das .. for the State Re: C.R.A.N. 266 of 2019 Sufficient grounds have been made out as to why the petitioners were not represented on January 11, 2019 when CRM 9253 of 2018 was dismissed for default.The order dated January 11, 2019 is recalled and C.R.M. 9253 of 2018 is restored to the file.The restoration application, C.R.A.N. 266 of 2019, is allowed as above.The petition is taken up for immediate consideration.The petitioners are some of the relatives of the husband of the victim and claim not to have been involved in the incident which led to the unnatural death of the victim.The petitioners say that the husband and the mother-in-law of the victim remain arrested.The State produces the case diary and says that the victim was found hanging within a year and a half of her marriage.As to the role of these petitioners, the State relies on some witness-statements which contain general allegations as to ill- treatment but do not throw any light on these petitioners' involvement in the incident which led to the death of the victim.The charge-sheet has been filed.Considering the material against these petitioners and the fact that the investigation has been completed, there may not be any need to take these petitioners into custody at this stage.However, the petitioners must attend the trial on every day fixed therefor without fail.Any default on the petitioners' part will entitle the trial court to cancel the bail without further reference to this Court.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J.) 3
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,012,713 |
There was a matrimonial dispute in his family and his daugher-in-lawmade a complaint that she was harassed for dowry by the petitioner, his wife andhis son.Her complaint was registered as First Information Report in CrimeNo.26/2003 on the file of the Tuticorin All Women Police Station under Sections498(A), 420, 406 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Initially, thecriminal case was closed as mistake of fact.The learned Judicial Magistrate, Tuticorin convicted the petitioner inC.C.No.363/2005 and sentenced him for two years Rigorous Imprisonment.Thepetitioner filed an appeal before the Sessions Court, Tuticorin and the same wasconfirmed and thereafter, he filed revision and the revision is pending beforethis Court.The first respondent filed a counter affidavit refuting theallegations.After the expiry of medical leave he did not join duty and also hedid not apply for extension of medical leave.But the petitioner did not disclose about his detention by thepolice authorities.It is stated that the Educational Authorities gave permission forextension of suspension for two more months.It is also stated that when theschool wanted him to furnish details about the criminal case by sending lettersdated 10.05.2005 and 03.08.2005, the petitioner did not choose to inform theschool about the stage of the criminal case.The School wrote a letter dated 23.09.2005 to the Chief EducationalOfficer, Tuticorin as to whether the petitioner could be continued in suspensionuntil the criminal case is over or he could be reinstated in service.There wasno reply from the third respondent.In these circumstances, the petitioner was continued in suspension.The petitioner is not entitled to any salary after four months.As far as fourmonths are concerned, the petitioner was offered subsistence allowance bysending letters and the petitioner did not choose to collect the same.Hence,the subsistence allowance is kept in the general fund of the School and theSchool is willing to pay the subsistence allowance for four months, at any time,whenever the petitioner comes to collect the same.The first respondent seeksfor dismissal of the writ petition.The second respondent filed a counter-affidavit stating that since thepetitioner was remanded from police custody for more than 48 hours, there isnothing wrong in placing the petitioner under suspension, as per the Rule 17 (2)(v) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 (inshort herein after referred to as "the Rules").As per the Rule 17(2)(v),subsistence allowance could be paid only for a maximum period of four months andthe department released the subsistence allowance for four months in the form ofgrant.It is stated that the petitioner could seek remedy against the Managementof the School for the remaining period.12. Heard both sides.The petitioner was placed under suspension by the first respondent byan order dated 19.04.2005 with effect from 11.03.2005, as he was in custody formore than 48 hours.A criminal case was also pending against him.Section 22 (3) of the Act, places restriction on the School to keepthe teacher under suspension beyond a period of four months.Initially, ateacher could be placed under suspension for two months and thereafter, with thepermission of the concerned authority, the suspension could be extended for twomore months.In this case, the second respondent has stated that, the suspensionwas extended for two more months.Hence, the suspension order is valid for fourmonths.After four months, the first respondent is not justified in keeping thepetitioner under suspension.Section 22(3) of the Act is extracted hereunder:- "(3)(a) No teacher or other person employed in any private School shall beplaced under suspension, except when an enquiry into the gross misconduct,within the meaning of the Code of Conduct prescribed under Sub-Section (1) ofSection 21, of such teacher or other person is contemplated.(b) No such representation shall remain in force for more than a period oftwo months from the date of suspension and if such enquiry is not completedwithin that period, such teacher or other person shall, without prejudice to theenquiry, be deemed to have been restored as teacher or other employee:Provided that the competent authority may, for reasons to be recorded inwriting, extend the said period of two months for a further period not exceedingtwo months, if in the opinion of such competent authority, the enquiry could notbe completed within the said period of two months for reasons directlyattributable to such teacher and other person."Section 22 of the Act was enacted keeping the interest of thestudents.20. Suppose if the first respondent School has kept the teacher beyondfour months period, the School is bound to pay full salary to the teacher,whether Section 22(3) applies to the first respondent School or not.But theSchool states that the school wrote a letter dated 23.09.2005 to the ChiefEducational Officer, Tuticorin seeking clarification as to whether thepetitioner should be kept under suspension or he should be reinstated in servicepending the criminal case.But there was no reply from the third respondent.It is true that the authorities did not send reply to the letter dated23.09.2005, sent by the school seeking clarification.But that could not absolvethe first respondent School from paying full salary beyond four months period ofsuspension.It has been categorically held by the Honourable Division Bench ofthis Court in W.A.No.286 of 2005, in similar circumstances, "it is true that itmay be open to the employer to keep the appellant/teacher under suspension ifthe Management does not want to avail the services of the appellant.In thatcase, though the Management can prevent the employee from attending to hisduties, it will be obliged to pay full salary for the period beyond fourmonths".As far as subsistence allowance for four months is concerned, thepetitioner is directed to collect the same from the School.In view of the Judgment of this Court dated 08.08.2005, in Writ AppealNo.286 of 2005, the impugned order dated 19.04.2005 of the first respondent,keeping the petitioner under suspension beyond four months without paying fullwages is illegal and the first respondent is directed to pay full salary for theperiod beyond four months till 30.06.2006 within a period of 12 weeks fromtoday.The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.Consequently,connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.No costs.1.The Headmaster cum Correspondent, St.
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,012,783 |
JUDGMENT P.K. Bhasin, J.The petitioner in all these four petitions is one Ajay Kumar Jain.He has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of four FIRs registered against him for the offences under Sections 420/406 of Indian Penal Code ('I.P.C.' in short), registered at Police Station Mukherjee Nagar on 14.03.2002 at the instance of the respondent no. 2-complainant, M/s Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. Since these petitions were filed after the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent no. 2 complainant had been compromised and were taken up together for hearing, I shall dispose them of by this common judgment.The relevant facts necessary for the disposal of these petitions are that the respondent no. 2, a Company carrying on the business of financing Motor Vehicles, filed four separate complaints under Sections 200/202 of Cr.P.C. in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate for the offences under Sections 406/420 of I.P.C. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate in exercise of its powers conferred upon it under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. vide its order dated 08.03.2002 directed the police to register FIR and investigate the matter.Pursuant thereto four separate FIRs were registered by the police but till date no charge sheet appears to have been filed in the Court.As per the averments in these petitions the complainant (respondent no. 2 herein) had entered into four hire purchase agreements with the petitioner in respect of some vehicles.Notice of this petition was given to the State as well as respondent no. 2-complainant.On 27.09.2007 Mr. Jatan Singh, advocate, appeared for respondent no. 2 and affirmed that the dispute had been amicably resolved and so the complainant was no more interested in pursuing the complaints based on which the police had registered four FIRs against the petitioner and he supported the prayer of the petitioner for quashing of all the four FIRs.6. Learned APP for the State, however, opposed quashing of the FIRs on the ground that offence under Section 406 of I.P.C. is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. and so if this offence is permitted to be compounded that would amount to bye-passing the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. which should not be done by this Court by exercising the inherent jurisdiction vested in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C.It is now well settled by many judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that FIRs even in respect of those offences which are not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. can be quashed as also the criminal proceedings emanating there from if it is felt while dealing with a quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. that it would secure the ends of justice if the FIR and criminal proceedings arising there from are quashed and continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law.
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
101,279,321 |
Station Officer, PS New Kamptee, NagpurShri C. F. Bhagwani, Advocate for applicantsShri Amit Balpande, Addl.PP for respondent Coram : S. B. Shukre & S. M. Modak, JJ Dated : 11th January 2019Oral Judgment (Per S.B. Shukre, J)Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor for respondent no. 1-State.Heard ::: Uploaded on - 14/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/01/2019 06:24:53 ::: 2forthwith by consent of parties.::: Uploaded on - 14/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/01/2019 06:24:53 :::This application has been filed jointly by the accused and thecomplainant in Crime No. 112/2018 registered with Police Station, NewKamptee, Nagpur for the offences punishable under Section 376 (n), 323,420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.As a subsequent development, it is seen that applicant andcomplainant have compromised the dispute in between them and as aresult, have even married each other.In order to give effect to their desire,the accused and the complainant both have filed this application jointly.This has been endorsed to by their learnedcounsel who has identified both the applicants.Considering the nature ofdispute between the applicants which is a private and family dispute, wehave no hesitation to hold that this is a fit case for quashing of the first ::: Uploaded on - 14/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/01/2019 06:24:53 ::: 3information report.::: Uploaded on - 14/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/01/2019 06:24:53 :::Crime No.112/2018 registered with Police Station, New Kamptee, Nagpur for theoffences punishable under Section 376 (n), 323, 420 and 506 of theIndian Penal Code and all actions based thereon are hereby quashed andset aside.::: Uploaded on - 14/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/01/2019 06:24:53 :::
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
101,279,495 |
All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.The necessary facts for the disposal of the present appeal in short are that on 7/11/2005 the prosecutrix lodged a report at Mahila Thana, Bhopal to the effect that she resides in village Kanavta, District Ashoknagar alongwith his husband and children.On the next day of Deepawali, i.e. on 2/11/2005, at about 8:00 in the night when she was returning back towards her house after easing herself at the field, in the way accused Shobharam Yadav, Nathua, Balua, Shripal and Malthua obstructed her and all the five accused persons by dragging her took to a dilapidated building belonging to one Jashrath Singh, where four accused persons, namely, Shobharam Yadav, Nathua, Balua and Shripal sexually violated her one by one against her wish by pointing gun on her breast, giving threat to her life and gagging her mouth so as to resist her screams and accused Malthua was standing outside armed with gun to keep a watch over the passersby.During commission of the offence, the accused persons had given teeth bite on her right cheek and because of dragging her and committing rape on her forcibly, she also suffered injuries on her 3 Criminal Appeal No.675/2007 [Ballu alias Balua and others Vs.State of M.P.] breasts, both hands, both legs and both buttocks.Since long time had passed by and the prosecutrix had not come back to home and seeing some movements in the dilapidated building, when her father-in-law Harchandi came there to search her, then accused persons assaulted him by means of butt of the gun and Farsa, as a result of which, he sustained injuries on his head.After sometime, husband and mother-in-law of the prosecutrix also came at the spot and on seeing them, the accused persons fled from the spot leaving the prosecutrix and her father-in-law.2.1 It is further alleged that initially a complaint of the incident was made at Police Station Chanderi, but as the report only with regard to commission of offence with her father-in-law was registered and the report with regard to commission of rape on the prosecutrix was not registered at Police Station Chanderi, therefore, the prosecutrix lodged the aforesaid report on 7/11/2005 at Mahila Thana, Bhopal.Thereafter, the prosecutrix was sent for medical examination at Sultaniya Hospital, Bhopal.State of M.P.] gone to ease herself at some distance from her house.It was evening at about 8 PM.When she stood up after easing herself, at that juncture accused Shobharam, Nathua, Shripal, Balua and Malthua came there.All the five accused persons took her to a dilapidated building by dragging her.She could not remember the owner's name of the dilapidated building.She further stated that one by one four accused persons committed rape on her and accused Malthua had pointed gun on her.After commission of offence by the four accused persons, accused Malthua also committed rape on her.She stated that the offence was committed forcibly against her will.She also stated that during the incident she sustained injury on her cheek, buttocks, thighs, hands and nose including various other parts of her body.She further stated that after commission of offence of rape by the accused persons, her father-in-law Harchandi had also come at the spot.Thereafter, accused Shobharam inflicted a Farsa blow on the head of his father-in-law, as a result of which, he sustained injury on his head and blood started oozing out.When her husband came to know about the incident and came at the spot, then accused Shobharam throttled him.Thereafter, when one Balram Yadav came on the spot, then all the accused persons fled therefrom.Balram brought her at her house.Her mother-in-law and father-in-law were there in the house.She further stated that except her, no other person was medically examined.The prosecutrix further stated that medical examination of her father-in-law was conducted at Chanderi.9.3 Dr. S.P. Siddharth (DW-1) was a Medical Officer posted at Community Health Center, Chanderi.He stated that he medically examined the prosecutrix and injured-Harchand, entry whereof in the MLC register is Ex.(18/01/2018) Per Justice G.S. Ahluwalia, This appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment dated 28/6/2007 passed by the Special Judge, Guna, District Guna in Special Sessions Trial No.30/2006 by which the appellants have been convicted under Section 341 of IPC and have been sentenced to pay fine of Rs.200/-, under Section 376 (2) (g) of IPC and have been sentenced to undergo 2 Criminal Appeal No.675/2007 [Ballu alias Balua and others Vs.State of M.P.] rigorous imprisonment of ten years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, under Section 325/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two years and fine of Rs.200/- and under Section 323/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three months, with default imprisonment.2.3 The incident having been committed under the jurisdiction of Police Station Chanderi, the FIR (Ex.P/1) registered at Mahila Thana Bhopal was transferred to Police Station Chanderi on 16/11/2005, on the basis of which, a report (Ex.After recording the statements of the witnesses, arresting the appellants as well as after preparing the spot map, the 4 Criminal Appeal No.675/2007 [Ballu alias Balua and others Vs.State of M.P.] investigating agency filed the charge-sheet against the appellants, except accused Shobharam, for offence under Sections 341, 376 (2) (g), 324, 324/34, 325, 325/34 and 506 Part-II of IPC.The trial court by order dated 28/02/2006 framed charges against the appellants for offence under Sections 341, 376 (2) (g), 324, 324/34, 325, 325/34 and 506 Part-II of IPC.The appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded not guilty.The prosecution in order to prove its case examined the prosecutrix (PW-1), Harchanda (PW-2), Ashok (PW-3), Mahendra Singh (PW-4), Dharmiya (PW-5), Kamleshbai (PW-6), Dr. R.P. Sharma (PW-7), Sunita (PW-8), Govindram Tiwari (PW-9), Dr. Shilpa Bhagdikar (PW-10), Dr. Chandrashekar Dhurve (PW-11) and Arvind Dubey (PW-12).The appellants examined Dr. S.P. Siddharth (DW-1) in their defence.However, as the prosecution failed to prove the charges against accused-Malthua, therefore, he was acquitted from all the charges framed against him.The trial court after appreciating the evidence, which has come on record, convicted the appellants for offence under Section 341 of IPC and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.200/-, under Section 376 (2) (g) of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of ten years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, under Section 325/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two years and fine of Rs.200/- and under Section 323/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three months, 5 Criminal Appeal No.675/2007 [Ballu alias Balua and others Vs.State of M.P.] with default imprisonment.Challenging the findings given by the trial court, it is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that there are material contradictions and omissions in the FIR as well as the evidence of the prosecutrix.The allegation of commission of rape on the prosecutrix is also belied by the medical evidence because on medical examination no injury has been found on the private parts of the prosecutrix.It is submitted that a quarrel had taken place between the appellants and the family members of the prosecutrix, however, the appellants have been implicated in a false offence of commission of rape on the prosecutrix.Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that it is well established principle of law that where the evidence of the prosecutrix is worth reliance, then asking for corroboration is nothing, but adding insult to her injury.The medical evidence fully corroborates the version of the prosecutrix because undisputedly the doctor had found injuries on various parts of the body of the prosecutrix, which must have been caused while she was being dragged by the appellants and when the offence was being committed by the appellants.Heard learned counsel for the parties.About six months back around Deepawali festival, on the date of incident she had 6 Criminal Appeal No.675/2007 [Ballu alias Balua and others Vs.She further stated that she had narrated the incident to Balram also.The prosecutrix 7 Criminal Appeal No.675/2007 [Ballu alias Balua and others Vs.State of M.P.] further stated that initially she went to Police Station Chanderi to lodge the report, but the police registered the report only with regard to commission of offence of marpeet and the report, as narrated by her, was not registered because by that time the accused persons had also come to the Police Station.Thereafter, she went to Ashoknagar, however, at Ashoknagar also her grievance was not addressed upon by the police officials.At Ashoknagar she was accompanied by her father-in-law Harchandi and husband-Ashok.Thereafter, she alongwith them went to Bhopal, where she lodged the report, on which her thumb impression was taken.She further stated that at Bhopal she was got medically examined.Her medical examination was conducted by a lady doctor.Her petticoat, which she was wearing at the time of commission of offence, was seized by the doctor.Thereafter, police had come to Chanderi as well as at her village.She further stated that the place of occurrence was informed to the police by her mother- in-law and brother-in-law (Devar), because at that time she could not reach to her home back.She stated that she reached at her village after ten days.She further stated that police never came to the village when she was there.The prosecutrix further stated that after ten days when she had reached her home, then again the 8 Criminal Appeal No.675/2007 [Ballu alias Balua and others Vs.State of M.P.] accused persons had come there to beat her.The prosecutrix was cross examined.In her cross-examination she admitted that the accused Shobharam and witness-Balram both belong to the same community.However, she denied that she supports the party of Balram.She on her own stated that she does not support any party.In para 10 of her cross-examination, she stated that she has no knowledge whether any report under the Harijan Act has been lodged by accused-Nathua against witness-Balram, his brother and other persons or not.In para 13 of her cross-examination, the prosecutrix has stated that she had gone to ease herself near a triangle situated in front of her house and while she was easing herself, no other person had passed by prior to accused persons.In para 14 of her cross-examination, she stated that all the five accused persons had come together.She further stated that as soon as she stood up after easing herself, the accused persons came there.The prosecutrix further stated that accused Shobharam was armed with double barrel gun, accused Malthua was armed with Farsa and other accused person were armed with Lathi etc. In para 19 of her cross-examination, the prosecutrix stated that initially accused-Shobharam committed rape on her and thereafter, accused Nathua, Balua and Shripal committed rape on her.In para 20, she further stated that accused Malthua had also committed rape on her.In para 22 of her cross- examination, the prosecutrix stated that she had narrated the 9 Criminal Appeal No.675/2007 [Ballu alias Balua and others Vs.In para 24 of her cross-examination, the prosecutrix stated that she had lodged the report at Police Station Chanderi on the next day of the incident, a copy whereof was supplied to her, however, after coming out from the Police Station, when she got the FIR read over by some unknown person, then she came to know that the report, as narrated by her, has not been written by the Police Station Chanderi.In para 26, she stated that she had made a complaint at Ashoknagar of non-mentioning the whole story, as narrated by her, in the FIR registered by the Police Station Chanderi.The prosecutrix denied that only an incident of marpeet had occurred.She further denied that she is making a false statement.9.2 The other prosecution witnesses, including the injured witness-Harchanda (PW-2), have also supported the evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-1).Dr. Shilpa Bhagdikar (PW-10) has medically examined the prosecutrix and in medical examination, the doctor had found contusion on her right buttock and swelling on her left hand, although she did not find any injury on her private parts.This witness was cross-examined by the appellants.This witness did not give any opinion that in case of gang rape whether any injury would be caused on the private part of the prosecutrix 10 Criminal Appeal No.675/2007 [Ballu alias Balua and others Vs.State of M.P.] or not.Govindram Tiwari (PW-09), Head Constable, proved report Ex.P/10 written by him.Dr. Chandrashekar Dhurve (PW-11), Medical Officer, proved Ex.P/13, which is the report of x-ray conducted on the prosecutrix.Arvind Dubey (PW-12) is the Investigating Officer.He has stated that during investigation, the statements of the witnesses were recorded.On 6/1/2006 the appellant-Ballu alias Balua was arrested and his arrest memo is Ex.P/14 and on the same day the other accused persons were also arrested vide arrest memo.In cross- examination, this witness has denied that he had written the statements of the witnesses on his own.No doubt, her testimony has to inspire confidence.Seeking corroboration to a statement 11 Criminal Appeal No.675/2007 [Ballu alias Balua and others Vs.The doctor has 15 Criminal Appeal No.675/2007 [Ballu alias Balua and others Vs.State of M.P.] found contusion on her right buttock and swelling on her left hand .Non-sustaining of injury on the private part by itself cannot be a ground to dislodge the ocular evidence.It is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that only an incident of commission of marpeet between the parties had occurred, but the appellants have falsely been implicated in an offence of commission of rape on the prosecutrix.The offence was committed at about 8 in the night and the FIR was lodged on the very next day of the incident.The defence taken by the appellants for their false implication is not probable.The further defence taken by the appellants that in the initial report lodged at Police Station Chanderi, the prosecutrix had not disclosed the fact about commission of rape on her can also not be accepted because the prosecutrix has specifically stated in her statement that when she came out of the police station Chanderi, she got the FIR read over by some unknown person and then she came to know that the entire story, as narrated by her, was not written in the FIR and, therefore, she approached the higher police officials at Ashoknagar, but when her grievance was not addressed, then she went to Bhopal and lodged the report at Mahila Thana Bhopal.Further, the appellants have also not specifically stated that on 16 Criminal Appeal No.675/2007 [Ballu alias Balua and others Vs.State of M.P.] what issue the incident of marpeet had occurred between them and the family members of the prosecutrix.So far as the false implication of appellants due to some incident of marpeet between them and the family members of the prosecutrix is concerned, suffice it to say that no lady would put her pride and dignity at stake by making false allegation of rape only because some incident of marpeet had occurred with her family members.Considering the totality of the circumstances, it appears that the prosecutrix went to an open place in order to ease herself at 8 in the night, where the appellants came and dragged her to a dilapidated building where she was subjected to rape and when her father-in-law came there, he too was beaten.Thus, it is clear that the evidence of the prosecutrix is worth reliance and accordingly it is held that the appellants are guilty of committing rape upon the prosecutrix and also beating the injured- Harchanda.Accordingly, they are held guilty for committing offence under Sections 341, 376 (2) (g), 325/34 and 323/34 of IPC.9.6 The judgment dated 28/6/2007 passed by the trial court in S.S.T. No.30/2006 is hereby affirmed.9.7 So far as the question of sentence is concerned, the minimum sentence provided for offence under Section 376 (2) (g) of IPC is rigorous imprisonment of 10 years.The trial court has awarded the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 10 years.17 Criminal Appeal No.675/2007 [Ballu alias Balua and others Vs.After conviction by the trial court vide judgment dated 28/6/2007, the jail sentence of the appellants was never suspended by this Court, therefore, it appears that they must have served out the entire jail sentence.The appeal, accordingly, fails and is hereby dismissed.(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Arun* Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Date: 2018.01.25 12:50:34 +05'30' 18 Criminal Appeal No.675/2007 [Ballu alias Balua and others Vs.Arguments heard.Judgment dictated, signed and dated on separate sheets.(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Arun
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
101,279,928 |
The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:-Police Station and Crime No. Sections of LawThe ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 24.08.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Law and Order, M3 Puzhal Police Station in Crime No.1423/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 392, 397, 336 and 506(ii) IPC.Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he mainly focused his arguments on the ground that there is variation in translation of the remand order dated 24.08.2013 annexed in the booklet, which has deprived the detenu in making effective representation to the authorities concerned and therefore, on this sole ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed.We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission.
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
101,281,096 |
of The respondent No.2/complainant lodged a written complaint rt before the learned JMFC, Katni alleging that she is a blind person.The ou petitioners, Manoj Kumar and Smt. Rajni Patel are the husband and wife.They induced the respondent No.2 and took her to their house C without her consent, she was taken into Bandakpur and informed her h that he wants to marry her.When she refused and said that the ig petitioner No.1 is a married man, petitioner No.1 assaulted her and H forcibly some photographs were taken.When the complainant was taken to the house of the petitioner, petitioner No.2 dressed and made her make-up and left her in a room.Petitioner No.1 kept her as his wife for 6 months.She was not allowed to go out and not allowed to meet anyone.Because of the rape committed with her, she conceived.Petitioner No.2 then was administered certain medicine.Because of which her pregnancy was terminated.She was subjected to cruelty.She was not given proper food and she was being harassed by the petitioners.On 10/11/2015, she submitted a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police.No action was initiated, On 17/11/2015, she was again assaulted by the petitioners.She lodged a report at Police Station sh Barhi, but police did not lodge her report.She was subjected to cruelty.The petitioners were issueless.a hy This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and to quash the ad FIR at Crime No.04/2016 registered at Mahila Thana, Katni, wherein M offence has been registered under Sections 323, 315, 344, 346, 363, 366, 376, 494 and 506 of IPC.She was asked to put a e thumb impression.On 22/04/2016, again she submitted a written ad complaint but no action was initiated.Therefore, the petitioners again become confident and assaulted her and threatened of her life.She Pr therefore, filed a written complaint before JMFC Katni under Section a 156(3) of Cr.P.C. JMFC Katni directed the police station Barhi to hy lodge FIR and make investigation in this regard.On the basis of this ad FIR has been registered.The petitioner claimed that the application under Section 156(3) M of Cr.P.C. read with Section 190 of Cr.P.C. is not supported by an of affidavit of the respondent/complainant.The learned JMFC committed grave error of law directing the police to lodge FIR.The entire rt proceeding has been vitiated.The complainant married to petitioner ou No.1 with her consent and free will.She has addressed the petitioner C No.1 as her husband.Therefore, offence under Sections 363, 366, 376 h of IPC is not made out.Therefore, the offence under Section 494 of IPC is not made out.Looking into the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the FIR and consequently criminal proceeding in S.T. No.2700071/2016 be quashed.Learned GA for the respondent/State opposed the same and submits that the petitioner has taken advantage of the blind complainant.Subsequently, when petitioner No.2 became pregnant, the complainant was ill-treated.Meanwhile, the complainant also conceived, but her pregnancy was terminated by them.In this regard, sh the application for Restitution for Conjugal Right under Section 9 of e the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the petitioner No.1 against ad respondent/complainant, but the same has been dismissed recently.It is also stated that, the acts of the petitioners are sufficient to constitute offences.Pr a Heard the parties.Purpose of filing of such affidavit is to prevent abuse of process.Because filing of false affidavit by the petitioner would make him liable for prosecution in rt accordance with law.But, in the present case, complaint was filed by ou the respondent before the learned JMFC on 19/12/2015 and C subsequently.Before filing the application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., the complainant did approached the police Station.sh The session trial is pending before the Second ASJ.At this stage e of recording evidence by the trial Court, it would not be appropriate to ad embark upon an enquiry, where the allegations levelled by the complainant/respondent in the FIR and in the complaint are reliable or not.
|
['Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
101,283,476 |
As per the statement under section 164 CrPC, the version of complainant/Respondent No.2 is that the Petitioner used to follow her when she used to go for her computer class and forcefully tried talking to her.He expressed his love for her and his desire to marry her.The friendship between the parties grew and every time they met he insisted to have sexual relations with her on the pretext of marrying her.However, the Petitioner one day informed the complainant that he did not want to talk to her and doesn't want to marry her.The parents of Respondent No.2 went to the house of the Petitioner for giving a proposal of marriage however it was declined.Parties have been living together since then.Respondent No. 2 has filed her affidavit in support of the petition and had also appeared in person before the court on 04.10.2018 and stated that she had married the petitioner without CRL.M.C. 3033/2018 Page 2 of 8 coercion and free will and is residing with him.SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR 58/2016 under Section 376/354D/366 IPC, Police Station Aman Vihar.The allegations in the FIR are that the prosecutrix/respondent No.2 became friends with the petitioner.Their friendship continued for 4 - 5 months where after the petitioner is alleged to have proposed and express his love for her.It is alleged that on false promise of marriage, the petitioner made physical relationship with her on 15.11.2015 and thereafter also CRL.M.C. 3033/2018 Page 1 of 8 they continued to make physical relationship.Petitioner is thereafter alleged to have refused to marry her consequent to which the subject FIR was registered.CRL.M.C. 3033/2018 Page 1 of 8
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
101,293,917 |
Heard, Case-diary perused.This is an application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.1352/2019, registered at police station- Chimanganj Mandi, District Ujjain, concerning offence under Section 409 of IPC.As per the prosecution case the applicant was working as Sub-Post Master at Post Office Tajpur, District Ujjain and during his posting at Tajpur he misappropriated a total sum of Rs. 9, 91,538/- on the deposits made by the Depositors and on the basis of which Police registered an offence u/s 409 of IPC against the applicant.Investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed.The applicant has already deposited a sum of Rs. 9,91, 538/- before the Head Post Office, Ujjain on various dates.He has also enclosed the photo copies of the same.Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that conclusion of trial will take considerable time.Under these circumstances, learned counsel prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Learned Public Prosecutor submits that according to the verification report received from Station House Officer, Police Station Chimanganj Mandi, District Ujjain the applicant has already deposited M.Cr.C. No.1142/2020 2 the misappropriated amount of Rs. 9,91, 538/- before the Head Post Office, Ujjain .C. No.1142/2020 2Certified copy as per rules.(S. K. AWASTHI) JUDGE Rashmi Digitally signed by Rashmi Prashant Date: 2020.02.13 14:56:04 +05'30'
|
['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
101,294,951 |
The petitioner has appeared in the said case for about 23 days from 11.8.2005 to 25.3.2010, and the next date has been fixed on 7th May, 2010, for further cross-examination of P.W. -1 or the defacto- complainant.This revisional application under Section 401 read with Section 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner praying for an appropriate order and direction for expeditious trial of G.R. case No. 1666/2004 now pending before the court of learned 8th Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta.In between 19.10.2004 and 27.10.2004 the opposite parties No. 2 to 6/accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy, trespassed into the rooms of the petitioner by breaking the padlock and committed theft of his household items worth about Rs. 80,000/-.On the basis of his application under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code complaint case No. C/1112/2004 before the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, arising out of Girish Park Police Station case No. 141 dated 11.12.2004 under Sections 448/454/380/120B of the Indian Penal Code, was registered, and Officer-in-charge of said police station was directed to investigate into the matter by the learned Court.The opposite parties No. 2 to 6 duly appeared before the learned Court below, but they are taking time one after another on different grounds for which the cross-examination of P.W. -1 has not been completed.The petitioner along with his family members have been dispossessed by the opposite parties No. 2 to 6 and they are occupying the rooms of the petitioner as trespassers, and the learned Court below should be directed to conclude the trial of the said G.R. case No. 1666/2004 expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of passing of the order, otherwise the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and injury.It appears from the certified copy of the order dated 29.8.2005 of G.R. case No. 1666/2004 that on the basis of a complaint of the petitioner under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which was treated as First Information Report, Girish Park Police Station case No. 141 dated 11.12.2004 was started and police investigated into the case and submitted charge sheet against the accused persons under Sections 448/120B of the Indian Penal Code along with list of documents and cognizance was taken and summons was issued by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, fixing 10.01.2006 for S.R. and appearance.On 10.01.2006 accused persons were absent by petition and prayed for time.2007 the accused persons and C.S.W -1 was present and he was examined in part and his examination was deferred till 20.3.2007 for further evidence, and thereafter the hearing of the said G.R. case was adjourned from 20.3.2007 to 6.6.2007, 21.7.2007, 20.8.2007, 14.12.2007, 23.4.2008, 5.8.2008, 7.01.2009, 16.02.2009, 29.5.2009, 22.9.2009, 23.11.2009 and 4.01.2010 for evidence as some of the accused persons were absent by petition and prayed for adjournment on the aforesaid dates, though all the accused persons appeared before the said Court in the mean time.The opposite party No.1 State of West Bengal has appeared in this matter, but has not filed any affidavit-in-opposition while other opposite parties have neither appeared in this matter nor have filed any affidavit-in-opposition.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
101,295,211 |
This first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.109/2020 registered at Police Station- Adegaon, District Seoni, MP for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 of the IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there was no allegation against the present applicant as he has provoked the deceased to commit suicide, therefore, ingredient of offence 306 of the IPC is not made out against him.He further submits that the marriage of the applicant and deceased was solemnized in the year 1999 and as per the statement of the child, nothing alleged against the present applicant.Upon these submissions, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.On the other hand learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that as per the facts and circumstances of the case and the material produced by the prosecution agency, the offence has rightly been registered against applicant.Hence, prays for dismissal of the application.It is directed that the applicant be released on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.It is further directed that the applicant shall abide by the conditions enumerated in Section 437(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The jail authority is also directed to ensure that before his release, the applicant is examined by the jail doctor to ascertain that he is not afflicted with the COVID-19 virus.If the doctor suspects otherwise, the applicant shall be referred to the appropriate hospital for further management as per the protocol laid down by the State.Certified copy as per rule.The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned trial Court through E-mail.(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE ashish ASHISH KUMAR LILHARE 2020.06.10 15:45:36 +05'30'
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,013,033 |
Heard Mr. S.G.Singh, learned counsel for the appellants andlearned A.G.A.Summon the lower court record.The appellants have been convicted and sentenced in SessionTrial No. 281 of 2008 as under:-Under sections 147 IPC- Six months rigorous imprisonment.Under Sections 323 read with section 149 IPC- Six monthsrigorous imprisonment.Under section 506 (2) IPC- Six month rigorous imprisonment.During trial the appellants were on bail which they never misused.Presently, they are on interim bail.He also submits that speedy justice isthe fundamental right but the appeal may take a couple of years or evenmore in its final disposal.The appellants have every hope of success inthe appeal.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
101,305,814 |
1 High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Indore Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.3833/2020 (Abhishek @ Abhi s/o Jeevan Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh AND VICTIM / PROSECUTRIX) Indore, Dated 07.02.2020 Mr. Ravi Sagre, learned counsel for the applicant.Mr. Gaurav Kumar Verma, learned Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant / State of Madhya Pradesh.The prosecutrix and her parents have been examined before the trial Court; and they have not support the prosecution story and turn hostile.Under these circumstances, no alleged offence is made out against the applicant.There is no possibility of his / her absconsion or tampering with the evidence, if enlarged on bail.
|
['Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
38,644,431 |
57. R-5 fares no better in his actions.Overzealousness to take action against the petitioners and inertia to take action against the oppressors of the petitioners are clear from his conduct.Despite the petitioners being wrongfully confined by the agitating mob, R-5 stated before the WBHRC that "we did not start any case as no complaint was received" from the petitioners on that day.Holding an important office such as the Additional Officer-in-Charge of a police station, R-5 ought to know that in case of commission of a cognizable offence on a victim in the presence of the police, it does not require a complaint to be lodged by the victim for the police to swing into action but that the police personnel in whose presence the offence is committed may himself start a case after arresting the person(s) involved in the crime.The deeper the scrutiny, the chinks in the armoury of the respondents' defence seem to trickle out.The concept of the police resorting to protective custody which has no sanction in law only on the ground of a so called convention is intriguing.Clearly the police failed to act in accordance with law by not arresting anyone from the agitated mob who wrongfully confined Professor Ambikesh Mahapatra and Shri Subrata Sengupta from their own residential complex and thus acted in gross violation of human rights of those two persons.The Commission is surprised to find that the State Government is supporting the illegal actions of the police on the basis of a so called convention which has no legal sanction.Chief Secretary, Home Department and the aforesaid observations of the Commission in the website immediately."Mr. B.R. Bhattacharya, learned senior advocate representing the petitioners scathingly attacked the excesses committed by the police and the active support lent to it by the State Government.Relying on several authorities, viz. (2009) 3 ALL ER 14 : Raissi v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner, (2014) 2 SCC 1 : Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (1997) 1 SCC 416 : D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1999) ILR 2 Cal 27 : Champak Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal, (1996) 1 SCC 742 : National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, (1999) 2 SCC 131 : Paramjit Kaur v. State of Punjab, (2012) 8 SCC 1 : Mehmood Nayyar Azam v. State of Chhatisgarh, (2010) 3 SCC 571 : State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and Ors., (2010) 11 SCC 208 : Jaywant P. Sankpal v. Suman Gholap, (2013) 8 SCC 664 : N. Sengodan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1985) 4 SCC 677 : Bhim Singh, MLA v. State of J & K, (1987) 1 SCC 265 : People's Union for Democratic Rights v. State of Bihar, and (1994) 6 SCC 565 : Arvinder Singh Bagga v. State of Uttar Pradesh, he urged that the writ Court being the protector of fundamental rights of citizens ought to grant relief in terms of prayer (a) of the writ petition to sanitize the system, which has become murky, and uphold the people's freedom of speech and expression which is so very essential for a democratic country like ours to prosper, and enforce the recommendation of the WBHRC by issuing Mandamus.The writ petition was initially opposed by Mr. Bimal Chatterjee, learned Advocate General for the State of West Bengal.According to him, the petitioners themselves never complained of violation of human rights and the incident in which they were involved was blown out of proportion by the WBHRC.The petitioners, he continued, not having alleged that their freedoms were in jeopardy or that their liberties were curtailed and there were police excesses resulting in harassment, there could be no case of the petitioners' rights under Article 21 of the Constitution being abrogated and the WBHRC committed serious error in failing to notice this perspective.Referring to the complaint of P-1 giving rise to registration of PJPS FIR No. 51 dated April 14, 2012, Mr. Chatterjee sought to emphasize that P-1 himself did not allege any overt act on the part of any police officer; additionally, P-1 did not allege any sense of insecurity at the police station.After arrest, the petitioners were taken to a local hospital and on return they were offered bail which they declined.The accused were enlarged on Bail on the next day."Now, the third point.Officers of the police administration ought to realize that the time is not too far away when they may have to pay a heavy price for unwarranted, uncalled for and unjustified invasion of human rights of the people at large.In the result, the writ petition succeeds in part.
|
['Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
3,864,715 |
(Delivered on this 8th day of May, 2018) PER SETH, J.This Criminal Revision is directed against the order dated 14.06.2017 passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Mandla in Special Case No.01/2017 whereby application under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been rejected.::2::Brief facts, which are not disputed and necessary for the disposal of the present petition are as under:-Applicant is one of the accused who is facing criminal trial before the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Mandla, for the offences punishable under Sections 13 (1)(d), 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 409, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.A private complaint for registration of the said offences has been filed alleging that the applicant along with other co- accused persons embezzled the Government Money and misused their power and committed forgery with the Government.After completing the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the accused persons including the present applicant.After cognizance was taken, applicant filed an application under Section 19 of the P.C. Act read with ::3::Revision No.2465/2017 Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. on the ground that at the time of commission of offences, he was working as In-Charge Officer in Municipal Council, Mandla.Hence, he filed an application to quash the order taking cognizance of the case against the applicant which has been rejected by the learned Trial Judge by the order impugned.Hence, this petition.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
38,652,200 |
This is the second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for offence punishable under sections 294, 324, 506, 147, 148, 307/149 of the IPC and later on added 302/149 of IPC in connection with Crime No.36/2015 registered at Police Station Pawai, District Panna on rejection of the earlier bail application as not pressed with liberty to renew the prayer after six months if trial is not concluded.But thereafter ten witnesses have been examined.PUD sent in M.Cr.C. No.6162/2017 stands disposed of.Certified copy as per rules.(J.K. Maheshwari) Judge Astha ASTHA Digitally signed by ASTHA SEN DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=1ee5a674928966529f24a9132add 140c808281a9ccd575356592932276d7d52 SEN e, 2.5.4.45=032100F16F6F19B1F2EDCC28285 569BBA28523D9E8AED4D08E333A4E2E73 DCCC3B497D, cn=ASTHA SEN Date: 2017.11.22 10:58:32 +05'30'
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
386,528 |
Challenged in these appeals by a quadruple appellantsMulla @ Kalu @ Tahir (A1), Rahis @ Baboo(A2) Arif(A3), andSaleem @ Pappu(A4) are to the their convictions for offencesU/S 307/34 IPC and 323/34 IPC and imposed sentences often years R.I. with fine of Rs.5,000/- on each of the 2appellants and in default of payment of fine to undergo 2years further RI on the first count and one year R.I. on thesecond count recorded by Additional Sessions Judge, courtno.2, Ghaziabad in S.T. No.304 of 2001, State Vs.Mulla andothers connected with S.T. No.760 of 2001, State Vs.Arif,both relating to PS Vijay Nagar, District Ghaziabad, videimpugned judgement and order dated 23.3.2006.Trial Judgehas further directed that both the sentences shall runconcurrently.It had further directed payment of Rs. Tenthousand as compensation to the injured Mahesh (PW3).Since in all these appeals impugned judgement is one and thesame hence it all are being decided by this commonjudgement.Briefly stated prosecution allegations were thatinformant Nand Kishore P.W.1 and all the appellants are covillagers being resident of village Mirzapur, P.S. Vijai Nagar,district Ghaziabad.A3 and A4 were eve teasers.Shakuntlaand Poonam both sisters of PW1 and students of SushilaSchool were victims of that eve teasing.To save their honourPW1 had taken them to his working place at Delhi were theyremained for six or seven months.During vacations all ofthem returned to their village to live with their parents.On 323.5.2000 when P.W.1, his brother Mahesh (PW3) were goingto see off their father Chatrapal Singh (PW4) and youngersister Poonam to railway station then A3 and A4 chased themon motor cycle and teasing they even dashed it with Poonamside ways.After seeing off their father and sister PW1 and 3came to the house of A2 to complain about misdemeanourconduct of A3 and A4 at 9 a.m. where they were threatened ,abused and at the instigation of A1 rest of appellants A2, A3and A4 started assaulting them who both sustained injuries.A3 caught hold of PW3 and A4 pierced knife in his chestcausing extensive internal damage to his organs.After gettingPW3 admitted in Ganesh Hospital that PW1 scribed a writtenreport Ext. Ka-1 about the incident and then lodged it at PSVijay Nagar,District Ghaziabad at 12.30 in the afternoon thesame day.Doctor had noted followinginternal and external injuries on his body:-Stab injury 3 inches X 1.5 inches X chest cavity deepon lower portion of right side chest having a cut of 2inchesthrough and through.Diaphragm between lung and abdomenwas cut about 2 inches.Right side Liver was also cut 2inchesx 1 ½ cm.Right side muscles in between the ribs were alsocut.Because of sustained injury blood had collected on rightside chest and stomach.According to the doctor sustained injury could have beencaused at or about date and time of the incident.In this complaintshe stated that her young one of the goat had gone in theAngana of Gulabkhan.The three persons named in thecomplaint were Gulabkhan, Bai-bibi, mother-in-law ofGulabkhan and Nannubibi, his wife.The two ladies caughthold of her Odhana and began to give her blows of kicks and 25fists.Gulabkhan gave stick blows on the right hand and soshe fell down on the ground and began to shout.The injuriesfound on the person of Fatima Bibi were 5 in number, threecontusions on the right forearm, one contusion on posterio-parietal part of right side of scalp and one contusion onscapular part of right side of back.Dr. Sanjay Kumar Shanker, P.W.5, M.O., M.M.G.Hospital, Ghaziabad medically examined PW1 at 1.40p.m.same day, who was brought to him by Constable MaheshKumar of PS Vijay Nagar.Following injuries were noted by thedoctor on his body:-Lacerated wound 2 X 1 c.m.X muscle deep on rightforehead in V-shape with oozing of blood.2. contusion 4 c.m. X 2 c.m.on the right front of left 5shoulder.3. contusion 3 c.m. X 2 c.m.on back of left forearm.Abraded contusion 7 c.m. X 3 c.m.on back of rightforearm.Abrasion 1 c.m. X 1 c.m.on dorsal of right hand.Since that charge was abjured bythe accused trial proceeded to establish their guilt.Prosecution examined six witnesses in all to bring homethe charge, out of whom informant injured Nand KishoreP.W.1, injured Mahesh P.W.3 and their father ChatrapalSingh P.W.4 were fact witnesses.Dr. Umesh Madan P.W.2,Dr.Sanjay Kumar Shanker, P.W.5 and investigating officerS.I. Charan Singh Yadav P.W.6 were formal witnesses.In their depositions all the fact witnesses supportedprosecution version in it's entirety.PW1 testified that A3 and 6A4 used of tease his sisters on their way to school.Many atimes protest was made but in vain.A3 and A4 had alsothreatened PW1 with his life.Deterred by their activities PW1and 3 along with two sisters had shifted to Delhi where PW1was employed six or seven months prior to the date of theincident.P.W.1 further stated that assault was made outsidethe house of the appellants when they had gone to lodge aprotest about the morning incident when A3 and A4 haddashed their motorcycle with Poonam while they were goingto railway station.He had confirmed time, place, manner ofassault and weapons used by the assailants.A1 and A2 hadbelaboured him while PW3 was assaulted in his chest by A4when he was already encircled by A3 causing him lifethreatening injury.PW3 had fallen down sustaining that injuryand therefore assailants had escaped from the spot.PW1further testified that he had sustained lacerated wound on hishead and after the incident he had transported PW3 firstly tothe police station and then to Khatri Nursing Home, wherehis admission was declined and therefore was carried toGanesh Hospital where he was admitted.Subsequent to hishospitalisation that PW 1 had scribed and had lodged his FIRand there after police had got him medically examined.This witness had been subjected to searching cross-examination during which he had deposed that they hadstarted for railway station at a distance of two and a halfkilometres at 8.30 a.m. and A3 and A4 had chased them ontheir motor cycle from Samrat Chowk and it was near Devitemple that they had dashed it with his sister but they couldnot be apprehended because they speeded their motor cycleaway.His father had to join his duty, therefore, along with hissister had left for Delhi.From station it took ten or fifteenminutes to them to reach place of incident on a rickshaw.This witness had emphatically denied defence suggestion thatthey had assaulted appellants inside their house in an incidentof loot besides admitting that father of A2 had lodged a caseagainst them.He had also denied defence suggestion thathe had gone to the house of appellants to assault them.Another injured witness Mahesh Kumar P.W.3 fullysupported P.W.1 in all important aspects of the incident.Hewas also tested thoroughly by the defence counsel wherein hehad deposed that they had reached station at about 8.40 a.m.and they had reached place of incident at about 9 or 9.15 8a.m. He further disclosed that he was carried to the policestation on a scooter and from police station to Khatri NursingHome on the same scooter but from Nursing home he wascarried in an ambulance to the hospital.A3 had caught hold ofhim when A4 had pierced knife in his chest.He had refuteddefence case that there was illicit relationship betweenPoonam and A3 and A4 and therefore, they have falselyimplicated the appellants.He further refuted defencesuggestion that Poonam had cupid relationship with A3 andA4 and she used to write letters and the two appellants hadgot photo of Poonam as well.Third witness of fact father Chatrapal Singh P.W.4,testified before the court that while he was going to thestation along with his daughter Poonam accompanied with PW1 and 3 the two appellants A3 and A4 had dashed theirmotorcycle with Poonam and thereafter he had left for Delhiaccompanied with his daughter.He was informed about theincident in his bank office and thereafter he had returned toGhaziabad from Delhi.During his cross-examination he hadsupported P.W.1 and 3 entirely and had further deposed thatafter the motorcycle was dashed he had not said anything tothe appellants.He had further informed that earlier also there 9had been an altercation between his sons and the appellants.Information regarding the incident was conveyed to himbetween 10.30 and 11.00 a.m. by his Colleagues.Whileadmitting pendency of a case against them in the court ofACJM, Ghaziabad, he had refuted defence suggestion of givingfalse evidence.Formal witnesses in their depositions before the courtnarrated those very facts which are recorded herein aboveand hence are eschewed from being repeated.In their statements under Section 313 of the Code,appellants pleaded innocence and denial.A3 further statedthat because of the political leaders he had been implicatedfalsely.A1 and A4 stated that PW1,3 and 4along with four orfive of their associates had assaulted them with an intentionto murder but their report was not taken down and therefore,with the help of an application under Section 156(3) of theCode they got an F.I.R. registered against PWs as culprits.Accused did not examine any defence witness but filedcertified copy of their FIR of Cr.No. 3 of 2000, injury reportsof Mohd. Saleem and Mohd. Tahir, copy of site plan andcharge sheet against PWs 1,3 and 4 of cross case.Trail court after critically appreciating facts of the case 10and evidences led before it concluded that prosecution hassuccessfully established appellants guilt and thereforeconvicted and sentenced them as above hence these appealschallenging those convictions and sentences.I have heard Sri Rajendra Kumar Pandey advocate onbehalf of all the appellants and learned AGA in opposition.Learned counsel for the appellants assailed impugnedjudgement by canvassing that the trial Judge wrongly reliedupon prosecution evidences, no complaint was maderegarding teasing because that was a false allegation.Hecanvassed that defence of the appellants is true narration ofincident and in a brawl that ensued at the house of theappellants that injured sustained injuries.Place of incident isthe house of the appellants and the prosecution has notexplained the injuries sustained from the side of theappellants.Learned counsel further submitted that there wasa cross version and therefore both the cases should havebeen tried simultaneously one after another by the samecourt, which procedure was not adopted by the trial Judgeand therefore conviction of the appellants is indefensible.Itwas further argued that but for A4 prosecution case inrespect of other accused is not established.All prosecution 11witnesses are related inimical partisan and no independentperson came forward to support their allegations and henceconviction of the appellants is not sustainable.It wassuggested that two accused had sustained injuries from theside of the appellants and prosecution has not offered anyexplanation for those injuries and therefore it's witnesses areeither not reliable or they are suppressing genesis of theincident and in either case appellants deserves acquittal.Atlast it was submitted that all the appeals deserves to beallowed and conviction and sentences imposed on theappellants be set aside.There was noenimous between them and the appellants to lay a falsecharge and therefore their depositions which is of anunimpeachable character must be accepted as correctnarration of the incident.Albeit all prosecution witnesses were 12subjected to lengthy and tiring cross-examinations but thedefence miserably failed to elicit any favourable circumstanceto it which can discredit their testimonies.Mere relationship isno ground to reject testimonies of reliable witnesses.It is thequality of evidence that matters and not the relationshipsubmitted learned AGA.Concludingly, it was submitted thatall the appeals lacks merit and hence be dismissed.I have considered rival contentions and have perused thetrial court record in the light of raised contentions.Admittedlythere are two cross versions regarding the same incident.Some of the facts in issue are common to both the versions.They are place and date of incident and presence of PW1,3and 4 and A1,2,3 and 4 at the spot.PW 1 and 3 from theprosecution side and A1 and 4 from the defence side hadsustained injuries in the incident.Weapon wielded by A4 hasalso not been disputed seriously.Albeit A3 pleaded alibi but tosupport his defence he had led no evidence.Alibi is subject toproof and in absence of any evidence supporting such a claimby A3 same can not be accepted.In such circumstances whatis to be judged is as to which side was the aggressor and outof the two which version is more credible.Judging from above angle I find that prosecution 13witnesses of fact are truthful cogent and clear in theirdepositions.They have supported prosecution version in allit's material aspects of the incident.They have not attemptedto shield names of their sisters at the cost of their familyprestige.It was because of eve teasing that incident hadoccurred.There was no reason for the prosecution witnessesto introduce a young damsel in the incident and that too theirsisters and daughters.They all narrated that on the date ofthe incident A3 and A4 had dashed their motorcycle withPoonam.This must have been immediate cause for PW 1 and3 to come to house of A2 to lodge their protest.This is a varynatural conduct.None of the prosecution witness had anyenimous against appellants to rope them falsely in afabricated version at the cost of their family reputation toanoint temerity.On the contrary, reasonhas to be shown when a plea of partiality is raised to showthat the witnesses had reason to shield actual culprit andfalsely implicate the accused.No evidence has been led inthis regard."In Dalip Singh and Ors.A3 suggested to PW1 that he was assaulted but henever pleaded that suggestion in his statement U/S 313 ofthe Code.Appellants even did not attempted to get their trialin which prosecution side is an accused committed to thecourt of Session's to be tried along with their trial in whichthey are accused.It is therefore too late in the day for themto cry foul.The accused personshave not got the original application proved.Further theinjury sustained by A4 indicates that he had sustained asuperficial injury.The injuries were all ofminor character.In her statement under Section 342 of theCode of Criminal Procedure, 1898 respondent no. 1 statedalmost the same story and added that Gulabkhan was drunkwhile he was abusing her.Neither in Ext. 44 nor in thestatement under Section 342 there was a wisper byrespondent no. 1 of her having squeezed the testicles and theprivate part of Gulabkhan.Nothing was stated to give anyinkling of her having squeezed the testicles of Gulabkhan inexercise of her right of private defence to protect her fromfurther assault.No foundationwas laid to enable the Court to acquit the respondentsgranting them a right of private defence.It did require a pureconjecture and imagination to hold the respondents not guiltyby extending to them the right of private defence.Accordingto PW4 he was at Delhi at his working place but was madean accused in the cross FIR by the appellants.When he wasin the witness box no question was put to him regarding hispresence at the scene of the incident as was claimed by thedefence.It was not even suggested to him that he waspresent at the spot during the incident.Fourthly, alibi of A3was suggested to PW 1 and 4 but the same was not stated byA3 in his statement U/S 313 of the Code.Fifthly,PW5 hadmedically examined A1 and A4 as is revealed from defencepapers but when the said witness was in the witness boxappellants could not muster courage to get those medicalreports duly proved.They intentionally eschewed it 27consciously because probably injuries suffered by them wereself inflicted.Defence also did not file deposition of the doctorin cross version to negate prosecution case.Merely filing ofinjury reports without getting them proved is of no help to theaccused.Sixthly no immediate motive had been suggested tothe prosecution witnesses for them to come to the house ofthe appellant's at such an early hour of morning and thereforedefence version can not be swallowed.Seventhly, oxymoronsuggestions to all the witnesses does not inspire anyconfidence in defence theory.I don't mean to say thataccused has to prove it's case beyond any shadow of doubtbut what is fathomed out is that defence version of exerciseof right of private defence is false and does not inspire anyconfidence.It is very queer that defence had not evensuggested exercise of right of private defence to PW3.On thecontrary suggestion to PW3 establish that A3 and A4 were eveteasers and a conclave was also convened for that purpose.This lend credence to motive part as was stated byprosecution witnesses.Now,coming to another important aspect of the appeal asto what offence was committed by each appellant, I am of theopinion that so far as A4 is concerned his guilt under Section 28307 IPC is established to the hilt without any second thought.Forcewith which that injury had been caused and damage whichPW3 had sustained because of that falls squarely within theambit of offence U/S 307 IPC.In this respect it is also pointed outthat trial Judge had charged A4 with the aid of section 34IPC, which obviously was a mistake.Trial Judge was notcareful in framing charges.He even omitted to chargeaccused A1 to 3 U/S 323/34 IPC.Injuries ofPW 1 does not indicate that he was belaboured with intentionto commit murder.Incident was preceded with a tiradicaltercation.In such a view it is very difficult to conclude thatA1 and 2 shared same common intention with A3 and A4and intended to commit murder.Criminal appeal No. 2148 of 2006 Arif Versus State isallowed in part.Conviction of appellant Arif(A3) U/S 323/34 isset aside but his conviction and sentence U/S 307/34 IPC ishereby maintained and his appeal is dismissed on that score.Criminal Appeal No.1951 of 2006 Mulla@ Kalu@ Tahirand another versus State, is allowed in part.Since two of the appellants Mulla @ Kalu @ Tahir andRahis @ Babu have already served out their sentence they aredirected to be released from jail forthwith unless they areincarcerated there in connection with some other offence.Compensation of Rs. Ten thousand as was ordered by 31the trial court to be given to PW 3 is also not interfered with.The above appeals are allowed in part as above.Copy of this judgement is directed to be transmitted to thetrial court for it's intimation.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
38,655,319 |
The appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the judgment of the trial Court holding him guilty of the offence under Sections 304(i), 323 and 324 IPC.Though, the appellant was charged for the offence under Section 302 IPC, the trial Court has concluded saying that the accused has caused homicide of Selvaraj in a heat of moment to expiate the right ofhttp://www.judis.nic.in 2 defence of his property.But in the context, it has to be held that he has exceeded the limit of his right.Aggrieved by the judgment of the conviction and sentence, the present appeal is preferred.The brief facts of the case is as follows:-On 29.11.2008, at about 8.00 p.m., Selvaraj (deceased) along with his son Mahendran, Narayanasamy, Sagayam and others went to the land which was in occupation of the accused, which is admittedly a poramboke piece of land.They had gone over to that place with a view to dispossess the accused and put up thatched shed.On hearing that a group of people landed in the property, the accused went to the scene of crime with Koduval.He has indiscriminatingly attacked Selvaraj-PW.1, Narayanasamy and Sagayam.While Selvaraj succumbed to injury, Narayanasamy and Sagayam sustained simple injury.They were treated by a doctor at Coimbatore Medical College hospital.On 02.12.2008 at about 11.30 a.m., the accused presented before V.A.O. and gave an extra judicial confession to him.That was recorded by the V.A.O. He took the accused to the police station.Pursuant to the confession statement of the accused, the weapon was recovered.Before the trial Court, the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses and 19 Exibits were marked along with 4 Material Objects.Relying upon the evidence of PW.1, PW.2 and PW.10 and the other materialhttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 evidence, such as Accident Register Ex.P.10, P.11 and P.12 coupled with the admissible portion of the confession statement given by the accused which lead to the recovery of M.O.1, Seizure Mahazar Ex.P.9 was prepared.The Trial Court has found the accused guilty.However for the reason above stated, the trial Court gave the benefit of doubt under the right of private defence, which has been exercised by the accused in excess than warranted.So convicted him for an offence under Section 304 (i) instead of 302 IPC.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant placed his arguments on the following grounds:Referring the accident register Ex.P.11 and Ex.P12, which is the earliest document on the side of the prosecution which has come into existence on 29.11.2008 at about 11.35 p.m., he would submit that the injured witnesses have not named the accused.In fact, they have informed the doctor who recorded the accident register, that they were allegedly assaulted by 15 unknown persons.Whereas the prosecution has charged the appellant alone.Admittedly the accused and the injured victims are known to each other but not named the accused as the assailant.The injured persons were assaulted by 15 unknown persons and not by the accused.Secondly, the learned counsel would say that the FIR, which is now placed before this Court in Ex.P.13 would not have been the FIR based on the firsthttp://www.judis.nic.ininformation.There is delay in registering the FIR and the prosecution has 4 not explained the cause for the delay.The FIR has been registered only on 30.11.2008 and the same was forwarded to the Court much later.The learned counsel would submit that the accused had sustained injury and same is reflected in Ex.The prosecution has not properly investigated about the cause of injury and failed to place it before the Court, the true facts which they found during the course of investigation.The unexplained injury on the accused coupled with the evidence shows that PW.1, PW.2 and others along with the deceased Selvaraj had tried to encroach upon the land in possession of the accused and the previous enmity between them has lead to foist the case with false material.The improbability a single person causing the injury to three persons as projected by the prosecution has not been properly appreciated by the Court below.Balamurugan, who was the duty doctor at that time, has examinedhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 them and admitted them for further treatment.The deceased Selvaraj was brought to the hospital by his son Mahendran.He was the first informant.He was examined as PW.1 by the prosecution.While Sagayam complained about assault by 15 unknown persons using wooden logs, no external injury was noticed by the doctor.On physical examination of Narayanasamy, PW.7 has noticed a cut injury on the left finger and left side of his neck, abrasion on the right side shoulder.Post mortem of Selvaraj discloses cut injury on the skull and lacerated wound on left cheek region.While the other two injured persons were treated for the injury and got discharged, Selvaraj succumbed to injury on 29.11.2008 at about 21.00 hours.The injured witnesses have identified the assailant.Though in the accident register, it is recorded that they were assaulted by 15 unknown persons, that is not a piece of evidence to prove the offence but only to prove the injured person visited the hospital and the treatment given by the hospital.Collaterally in the column history of injury is recorded by the doctor.Therefore, the discrepancy found in the accident register will not over ride a fact/information concluded during the investigation.Regarding the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the earliest complaint was suppressed and the FIR was not registered in time, the learned Government Advocate would submit that Ex.P.3 printed FIR would clearly show that for the occurrence took place on 29.11.2008 at about 20 hours, after receiving the reports from the hospital and thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 statement from the victim, case has been registered at 13.00 hours on 30.11.2008 and the same has been forwarded to the Judicial Magistrate as express FIR.The Judicial Magistrate has received and noted the time and fixed his seal, which reveals that the express FIR reached the Magistrate on 01.12.2008 at about 3:30 a.m.. In such circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was delay in forwarding the FIR has no legs to stand.The learned Government Advocate, relying upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court rendered in Onkarnath Singh and others Vs.State of Utter Pradesh reported in (1975) 3 SCC 276, would submit that the injury found on the accused and noted in the accident register Ex. P.16 were post incident injuries.Even according to the accused, he has stated to the Doctor that he sustained said injury while bleeding from the scene of crime after committing the crime.The presence of injury found on the accused per se will not give inference that he is sustained the injury during the occurrence of that injury caused to the accused has provoked the accused to cause death of the Selvaraj and to cause injuries to other witnesses.In contradiction to the above submission of the learned Government Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant would submithttp://www.judis.nic.inthat the right of private defence has to be inferred from the material facts 7 placed before the Court and the accused need not even plead right of private defence.The prosecution witnesses admit that they went to scene of crime with weapons and they were warned by the accused.Even few weeks earlier when similar attempts was made it was prevented by the accused.The accused was cultivating the piece of land.He has every right to protect the land.Even assuming the injury found in the body of the deceased as well as PW.2 and PW.10 were caused by this accused, the appellant has every right to defend his property and therefore, the trial Court ought not have found him guilty even for the offence under Section 304(ii) IPC.The evidence of PW.1, PW.2, PW.3 and PW.10 discloses the fact that these witnesses, along with Selvaraj and others went SOC on 28.11.2008 at about 7 p.m., with intention to put thatched shed.These witnesses further deposed that while they were prepared to unload the materials, the accused came with Aruval declaring that only if he murderhttp://www.judis.nic.in 8 them things will get set right.He has caused head injury with Aruval to Selvaraj.When PW.2 Narayanasamy tried to protect Selvaraj, accused has attacked PW.2 with the same Aruval, which has caused cut injury on the left hand finger and on left neck.The post mortem report of Selvaraj also indicates that he has sustained head injury and died.The accident register given for the injuries sustained by PW.2, which was marked as Ex.P.12 co- relates with the injury spoken by the injured witnesses.While the presence of the accused at SOC and his overt act causing fatal injury to Selvaraj and simple injury of PW.2 and PW.10 established cogently.These two witnesses and the other corroborated facts such as confession statement of the accused, recovery of M.Os based on the said confession statement has strengthened the case of the prosecution.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the injury found on the accused as mentioned in Ex.P.16 wound certificate prove the accused sustained injuries during the course of attack and the same has been totally suppressed by the Investigating Officer.The trial Court has also failed to give adequate waitage to such evidence.As far as Ex.P.16 and the injuries found on the accused, the eye witnesses have deposed that after assaulting Selvaraj, PW.2 and PW.10 the accused ran away from the scene of crime.How and when, by whom the injury found in Ex.P.16 was caused has not been proved by the prosecutionhttp://www.judis.nic.in 9 for the simple reason that in his statement to the doctor, the accused has said he sustained the said injury while he fall down in the ground.From the nature of the injury and in the absence of any positive material which the accused could have placed before the Court to explain the injury who is recorded in Ex.P.16 has to be accepted.It is his option to choose between right of silence or to disclose the reason for his act through material evidence.Having opted to excercise the right of silence, Court cannot stretch its imagination to infer right of private defence, beyond the material placed it.The Trial Court to some extent, has taken note of the manner in which attack on the deceased and PW.2 and PW.10 has taken place.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would state that at the time of occurrence the appellant was 50 years old, now he has crossed 60 years.Taking into account, the incident has taken place because of the greed to grab the public property.The accused who has already in enjoyment of the public property want to protect the same, whereas the deceased party want to grab the land from him, In this fight Selvaraj has lost his life.The respondent shall secure the accused and committing him to undergo the remaining period of sentence and the period of sentence already under gone shall be set off under Section 428 IPC.In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, confirming the conviction passed against the appellant by the trial Court vide judgment dated 15.06.2012 in S.C.No.259 of 2010 on the file of the First Additional District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore and modifying the sentence imposed on the appellant shall be reduced from 10 years R.I to 5 years R.I. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.20.02.2019 Index : Yes/No Speaking order/ Non speaking order rpl To1.The First Additional District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 12 Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.rpl Crl.A.No.431 of 2012 and M.P.No.2 of 2012
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
386,607 |
JUDGMENT John Beaumont, J.This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal dated February 1, 1945, in appeal from its original jurisdiction, which affirmed a judgment and decree of that High Court dated March, 81, 1943, in its original jurisdiction, dismissing the appellant's suit for damages for malicious prosecution.The question arising in this appeal is:-At what stage will criminal proceedings instituted falsely and maliciously before a Magistrate under the provisions of the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure lay the foundation for a suit for damages for malicious prosecution ?Before dealing with the facts of the case, it will be convenient to notice the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Section 190 so far as relevant enacts that except as thereinafter provided, any Presidency Magistrate, District Magistrate or Sub-divisional Magistrate or other Magistrate therein mentioned may take cognizance of any offence (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence.The exceptions referred to are not relevant to this appeal.Chapter XVI which is headed "Of complaints to Magistrates" contains the following provisions:-A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall at once examine the complainant upon oath and the substance of the examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant, and also by the Magistrate:(1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorized to take cognizance, or which has been transferred to him under Section 192, may, if he thinks fit, for reasons to be recorded in writing, postpone the issue of process for compelling the attendance of the person complained against, and either inquire into the case himself or, if he is a Magistrate other than a Magistrate of the third class, direct an inquiry or investigation to be made by any Magistrate subordinate to him, or by a police-officer, or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of ascertaining the truth or falsehood of the complaint:(2A) Any Magistrate inquiring into a case under this section may, if he thinks fit, take evidence of witnesses on oath.The relevant facts are these, In March, 1940, an agreement was entered into between the appellant and the 1st respondent which was contained in certain letters whereby the appellant agreed to sell certain property to a company which was to be formed by the 1st respondent.The appellant alleged that subsequently an oral agreement was made between himself and the 1st respondent containing certain provisions which went beyond the written agreement.The 3rd respondent company was incorporated on April 16, 1940, in order to carry out the purchase from the appellant, and certain property was transferred by the appellant to such company.Subsequently the appellant took the view that the terms of the oral agreement which he had made with the 1st respondent had not been carried out and accordingly he refused to transfer the rest of the property included in the sale to the company.For some reason, which has not been explained, Mr. Mukherjee did not hold the inquiry, and the Magistrate then referred the matter to a Mr. Bannerjee who also did not hold the inquiry.Thereupon the Magistrate himself held the inquiry in open Court.Notice of the inquiry was given to the appellant who attended with counsel.At such inquiry the 1st respondent deposed that "we have brought this case for cheating us against the accused Md. Amin".On December, 3, 1940, after the completion of the inquiry, the Magistrate made an order, which concluded with these words:-On June, 26 1941, the appellant filed this suit against the respondents.The only effective defendants were Nos. 1 to 3 (respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3).The plaintiff claimed certain relief arising out of the civil dispute with respondents Nos. 1-3, but this part of his action was dismissed by the trial Judge and was not the subject of appeal.The claim relevant to this appeal was for Rs. 28,500 for damages for malicious prosecution, made up of costs incurred in his defence to the inquiry, damage to business and damage to reputation.The case was tried by Mr. Justice Gentle on the Original Side of the High Court.Accordingly, by decree dated March 31, 1943, the plaintiff's suit was dismissed.From that decree the plaintiff filed an appeal, and on February 1, 1945, the appeal was dismissed.The Deputy Magistrate issued notice to the parties and examined a considerable number of witnesses.
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
38,670,402 |
The trial court record had been requisitioned by the registry and added to the file of the appeal.It is reported that the said record had gone missing from the registry.It may be mentioned here that similar loss of records in more than one hundred criminal appeals has been reported by the registry, such loss having been subjected to inquiries made but with no one being held accountable or responsible.Pursuant to the directions of the Chief Justice, endeavour was made to re-A 655/2002 Page 2 of 9The record shows that the matter relates to an incident that occurred on 12.03.1996 at about 12 o' clock noon time in House no.M-27, Greater Kailash, Part-II, New Delhi, where Aruna Kar (PW-1) was residing.She was present at home alongwith her two servants which included Premwati (PW-2) and Navin (PW-3).As per her statement (Ex. PW1/A) which eventually became the basis of the FIR (Ex. PW6/E), three or four persons had forcibly entered the house.They had first caught hold of the man servant (PW-3) and started roughing him up.Upon hearing his cries, PW-1 and the maid servant (PW-2) had rushed to the scene.They were also caught hold of by the intruders, some of whom were wielding knives.As per the version in the FIR, and in the court deposition of all the three said persons, the intruders had threatened the inmates into submission and under duress at the point of knives, injuries also having been caused with such weapon, PW-1 was made to part with valuables kept in her house, this including certain jewellery items i.e. two gold bangles (Ex. P9 and P10), two gold rings (Ex. P11 and P12) and one gold chain (Ex.P13).The initial input received telephonically by the police was that an unsocial element (Badmash) had entered the said house, this being the subject matter of DD no.4A recorded at 12.30 p.m. in the police Crl.A 655/2002 Page 3 of 9 station on the same date, its copy (Ex. PW6/A) having been proved.Be that as it may, the case was entrusted to ASI Hari Kishan (PW-7) who, accompanied by constable Gajender Singh, had set out for the place in question.Aruna Kar (PW-1) and Naveen (PW-3) had suffered injuries and were taken to nearby Batra Hospital where they were medically examined, the medico-legal certificates (MLCs) - Ex. PW9/A and PW9/B - in their respect having been proved at the trial and confirming that they had suffered injuries in the incident.A 655/2002 Page 3 of 9ASI Hari Kishan (PW-7), having obtained confirmation that she was fit, had recorded the formal statement of Aruna Kar (PW1/A) which resulted in the FIR being registered.It may be noted here that even in the said FIR, PW-1 had confirmed that she had identified one of the intruders as Rajender Yadav (A1), he being the son of Ramdev Yadav, who was a native of the same village from where her another servant Palakdhari (PW-8) hailed.It is clear from her version even in the court that she did not know any of the other three accomplices of A1 from before.The prosecution evidence has brought out that on 07.05.1996, the appellant (A3) was apprehended by constable Shiv Kumar of police station Hauz Khas, the arrest having been made under Section 41 Cr. PC in which regard DD entry no.14A was recorded in the said police station, on same date.Upon transfer of PW-7 on the said date, the investigation of the case at hand was handed over to SI Sunil Kumar (PW-15), who remained Crl.A 655/2002 Page 4 of 9 responsible for further investigation till 09.07.1996, the probe thereafter having been taken over from him by SI Sarv Dev Mishra (PW-16) with effect from 10.07.1996, the last said investigating officer (IO) having eventually concluded the investigation and filed the charge-sheet.A 655/2002 Page 4 of 9The evidence further shows that in the wake of disclosure made by A1 on 07.05.1996 as to his complicity in the crime at hand, information was conveyed by DD no.14A dated 07.05.1996 of police station Hauz Khas to the investigating officer (IO) of the present case.On such basis, the IO caused formal arrest of A3 for purposes of this case.But, in the meanwhile, A3 had been formally arrested in another case vide FIR no.47/1996 also of police station Chitranjan Park.The fact that he was himself complicit in the crime is confirmed and established by the testimony of Aruna Kar (PW-1) who identified him during her court testimony as one of the intruders.In the above facts and circumstances, the involvement of the appellant in the robbery in the house of PW-1 has been correctly found by the trial court to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts.The appellant along with two others was brought to trial in sessions case (no.213/1997) in the court of the additional sessions judge, New Delhi, on the basis of evidence gathered during investigation of first information report (FIR) no.158/1996 of police station Chitranjan Park and by judgment dated 11.04.2002 held guilty and convicted on the charge for offences under Sections 397 and 342 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).The additional sessions judge, by subsequent order dated 22.04.2002, awarded rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs.5,000/- on the first count and rigorous imprisonment for one year Crl.A 655/2002 Page 1 of 9 with fine of Rs.1,000/- on the second count as the punishment to each of the said convicts.She directed that in the event of default in payment of fine, they would further undergo simple imprisonment for six months and fifteen days respectively and further that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently, also according benefit of set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC) for the period of detention already undergone.A 655/2002 Page 1 of 9Each of the three convicted persons assailed the aforementioned judgment and order on sentence by their independent appeals.The appeal (Crl.A 857/2002) of co-convict Rajender (A1) was disposed of by judgment dated 20.01.2003, the conviction having been converted to one under section 394 IPC in his respect, it being found that there was no proof of he having used the weapon (knife).The appeal (Crl.Against the above backdrop, the present appeal of Ladi @ Suraj (A3) alone survives for consideration and adjudication.The evidence further shows that during investigation of the said other case, pursuant to his disclosure (mark 'B'), recovery of aforementioned gold jewellery of PW-1 was effected from a jeweller Rajender Kumar of Kharia Mohalla, Roshanara Road, Subzi Mandi, Delhi, vide seizure memo (Mark 'A'), the police proceedings indicating the seizure being under Section 102 Cr. PC.Eventually, the said recovered gold jewellery - gold bangles (Ex. P9 and P10), gold rings (Ex. PW11 and12) and gold chain (Ex. PW13) - were brought for test identification by the victim (PW-1), the proceedings in which regard were presided over by Mr. Ravinder Dudeja, Metropolitan Magistrate (PW-12).The evidence conclusively reveals that the said articles of jewellery were properly and positively identified by PW-1 to be her stolen property.The evidence also shows that Rajender (A1) was arrested on 17.05.1996, the third person Rajesh Yadav (A2) having been arrested Crl.While evidence of PW-16 regarding circumstances leading to the arrest of co-convict Rajesh (since deceased) is consistent, there is some confusion created regarding the arrest of co- convict Rajender in which regard depositions of PW-13 and PW-14 were relied upon.A 655/2002 Page 5 of 9The stolen property was recovered pursuant to his disclosure and at his instance.This gives rise to a presumption that either he himself was the thief or that he had received the stolen goods knowing that the same were stolen property.The evidence also shows that at the time of she being relieved of her valuable goods, Aruna Kar and her servants were beaten up, injuries Crl.A 655/2002 Page 6 of 9 being inflicted on their persons.A 655/2002 Page 6 of 9Having examined the evidence on record, this court finds merit in this submission.He was interrogated by the officials of police station Hauz Khas who had apprehended him on reasonable suspicion.He was not confronted immediately with the complainant.There is no statement of the complainant recorded prior to the trial wherein she would identify him as one of the robbers who had wielded or used the knife.Her two servants PW-2 and PW- 3 could not even identify the appellant as one of the robbers.In these circumstances, benefit of doubt will have to be extended to the appellant about the use of weapon.Noticeably, the fourth intruder has not been identified or apprehended till date.A 655/2002 Page 7 of 9In the above facts and circumstances, the conclusion as to the guilt needs modification.In the considered view of this court, ends of justice would be met if the appellant is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 394 / 34 IPC.The punishment awarded under Section 342 / 34 IPC is confirmed and maintained.As directed by the trial court, the substantive sentences shall run concurrently and the appellant will be entitled to set off under Section 428 Cr. PC.The nominal roll dated 27.11.2018 sent by Superintendent, Central Jail no.2, shows that the appellant had undergone incarceration, during the period of investigation, trial and thereafter for a period of four years eleven months and twenty two days, he also having earned remission for seven months thirteen days.In these circumstances, he has already suffered incarceration for the period of substantive punishment that has been awarded by the above noted modification.Therefore, for such purposes, he need not surrender to Crl.A 655/2002 Page 8 of 9 the jail.However, he shall deposit the fine with the trial court within two weeks hereof, failing which he would have to undergo the default sentences.A 655/2002 Page 8 of 9The appeal is disposed of in above terms.A copy of this judgment shall be given dasti to the appellant, as is requested.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
109,551,070 |
This revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C has been filed challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the impugned order dated 31.10.2014 passed by the II ASJ, Sabalgarh in ST No. 63/2013, by which the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C for re-calling the witness has been rejected.The facts just necessary for disposal of the case are that;the petitioner is accused in ST No. 63/13 and facing charge under Section 376 of IPC.The petitioner / accused filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C dated 2509/2014 which was decided by the impugned order dated 31.10.2014 by the trial Court.The petitioner accused submitted that during the examination of prosecutrix some important questions could not be asked by Advocate Shri A.K. Shrivastava.Therefore, her cross examination could not be conducted properly and effectively.The mistake committed by the ( 2) Cr.Revision No. 930/2014 counsel has to be corrected.Now, the petitioner accused has changed his counsel.Therefore, the prosecutrix be re- called for further cross examination.It is also stated that, because of altercation regarding partition, the prosecutrix and her husband Darshan lodged reports on 12.12.2012 and on 5.12.2012 at Police Station, Sabalgarh, on the basis of which Crime No. 129/12 was registered for the offence under Sections 151,107, 116 (3) of IPC and on 5..12.2012 the petitioner accused was arrested from his house by the Police Sabalgarh.He was released on bail on 6.12.2012 at 7 PM from the Jail Sabalgarh.Therefore, on this point questions could not be asked to the prosecutrix.The petitioner, therefore, prayed for re-calling the prosecutrix for further cross examination.The learned trial Court vide its impugned order rejected the prayer, stating that enough opportunities were granted to the accused petitioner and permission cannot be granted for further cross examination of prosecutrix PW-1 hence, application is rejected.Revision No. 930/2014 just decision of the case, re-call and re-cross examination of prosecutrix specifically mentioned in the application can prove him innocent.Therefore, the impugned order be set aside and it be directed to the Trial Court to recall the prosecutrix for re-cross- examination.On behalf of the State, learned PL submitted that the order impugned is proper in the eyes of law, proper opportunity were provided to the petitioner to cross examination the prosecutrix.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
109,554,836 |
4 The Inspector of Police, CCB, Team XVII, Egmore, Chennai, has filed a status report which is self explanatory.The relevant portion from the status report is extracted as under:While so, Vanjulavalli, the petitioner herein created forged death and legal heir certificates and a will as if she is the heir of Muthukrishna Iyer who was the original owner of the property and along with her associates tried to grab the property.3 The above complaint was forwarded to Central Crime Branch, Team - 16A through proper channel and based on that a case in Central Crime Branch X Cr.No.366 of 2011 under Sections 420, 465, 468,471 IPC was registered by Tr.G. Chandru, the then Inspector of Police on 24.08.2011 at 14.45 a.m. and he took up the investigation.4 During the course of the investigation, Tr. G. Chandru, the then Inspector of Police enquired the second respondent and recorded her statement.5 The petitioner was arrested on 24.08.2011, remanded to judicial custody and confined at Central Prison for Women, Puzhal.Subsequently, she was released on bail.6 The legal heir certificate and death certificate seized from the petitioner were sent to Trichy Corporation and Tahsildar, Srirangam respectively to verify their genuineness and it was ascertained that the petitioner had obtained the above certificates by giving false informations.7 Investigation revealed that the petitioner also created a forged will dt. 21.07.1982 as if one Tr.Muthukrishna Iyer is residing at Srirangam Taluk, Trichy and since there are no issues to him, he adopted his brother's daughter, i.e., the petitioner Vanjulavalli and wrote a will in her favour bequeathing the properties at Velachery, Bhuvaneswari Nagar in S.No.317/1 to a total extent of 4.72 acres.But, the fact remains that Tr.Muthukrishna Iyer lived at Mylapore, Chennai, survived by his three sons and died on 19.02.1970 itself.Connected M.P. is closed.30.11.2016cadNote to Office:O.P. No.29951 of 201130.11.2016http://www.judis.nic.inThis Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to call for the records in respect of the proceedings in FIR No.366/2011/DC/CB registered by the first respondent police, viz., Sub Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Team 16A, Chennai and quash the same.2 Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had taken change of vakalat.Therefore, this Court proceeded to read the papers, heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the de facto complainant.3 On the complaint lodged by Kala Jayachandran, the second respondent herein, the first respondent police registered a case in Cr.No.366 of 2011 on 24.08.2011 under Sections 420, 465, 467,468 and 471 IPC against Vanjulavalli, the petitioner herein, challenging which, Vanjulavalli is before this Court.8 Further, using the forged will dt. 21.07.1982, the petitioner filed a petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Trichy in C.M.P. No.6930 of 2006 stating that her father Tr.Muthukrishna Iyer died at No.160, Keela Chithirai Street, Srirangam, Trichy 620 006 on 10.03.1983 and sought for a direction to register the death of her father Tr.9 Based on the above said order dated 18.01.2007, the petitioner obtained the death certificate of Tr.Muthukrishna Iyer and created the Death Certificate of Tmt.Sarojini Ammal, W/o Tr.Muthukrishna Iyer.On verification, the City Health Officer, Tiruchirappalli City Corporation, denied issuance of such certificate.10 Using the death certificates of Tr.Muthukrishna Iyer and Tmt.Sarojini, the petitioner obtained a legal heir certificate from the Tahsildar, Srirangam.Thereafter, using the forged documents, the petitioner colluded with other accused, encroached into the property in S.No.317/1 situated in Velachery Bhuvaneswari Nagar and demolished the compound walls.Similarly, one Tr. A. Venkatesan, Tr.Rajesh Annamalai and Tmt.Swarna have also lodged complaints against the petitioner with the Commissioner of Police, Chennai and the same were registered in CCB X Cr.Nos.370 under Sections 447, 465,467,468,471 r/w 465 and 506(i) and Sec.3(1) of TNPPDL Act, Cr. No.371 under Sections 447,462,467,468,471 r/w 465 IPC and 506(i) IPC and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act and Cr. No.381 of 2011 under Sections 447,506 (ii) and Section 3 (1) of TNPPDL Act respectively. 5 From the above, it is seen that the property in question belongs to one Muthukrishna Iyer and Vanjulavalli, claiming herself as the sole legal heir of Muthukrishna Iyer, filed a petition before the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Trichy in C.M.P. No.6930 of 2006 claiming that her father Muthukrishna Iyer had died on 10.03.1983 and obtained a death certificate by playing fraud on the Court.She created a bogus will dated 21.07.1982 as if Muthukrishna Iyer had bequeathed the property to her.6 Armed with death certificate, she obtained a legal heir certificate from the Revenue authorities as if she is the only legal heir of the deceased Muthukrishna Iyer.It is pertinent to point out at this juncture that Muthukrishna Iyer was a permanent resident of Mylapore, Chennai and he died on 19.02.1970, whereas, the will is dated 21.07.1982, which is 12 years after the death of Muthukrishna Iyer.7 Thus, the FIR does disclose commission of serious offences warranting a thorough investigation to bring the accused to book.The Registry is directed to return the original records to the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, through a special messenger.To1 The Sub Inspector of Police Central Crime Branch Team 16-A Office of the Commissioner of Police Egmore Chennai 600 0082 The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras Chennai 600 104P.N.PRAKASH,J,cadCrl.
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 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.