id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
109,555,551 |
Case diary is available.sh This is first application under Section 438 CrPC for grant of anticipatory bail.e ad The applicants apprehend their arrest in Crime No. 279/2017 registered by Police Station Dharnavda District Guna for the offences Pr punishable under Sections 323, 294, 324, 506/34 and 325 and 326 of a the IPC.hy It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that according to ad the prosecution case four accused persons namely Kanhaiya Meena, Sunil Meena, Ramesh Meena and Laxman Meena were assaulting the M victims namely Kamal Meena, Daulat Ram and Shivraj by farsa and of lathi.When Dheeraj tried to intervene in the matter, then the applicants as well as the co-accused Ramkishan and Phool Bai also rt came on the spot and they were armed with lathi and farsa and all ou these persons started assaulting the injured persons.In the FIR, there is C specific allegation against the co-accused Phool Bai that she caused injury on the head of Dheeraj Singh by pelting stones.Pr When the counsel for the State was asked a specific question to a explain the meaning of the sentence that four accused persons were hy assaulting injured Kamal Meena, Daultat Ram and Shivraj, then it was ad submitted by the counsel for the State that it has to be interpreted that M in the first phase of incident, assault was only made to Shivraj who had sustained injuries and none else.rt In reply, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that ou undisputedly a cross case No. 278/2017 at Police Station Dharnavada C District Guna had also been registered against the complainant party h under Sections 452, 294, 323, 324, 506/34 of the IPC and the ig registration of the said crime for offence under Section 452 of IPC H clearly shows that the complainant party had committed house trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint.Thus, it is clear that even according to the prosecution, the complainant party was the aggressor and they had come to the house of the applicants and under these circumstances, the applicants were well within their right to exercise the right of private defence.It is directed that if the applicants appear before the Investigating Officer on or before 10/4/2017 and furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only) each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer (Investigating Officer), they shall be released on bail.The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation sh by the Investigating Officer as and when required.They shall abide by e the other conditions enumerated in Sub-Section (2) of Section 438 of ad the CrPC.Pr Needless to say that in case the applicants fail to appear before the Investigating Officer by 10/4/2017, then the order shall lose its a effect.hy Certified copy as per rules.ad M (G.S. AHLUWALIA) of JUDGE rt ou C AKS h ig Digitally signed by ALOK KUMAR H Date: 2018.03.19 18:16:27 +05'30'
|
['Section 452 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', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
109,561,386 |
(Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM, J) This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying to call for records relating to detention orderpassed in No.148/BCDFGISSSV/2015 dated 06.11.2015 by the detaining authority, who has been arrayed as second respondent herein against the detenu by name Vishnu Sankar, Son of Rajaraam and quash the same.2.The Inspector of Police, C5 Karimedu Police Station as sponsoringauthority has submitted an affidavit to the detaining authority, wherein itis stated that on 19.08.2015 one Moorthy, Son of Thavamani as de factocomplainant has given a complaint against the detenu and others in C5Karimedu Police Station and the same has been registered in Crime No.776 of2015 under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code @ 147, 148, 120(b), 341,324, 302 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and ultimately requested thedetaining authority to invoke Act 14 of 1982 against the detenu.3.The detaining authority viz., second respondent herein afterconsidering the averments made in the affidavit and other connected documentshas derived subjective satisfaction to the effect that necessary grounds areavailable so as to invoke Act 14 of 1982 against the detenu and ultimatelybranded him as 'Goonda' by way of passing the impugned detention order and inorder to quash the same, the present Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed bythe father of the detenu as petitioner.4.On the side of the respondents a counter has been filed, wherein ithas been contended to the effect that all the averments made in the petitionare false and ultimately prayed to dismiss the same.5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended thaton the side of the detenu two representations have been submitted and thesame are not disposed of without delay and therefore the detention order inquestion is liable to be quashed.6.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that therepresentations submitted on the side of the detenu have been duly disposedof without delay and therefore the detention order passed by the detainingauthority is perfectly correct and the same does not call for anyinterference.7.On the side of the respondents, a proforma has been submitted whereinit has been clearly stated that in respect of the first representation inbetween Column Nos.7 to 9, five clear working days are available and inbetween Column Nos.12 and 13, six clear working days are available and withregard to second representation in between Column Nos.7 to 9, ten clearworking days are available and in between Column Nos.12 and 13, nine clearworking days are available and no explanation has been given on the side ofthe respondents with regard to such delay and the same would affect therights of the detenu guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution ofIndia and therefore the detention order in question is liable to be quashed.8.In fine, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detentionorder passed in No.148/BCDFGISSSV/2015 dated 06.11.2015 by the second respondent/detaining authority is quashed and consequently the respondentsare directed to set the detenu viz., Vishnu Sankar, Son of Rajaram at libertyforthwith, unless he is required to be incarcerated in connection with anyother case.2.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.3.The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai District.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
109,566,259 |
He took bus from Karnal by-pass and got down near the Siraspur Gurudwara bus stand.While he was walking down towards his house at around 8.30 PM suddenly four boys came towards him swiftly and gheraoed him.Before he could understand anything, one of the boys took out a pistol like instrument which he came to know later was an airgun and kept it on his left ear.The three other boys caught hold of him.The boy who was having the pistol gave the purse to another boy whereafter the fourth boy snatched the bag from his shoulder.While the four boys were running away, Dharmender shouted due to which two police officers came running from the PCR van which was at some distance and they caught hold of two boys out of the four.The name of the boy who had kept the airgun on his ear was revealed as Avinash s/o Bahadur Singh and the other boy who had taken out the mobile was revealed as Ravinder s/o Inderjeet.Thereafter the PCR police officials took him and the two boys to the Police Station where his statement was recorded.PW-4/A, PW-4/B1 and PW-4/K4 respectively and the sketch of the airgun Ex.PW-4/B. Apparently the signatures have been taken on blank papers and no parentage, name, address etc. was noted.Despite the fact that the case of the complainant is that he was talking on the phone when the CRL.A.Nos.88/2015 and 117/2016 Page 3 of 9 incident took place, his version is not corroborated by producing CDRs of mobile phone which would have shown his location.In any case, the version of Dharmender has been duly corroborated by HC Chintamani who deposed that he was In-charge PCR Van Libra-97 and along with staff was at Siraspur Gurudwara, near main GT Karnal Road when at 8.30 PM he heard the noise and found that one boy who was standing near Peer Baba Ki Mazaar crying bachao bacaho, mujhe loot liya'.He also found some boys running towards opposite side.Thus HC Shyam Raj, Gunman ran towards the side where the said boys were running and apprehended the two boys.The names of the two boys were revealed as Avinash and Ravinder and from the search of Avinash, one airgun was recovered from his pants right pocket and from Ravinder one Nokia mobile phone was recovered.He informed the details to the control room and on their directions he took them to the CRL.A.Nos.88/2015 and 117/2016 Page 4 of 9 Police Station and produced them.CRL.A.Nos.88/2015 and 117/2016 Page 4 of 9By the common impugned judgement dated November 14, 2014 both Ravinder and Avinash have been held guilty for offence punishable under Sections 392/34 IPC besides Avinash was also held guilty for offence punishable under Section 397 IPC.Vide order on sentence dated November CRL.A.Nos.88/2015 and 117/2016 Page 1 of 9 14, 2014 Ravinder has been awarded sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of four years besides the fine of `5,000/- and Avinash has been awarded simple imprisonment for a period of seven years besides a fine of `5,000/- in default whereof both the appellants have been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days.Sumit @ Bachichi and Yogesh @ Kalu who were also charged along with Ravinder and Avinash have been acquitted by the impugned judgment.In the absence of any challenge to their acquittal, this Court is only concerned with the convictions of Ravinder and Avinash in the present appeals.CRL.A.Nos.88/2015 and 117/2016 Page 1 of 9Process of law was set into motion when HC Chintamani, PW-7 sent a PCR message at 8.45 PM on December 22, 2009 recorded vide DD No.28A at PS Samaipur Badli, informing that three boys were beating and robbing one boy, a pistol has been found and HC Chintamani was coming along with the boys to the police station.At the Police Station, statement of Dharmender Ex.PW-2/B was recorded wherein he stated that he was residing at Nehru Enclave and was working in a private company at Gurgaon.The boy who had kept the airgun on his ear asked him to take out whatever was in possession of the complainant.The boys also assaulted him with slaps and fists.Though the complainant stated that he was beaten however, no MLC of the complainant was got prepared much less proved and exhibited.Despite DD No.28A sent by HC Chintamani noting that three accused and one complainant were being brought to the Police Station however, when he reaches the Police Station there were only two accused and one complainant.Thus the appellants are required to be acquitted of the charges framed.CRL.A.Nos.88/2015 and 117/2016 Page 3 of 95. Learned APP for the State contends that no case of false implication is made out because the appellants were apprehended at the spot and taken to the Police Station.Neither in the Rukka nor in his deposition before the Court, Dharmender stated that while he was talking on the telephone he was gheraod by four persons.Thus there was no requirement of seeking corroboration of his presence at the spot by call detail records.The contention that signatures of Dharmender on seizure memos of mobile phone, airgun and purse and sketch of pistol were taken on blank paper is contrary to the suggestion given to Inspector Mukesh Antil, PW-9, the Investigating Officer to whom it was suggested that the signatures of the complainant were obtained in the Police Station.No such suggestion has been given to Dharmender that his signatures were taken on blank papers which were later exhibited as Ex.
|
['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
109,569,028 |
FAHIM ANWAR) JUDGE kkc Digitally signed by KRISHAN KUMAR CHOUKSEY Date: 03/05/2019 00:06:10Case diary perused.This is first application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P. C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant, as he is under apprehension of his arrest in connection with crime No.87/2019, registered at P. S. Jabera, District Damoh for commission of offence punishable under Sections 354, 354 (A), 452, 506, 294 of IPC and Sections 7/8 of POCSO Act.Allegation of the prosecution is that on 31.3.2019 at about 12.30 noon when the prosecutrix aged about 16 years was at her home under the jurisdiction of P. S. Jabera, District Damoh at the same time the applicant who is cousin has taken hold of her hand with bad intention and beaten her and when mother of the prosecutrix and other family members intervene then he left the home.It is also alleged that before leaving the home he threatened the prosecutrix and her mother for their lives.It is also alleged that on previous occasion also the applicant has tried to outrage the modesty of the prosecutrix.After the aforesaid incident he has obtained mobile number of the prosecutrix and has started to send what's app messages regarding sexual preferences.On that basis above mentioned crime has been registered against the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence, he has been falsely implicated in the case.He further submits that the applicant is permanent resident of the address mentioned in the application and there is no chance of tampering with the prosecution witnesses.He is ready to co-operate with the investigation and also willing to furnish adequate surety and will abide by all the directions and conditions Digitally signed by KRISHAN KUMAR CHOUKSEY Date: 03/05/2019 00:06:10 2 MCRC-17329-2019 which may be imposed by the Court.Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant has also lodged a report against family members of the prosecutrix namely Montu Bajpai and Golu Bajpai, on which Crime No.99/2019, under Sections 341, 294, 323 and 34 of IPC has been registered at P. S. Vijay Nagar Jabalpur.On these grounds, the prayer is made for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.On the other hand learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.Hence, without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, this first application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P. C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant is hereby dismissed.(MOHD.
|
['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
146,898,842 |
SI Surender, P.S. Kanjhawala.HON'BLE MR.They have no objection to the condonation of delay.The delay is accordingly condoned for Crl.A. 837/2011 & Crl.M.A. 7817/2011 Page 1 the reasons as mentioned in the application.Intimation of this was received, by the concerned police station at 07:00 AM.The police went to the spot and found that death was caused by hanging.The statements of the deceased's parents were recorded the next day, by the SDM.They alleged that the accused, including Narender used to treat her cruelly, and sometimes beat her.After the first child, a son was born to the deceased, and she stayed with her parents for about one and a half years, till Narender took her back to the matrimonial home.It was alleged that the deceased called her Crl.M.A. 7817/2011 Page 4 swelling of the upper lip; abrasion over the gluteal region; and an abrasion of the face.The cause of death, according to the doctor PW- 17 was hanging.Through: Ms. Richa Kapoor, APP.Avadh Kaushik, Advocate, for Resp.M.A. 7817/2011 (Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act) Issue notice.Ms. Richa Kapoor, APP accepts notice on behalf of the State/respondent and Sh.There is a delay of 42 days in filing the appeal.The application, CRL.M.A. 7817/2011 stands disposed of accordingly.This appeal, under Section 372, Criminal Procedure, by the complainant, challenges an order of acquittal made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in SC No. 242/2010, dated 28-03-2011, whereby the respondents (hereafter called "the accused") were held not guilty for committing the offences punishable under Sections 498-A/304-B/34 IPC.This court had issued notice to the respondents; they are represented today by counsel.With consent of counsel for all the parties, the court heard the appeal today.The deceased's parents deposed as PW-3 and PW-7 during the trial.They alleged that the accused used to make frequent demands for dowry, and often would beat the deceased.It was also stated that the marriage of the couple had taken place on 29-04-2004; the alleged acts of cruelty persisted for a long time.A. 837/2011 & Crl.M.A. 7817/2011 Page 2 parents on telephone, at around 05:00 AM and told her about repeated beatings.Later, they received news of her death.After conclusion of investigations, the accused were charged; they denied guilt, and claimed trial.The prosecution relied on the testimony of 19 witnesses, and several exhibits.After considering these, and the submissions of parties, the Trial Court concluded that the prosecution could not establish the respondent accused's guilt.This appeal was preferred by the deceased's father, under Section 372, Cr. PC.It was urged that the Trial Court fell into error in holding that the prosecution did not prove the respondent's guilt.Learned counsel heavily relied on the testimony of the doctor who conducted the postmortem, as well as the post mortem report, and stated that the allegations of cruelty just before the death of Sweety were corroborated by the medical evidence.It was also submitted that the Trial court ignored this aspect, and also overlooked the testimonies of PW-3 and PW-7 about having received a call early morning, from their daughter, which was corroborated by the call details, proved by PW-11, an independent witness, and officer of TATA Teleservices.He supported the prosecution story, and call details which were produced as PW-11/D. The prosecution also established that the calls were made from the mobile phone of Surender, the fifth accused, by producing PW-11/A and PW-11/B. In these circumstances, the accused had to explain their role.Instead, they clearly admitted, as was evident from the line of questioning (of PW-3 and PW-7) during cross examination, when it was clearly suggested that Sweety was beaten for not co-operating and refusing to do household chores.Crl.A. 837/2011 & Crl.M.A. 7817/2011 Page 3Learned counsel for the accused on the other hand submitted that having regard to the well-settled parameters that High Courts are to apply while considering appeals against acquittals, the impugned judgement does not warrant interference.It was submitted further that the Trial Court acted in accordance with law in acquitting the respondents.It was submitted that to prove that an accused is guilty for committing the offence punishable under Section 304-B, IPC, not only is it necessary that the death should have occurred within seven years of marriage; two other ingredients have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.These are that the deceased was treated with cruelty and that such cruelty should be in connection with dowry demand.In either case the cruelty and the demand for dowry should be shown before the death.In the present case the Trial Court was justified in holding that no demand for dowry had been proved.The evidence led by the prosecution was sketchy and vague.Neither was dowry demand proved nor was cruelty established, with any specificity.By this time it was possible for the prosecution witnesses to be tutored and to manipulate entire sequence of events to suit their story.We have considered the submissions of parties and have also gone through the Trial Court records.The post-mortem report, EX-17/A listed four injuries.Thes were: an abrasion on the wrist, Crl.A. 837/2011 & Crl.The post-mortem report itself did not give the final opinion for the death.The police suspected poisoning.However, the viscera report ruled out the possibility; the final report confirming the cause of death was produced as EX 17/B. The Trial Court did not investigate the four injuries found on the deceased other than the ligature which resulted in asphyxiation which was the cause for her death.This Court notices that even under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code no query directing the specific attention of the accused and seeking their response or explanation for these injuries, was made.We are of the opinion that this aspect was of vital importance, in a case like the present one where the charge against the accused was for indulging in cruel behaviour against the deceased, soon before her death.He was the Nodal officer summoned from the concerned service provider.The documents brought on record through his evidence pointed to the fact that mobile phone connection bearing number 921 031 3158 was registered in favour of the appellant; mobile phone number 9250433244 was registered in the name of accused Surender, brother of the first respondent.These documents also showed that two calls had been made from Surender's phone to the appellant's phone in the early hours of the morning of the date of the incident, just before 05:00 AM.Furthermore the counsel for the accused appeared to have suggested to PW- 07 during the cross-examination that the husband, i.e. the first respondent, Crl.A. 837/2011 & Crl.M.A. 7817/2011 Page 5 had at 04:30 AM in the morning of the incident, asked the deceased to serve fodder to the animals which she refused.Similarly the suggestion given in cross-examination to PW-3 was that at 04:30 AM the first respondent asked the deceased to serve fodder to the buffaloes and that upon her refusal, he forcibly made her stand on the cot to provide fodder to the buffaloes.The Trial Court in our opinion fell into error in ignoring the above material evidence.Although that aspect also is an important one which should weigh with the court, at the same time one cannot belittle the fact that death occurred four years after the marriage between the deceased and the first respondent.Cruelty on account of dowry is an essential ingredient which the prosecution has to undoubtedly prove to establish the offence under Section 304-B IPC.
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
146,904,470 |
He started abusing.5 M.Cr.Shri Arun Barua, P.L. For the respondent/State.One week time is granted to remove the default.C.C. as per rules.C.C. as per rules.Let notice be issued to the respondent on payment of process fee within seven days, Notice be made returnable within six weeks.No.1/State.This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR registered at Crime No.332/2016 under Sections 498-A, 294, 323, 506, 34A of IPC at Police Station Hazira, District Gwalior and consequential proceedings.Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent No.2 has lodged the report that she was married with Gajendra.After marriage from the year 2009 her husband Gajendra, father-in-law, Mulayam Sisngh, mother-in-law Pushpa Devi and sister-in-law Poonam started harassing her.On 8.7.2016 they gave beating to her by means of kicks and fists and her husband insisted to her her share from her father, otherwise they would not keep her and kill her.They have also turned out her.When she narrated the incident to her parents, thereafter the report has been lodged.On the basis of report, Crime No. 332/2016 under 498-A, 294, 323, 506, 34A of IPC at Police Station Hazira, District Gwalior has been registered.It is mentioned that the parties have compromised voluntarily without any fear or force.I have perused the record.It appears that the complainant and the petitioners have filed the compromise application, which has been verified by the Principal Registrar of this Court and it is stated 2 M.Cr.In view of the aforesaid, FIR registered at Crime No.332/2016 under Sections 498-A, 294, 323, 506, 34A of IPC at Police Station Hazira, District Gwalior and the consequential proceedings are hereby quashed so far as it relates to the petitioners.Petition stands allowed accordingly.(D.K.Paliwal) Judge vv 3 M.Cr.C.No.267/2016 Raju and ors.vs. State of M.P. & ors.21.09.2016 Shri S.S. Rajput, Advocate for the petitioners.Shri Arun Barua, Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR registered at Crime No.318/15 under Sections 308, 324, 323, 506, 147, 148, 149 of IPC at Police Station Shamshabad, Distt.Vidisha, and consequential proceedings.3 M.Cr.When he objected he started beating.When he raised alarm, Arjun Singh, Anant Singh and Chandan Singh came there to save him.Meanwhile, Sundar, Kallu, Shivcharan Singh, Bhammu alias Bhanwarlal, Kuber Singh, Bannu alias Banne Singh, Dongar Singh, Tamallal, Mohan singh, and Bhagwan Singh armed with stick, danda and axe came there and gave beating on his head, knee and forehead.Sangram Singh, Achal Singh, Sundar Singh and Chandrabhan Singh intervened and the incident was witnessed by them that Raju and others gave beating to his brothers.On the basis of the report Crime No.318/2015 under Sections 308, 324, 323, 506,147, 148, 149 of IPC at Police Station Shamshabad has been registered.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that parties have settled their dispute and filed an application under 4 M.Cr.C.No.13919/2016 Section 320 of Cr.P.C. for compromise.4 M.Cr.I have perused the record.Rahika & another (2011) 10 SCC 705, I find it a fit case to prevent the abuse of process of Court, where inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. may be exercised.In view of the aforesaid, FIR registered at Crime No.318/2015 under Sections 308, 324, 323, 506, 147, 148, 149, 294 of IPC at Police Station Shamshabad, District Vidisha and the consequential proceedings are hereby quashed so far as it relates to the petitioners.Petition stands allowed accordingly.(D.K.Paliwal) Judge 5 M.Cr.C.No.13919/2016 van Cr.A. No.285/2016 21.09.2016 None for the appellant.(D.K.Paliwal) Judge van Cr.R. No.110/2005 21.09.2016 None for the petitioner.Shri Arun Barua, P.L. For the respondent/State.Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against the petitioner no.1-Kamruddin for his appearance before this Court on a date to be fixed by the office.(D.K.Paliwal) Judge van Cr.A. No.284/2007 21.09.2016 None for the appellant.Shri Arun Barua, P.L. For the respondent/State.Non-bailable warrant issued against the appellant has been returned unserved.Let fresh non-bailable warrant be issued against appellant and notice be also issued to the surety as to why the amount of surety bond be not forfeited.(D.K.Paliwal) 6 M.Cr.C.No.13919/2016 Judge van Cr.R. No.115/2009 21.09.2016 None for the petitioner.6 M.Cr.Shri Arun Barua, P.L. For the respondent/State.Record of the Collector, District Gwalior has not been received so far.Office is directed to call for the record of the Collector, District Gwalior.(D.K.Paliwal) Judge van Cr.A. No.863/2009 21.09.2016 None for the appellants.Shri Arun Barua, P.L. For the respondent/State.List after a week.(D.K.Paliwal) Judge van Cr.R. No.572/2010 21.09.2016 None for the petitioners.Shri Arun Barua, P.L. For the respondent/State.On 17.08.2016 also none was present on behalf of the petitioners, it seems that the petitioners are not interested to prosecute this petition.Hence, it is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution.7 M.Cr.Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court.(D.K.Paliwal) Judge van M.Cr.C.No.3012/2010 21.09.2016 Shri Arun Barua, P.L. For the petitioners/State.Shri Rajeev Budholiya, Advocate for the respondent.It is made clear that no further opportunity shall be given on the next date.List after a week.(D.K.Paliwal) Judge van Cr.R. No.931/2006 21.09.2016 Shri Rohit Mishra, Advocate for the applicants.Shri Arun Barua, P.L. For the respondent/State.Heard on I.A. No.8205/16, which is an application for condonation of absence of applicant No.2-Devendra.Hence, prayed for condonation of absence.An affidavit has been filed in support of the application.The applicant is also present in person.On due consideration, the application is allowed.The applicant No.2 is directed to appear before the Principal Registrar of this Court on 27.02.2017 to mark his presence and on such 8 M.Cr.C.No.13919/2016 subsequent dates as may be fixed by the same.8 M.Cr.(D.K.Paliwal) Judge van M.Cr.C.No.8901/2016 Maan Singh vs. State of M.P.21.09.2016 Shri S.K. Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner.Shri Vijay Sundaram, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.With the consent of both the parties the matter is finally heard at the motion stage.This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Datia in Criminal Revision No.200014/16 whereby the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Datia rejecting the application filed on behalf of the petitioner for release of gun in his favour on supurdginama has been affirmed.Brief facts of the case are that Gurusharan has lodged a report upon which Crime No.125/2015 under Section 307/34 of IPC has been registered.Therefore, he preferred an application before the Judicial Magistrate First Class for returning the gun which has been dismissed.Being aggrieved, a criminal revision was preferred before the Session Judge Datia which has also been dismissed.Being aggrieved, this petition has been filed.C.No.13919/2016 required in any case.Once the police after investigation has submitted the expunged report, there is no need to keep the gun in custody of the police.The learned court below ought to have returned the gun.Hence, prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the gun belonging to the petitioner be released in favour of the petitioner on supurdginama.9 M.Cr.He fired at his vehicle which hit the glass and another fire was shot by Mahesh Shrivastava from Katta.Manvendra also fired.Two three persons made fire in the air.In defense he also fired in air along with Maan Singh.On the basis of the report, the crime No.125/15 under Section 307, 34 of IPC has been registered.After due investigation, it was found that the accused persons were not present at the place of incident and the expunged report has been submitted.Considering the aforesaid report of the police, the gun alleged to have been seized from the petitioner ought to have been released.The learned court below has committed illegality in rejecting the prayer.This petition deserves to be allowed.It is directed that gun bearing No.N.P. Bore Rifle No.106272 be released in favour of the petitioner on supurdginama if he furnishes a personal bond and surety bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. one lac only) to the satisfaction of the trial court with the condition that the gun shall be produced before the trial court as and when directed.Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of.10 M.Cr.(D.K.Paliwal) Judge van Cr.R.No.872/2016 21.09.2016 Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner.Shri Rajendra Singh Yadav, Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1/State.Let notice be issued to the respondents No.2 to 7 on payment of process fee within seven days.(D.K.Paliwal) Judge van Cr.R.No.878/2016 21.09.2016 Shri A.S. Bhadoriya, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on I.A.No.8189/2016, which is an application for staying the execution of the impugned judgment.11 M.Cr.(D.K.Paliwal) Judge van M.Cr.C.No.9252/2016 21.09.2016 Shri B. Raj Pandey, Advocate for the petitioners.Shri Vijay Sundaram, Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.Let notice be issued to the respondent No.2 on payment of process fee within three days.(D.K.Paliwal) Judge van M.Cr.C.No.10159/2016 21.09.2016 None for the petitioner.Shri Vijay Sundaram, Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.List after four weeks.(D.K.Paliwal) Judge van M.Cr.C. No. 10589/2016 Samshad alias Firoj vs. State of M.P. 21.09.2016 Shri Chandrashekhar Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Arun Barua, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.This is first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The applicant has been arrested in Crime No.163/2015 registered at Police Station, Madhavganj, District Gwalior, for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 of the IPC and Section 3/4 12 M.Cr.C.No.13919/2016 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences12 M.Cr.According to prosecution case, complainant has lodged the report that her daughter, aged 17 years has gone to market along with her son.Her son came back, but her daughter did not return.Her son told that Samshad took away her daughter.During investigation daughter of the complainant was recovered.In her statement she disclosed that she came into contact with Samshad.Shamshad insisted to marry with him, but she refused.Then he threatened her if she would not marry he would kill her father.Due to fear, she gone with Samshad, who has committed sexual intercourse with her against her will.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has not committed any offence.The victim herself has gone with the applicant.The statement of victim and three other persons have already been recorded.Trial is likely to take time.Hence, prayed for bail.The prayer is opposed by learned Panel Lawyer.Perused the case diary and the statement of the victim recorded during trial.Considering the statement of victim (PW/2) and the medical report coupled with the fact that applicant is under custody for more than one year and four months, conclusion of trial likely to take time, but without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the application is allowed.It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with 13 M.Cr.C.No.13919/2016 the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;13 M.Cr.The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.as per rules.(D.K.Paliwal) Judge van M.Cr.C.No.10599/2016 21.09.2016 Shri Devendra Sharma, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Arun Barua, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.As prayed by learned counsel for the applicant, list next week.(D.K.Paliwal) Judge van M.Cr.C.No.10643/2016 21.09.2016 Shri Sushil Goswami, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Arun Barua, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.As prayed, list the case in next week along with M.Cr.(D.K.Paliwal) Judge van M.Cr.C.No.10867/2016 21.09.2016 14 M.Cr.C.No.13919/2016 Shri Suresh Agarwal, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Rajendra Singh Yadav, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.14 M.Cr.Learned Panel Lawyer is directed to call for the case diary on the next date of hearing.List next week.21.09.2016 Shri Sanjeev Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Rajendra Singh Yadav, learned PP for the respondent/State.This is first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The applicant has been arrested in Crime No.348/2016 registered at Police Station, Isagarh, District Ashok Nagar, for the offence punishable under Sections 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act.As per prosecution case, 62 litres of country made liquor has been seized from the possession of the applicant, for which she was not having any license.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has not committed any offence.She has falsely been implicated.Charge-sheet has been filed.Trial is likely to take time.Hence, prayed for bail.The prayer is opposed by learned Panel Lawyer.Case-diary perused.Considering the quantity alleged to have been seized from the possession of applicant coupled with the fact that applicant is under custody since 05/09/16, but without 15 M.Cr.C.No.13919/2016 commenting anything on the merits of the case, the application is allowed.It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on her furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court.15 M.Cr.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-1.The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by her;A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.as per rules.(D.K.Paliwal) Judge van M.Cr.C.No.10874/2016 21.09.2016 Shri D.S. Kushwah, Advocate for the applicant.16 M.Cr.Learned Panel Lawyer is directed to call for the case diary on the next date of hearing.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 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']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
146,906,256 |
Hansie Cronje, Captain of the South Africa Cricket Team (who has since expired on 01.06.2002 in an air crash and against whom the proceedings have abated), with allegations against the petitioner herein to the effect that qua the five one day matches and three test matches played in the said India-South Africa series with ODI Matches having been played at Cochin, Jamshedpur, Faridabad, Vadodara and Nagpur with three test matches played at Mumbai and Bangalore,- the petitioner herein was allegedly the main conduit in the said match fixings and whilst allegedly committing the said crime, stayed in the same hotels where the teams were staying and allegedly gave money, mobile phones and transferred money into the accounts of the accused Mr.Hansie Cronje (since deceased) and was in regular contact with the accused persons namely Rajesh Kalra @ Rajesh, Krishan Kumar, Sunil Dara @ Bittoo and Manmohan Khattar and Mr.Hansie Cronje (since deceased).CRL.M.C.870/2020 Page 1 of 76As per the averments made in the police report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, submitted by the Crime Branch, whereas the three accused persons i.e. Rajesh Kalra @ Rajesh, Krishan Kumar and Sunil Dara @ Bittoo were arrested, the present petitioner Sanjeev Chawla @ Sanjay and Manmohan Khattar allegedly absconded with CRL.M.C.870/2020 Page 2 of 76 the present petitioner having left for the United Kingdom and the co- accused Manmohan Khattar having left for Canada/USA.CRL.M.C.870/2020 Page 2 of 76Vide order dated 23.07.2013, cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was taken by the learned CMM, PHC, New Delhi in relation to FIR No.111/2000,PS Chanakya Puri which had been registered in relation to the aforementioned alleged conspiracy of match fixing of the matches of the India-South Africa Series in 2000 and summons to accused Nos.1, 2 & 3 i.e. Rajesh Kalra @ Rajesh, Krishan Kumar, Sunil Dara @ Bittoo were directed to be issued with directions to the Investigation Officer to take appropriate steps for securing the presence of the accused no.4 i.e. the present petitioner and the accused no.5 Manmohan Khattar who were stated to be absconding.A submission had been made on 23.07.2013 by the Investigation Officer of the case that steps would be taken qua extradition proceedings qua the present petitioner as well as for Manmohan Khattar.The present petitioner has since been extradited to India from the United Kingdom and on 12.02.2020 at 8.30 PM GMT (02-00 hours of 13.02.2020 IST) and was handed over to the escort team comprising of Dr.G. Ram Gopal Naik, DCP/Crime STARS-I in STF, Inspector Keshav Mathur and Inspector Gagan Bhaskar by the Metropolitan Police London at Bay No.B-43, Heathrow Airport, London, U.K. and had been arrested in this case and reached on 13.02.2020 at 11.00 hours IST at the IGI Airport and was thereafter was got medically examined at the Safdarjang Hospital vide MLC CRL.M.C.870/2020 Page 3 of 76 No.63117 at 15.08 hours and produced before the learned ACMM, PHC, New Delhi where the case is now pending trial.CRL.M.C.870/2020 Page 3 of 76The impugned order also indicates that the prayer made by the State seeking the police custody remand of the petitioner contended to the effect that the petitioner herein is the main person who was involved in match fixing cases regarding which the FIR No.111/2000, PS Chanakya Puri was lodged and that in as much as, whereas, the three other co-accused i.e. Rajesh Kalra @ Rajesh, Krishan Kumar, Sunil Dara @ Bittoo had been arrested, the present petitioner had fled to the United Kingdom and absconded at the time of the filing of the charge sheet and thus, he having been extradited from the United Kingdom and having been arrested and brought back to India, his police custody remand was required, in as much as, the present petitioner was required to be taken where he stayed at the places in the same hotels CRL.M.C.870/2020 Page 4 of 76 where the teams stayed where the five one day matches and three test matches were played i.e. at Cochin, Jamshedpur, Faridabad, Vadodara, Nagpur, Mumbai and Bangalore and that the petitioner had also to be confronted with the places where the matches were held and that the money transfer from the said places had also to be verified.CRL.M.C.870/2020 Page 4 of 76CRL.M.C.870/2020 Page 5 of 76The learned Trial Court further observed to the effect that it was settled law that the police did not require any permission from the Court for further investigation and in as much as, in the instant case, places at Cochin, Jamshedpur, Faridabad, Vadodara, Nagpur, Mumbai and Bangalore were to be visited by the police, the grant of 12 days police custody for the said investigation to be conducted further would suffice.Vide the present petition, the petitioner has submitted that the learned Trial Court had failed to appreciate, consider and take into account the three Letters of Assurances dated 28.02.2017, 22.09.2017 and 11.06.2018 of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India whereby, the Government of India had given a solemn and sovereign assurance that at all times and during pre-trial custody, the petitioner would be lodged at the Tihar Jail complex, Delhi and that thus, no police remand could be granted and that the petitioner had been CRL.M.C.870/2020 Page 6 of 76 extradited from the United Kingdom only to face trial and not for any investigation.Furthermore, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner having been in custody since 2016 when he was first arrested and produced before the Magistrate pursuant to warrants of arrest issued by the ACMM in terms of Section 105A of the Cr.P.C., 1973, no police custody of the petitioner could be granted.CRL.M.C.870/2020 Page 6 of 76It was further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in as much as, the charge sheet had been filed by the State, no leave of the Court having been taken by the State at the time of the filing of the charge sheet nor at the stage of taking the cognizance nor thereafter for further investigation, the prayer made by the State seeking the grant of the police custody remand could not have been granted.The avowed contention reiterated on behalf of the petitioner by the learned senior counsel i.e. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr.Advocateis that the extradition had been granted only on the basis that the petitioner was being extradited to face trial and not for any investigation and thus, no investigation could be carried out nor permitted and that the pre-trial detention of the petitioner could only mean detention at the Tihar Jail and nowhere else as had been stated by the Government of India.The petitioner thus submitted that the custody of the petitioner with the police authorities was wholly illegal and could not be permitted to continue and that the guidelines for extradition as issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, CPV Division (Extradition Section) and as per the manual of the CBI, had been wholly overlooked.CRL.M.C.870/2020 Page 7 of 76It was also submitted through the petition that Clauses 9 & 10 of the Guidelines for Extradition issued by the Ministry of External Affairs of India, which read to the effect:-Competent authority should countersign copy of charge sheet, which is enclosed with the documents."Whereas SANJEEV KUMAR CHAWLA @ SANJEEV CHAWLA @ SANJAY CHAWLA @ SANJAY S/O SH.MELA RAM CHAWALA R/O 4, Monk Villa Avenue London NW110AH Also at 'East is East' Restaurant 230, Commercial Road, London E12NB (UNITED KINGDOM) stands charged with the offence u/s 420/120B Indian Penal Code vide Case FIR No 111/2000 Dt 06.04.2000 U/s 420/120B IPC Police Station Chanakyapuri, New Delhi.You are hereby directed to arrest the said SANJEEV KUMAR CHAWLA @ SANJEEV CHAWLA @ SANJAY CHAWLA @ SANJAY and produce him before me."Moreover, barracks / cell also have toilets to cater to the need at the time of lock-up.(e) In Delhi Prisons almost every ward has sufficient space/yard attached therewith, where the prisoners can have benefit of sunlight, fresh air and other recreation activities.(f) As per Delhi Prison Rules, every prisoner is provided three time meals/adequate food throughout his detention period.It may be mentioned here that only vegetarian food is provided to the prisoners.From the prison canteen inmate can purchase eatables, snacks etc.If Mr. Sanjeev Chawla is extradited to India and his case Is acceded for lodging in Delhi Prisons by the Competent Authority/Government, the Government of India, on the basis of information received from the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Tihar Prisons Authorities, solemnly assures that all such facilities available in Delhi Prisons shall be provided to him without any discrimination as per lodging policy in vogue.The Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, avails itself the opportunity to renew to the Home Office, Government of United Kingdom and the Competent Judicial Authorities in United Kingdom the assurances of its highest consideration."CRL.M.C.870/2020 Page 10 of 76(II) "No. 25015/56/2016-LC(Vol.II) dated 22.09.2017 The Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi presents its compliments to the Home Office, Government of United Kingdom and the Competent Judicial Authorities in the United Kingdom,The cells measuringapproximately 21x8x11 feet in dimensions with adequate personal living space.Mr. Chawla will enjoy a minimum of 3 sq. meter of personal space as the proposed cells are in line with and fully meet the minimum space requirementsof the CPT [Committee for Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or DegradingTreatment or Punishment].Additionally, access to natural light and ventilation sanitary facilities, outdoor exercises, sports & recreational activities, security surveillance through CCTV monitoring and other mechanisms, medicalcare and liberty to religious practice in a violence free environment will also be ensured.CRL.M.C.870/2020 Page 11 of 76(ii) Mr. Chawla will be locked up for the night at the time of sunset (usually at dusktime) and will be allowed to carry out physical exercise, yoga, meditation, toattend educational / vocational programs and sports etc. during the day.Chawla will get sufficient time for his activities under proper/adequately guardedsecurity.(iii) Mr. Chawla will be provided blanket and bed sheet for the purpose of using it as mattress and bedding.In case there is medical requirement, mattress andbedding will be provided to him as per the recommendations of the MedicalOfficer.The cells have provision for toilet and keeping personal belongings.Inaddition, each cell is having extensionof 9x8 feet covered and lockable area.In Delhi Prisons almost every ward has sufficient space/yard attached therewith,where the prisoners can have benefit of sunlight, fresh air and other recreationactivities.(iv) Mr. Chawla will have sufficient access to clean drinking water, treated throughthe Reverse Osmosis process, each day.Mineral water bottles are alsoavailable through jail canteen.Additionally, mobile canteen are available in thewards for sale of eatables including biscuits, wafers, water bottles, etc. CRL.M.C.870/2020 Page 12 of 76CRL.M.C.870/2020 Page 12 of 76(v) Mr. Chawla will have access to adequate toilet facilities land washing facilities each day: Moreover, barracks / cells also have toilets to cater to the need of Mr.Chawla at the time of lock-up.(vi) Mr. Chawla will have adequate access to food throughout detention period.Hewill be provided with three meals per day namely (1) Breakfast and evening teawith snacks (2) Lunch and (3) Dinner.The main courses of meals havesufficient quantity and adequate nutritional value.The meals are daily inspected by the Duty Doctor as well as by the Duty Officer of the jail to check the quality of the food.(vii) In relation to prison staff/guard numbers, the location of Mr. Chawla's cell and exercise areas are, and will remain, sufficiently staffed to provide appropriateand effective levels of security and protection for inmates.The prisoners aregenerally segregatedand lodged in 3 categories; (i) General Ward; (ii) Special SecurityWard; and (iii) High SecurityWard and round the clock deployment is maintained in the jail including all wards.Additionally, 1128 securitypersonnel are deployed to ensure safety and security of prisoners and to prevent unauthorized movements and escape by prisoners.(viii) In relation to medical facilities, should Mr. Chawla wish, or because of an emergency need, to see a medic, he will have speedy access to the prisonmedical facilities.All inmates (both under trial and convict) are provided roundthe clock medical attention in the jails.Further, each prison has its well equipped MedicalInspection Rooms.The inmates requiring specialist intervention & treatment arereferred to Specialty Hospitals.The referral hospital for Mandoli Jail Complex is Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital.12 ambulances including CRL.M.C.870/2020 Page 13 of 76 ambulance with Advance Life Support are available 24x7 with necessary medical staff and medical officerfor any emergency.The Hon'ble HighCourt of Delhi has appreciated themedical facilities available to the prisoners lodged in Delhi Prisons.The main features of health facilities in Delhi prisons are as follows:CRL.M.C.870/2020 Page 13 of 76120 bedded hospital with medical, surgical; tuberculosis and psychiatric wards.80 bedded de-addiction centre functioning in Central Jail Hospital.De-addiction Centre (CJH): is ISO 9001-2008 certified.One integrated Counseling and Testing Centre for HIV, functioning inCentral Jail Hospital.Special diet for HIV/AIDS, Tubercular and other deserving inmates.Cases of seriously sick inmates are taken up with the concerned courts fortheir bail /early disposal of case.DOTS centre for T.B.Complete Dental Unit in Central Jail Hospital, CJ-4, CJ-6 and Distt.Jail, Rohini.The prisoners suffering from various contagious diseases are kept separately.The prisoners are referred to various specialty and super specialty hospitals for providing required medical care and treatment.NGO's working with Tihar Prisons also contribute towards medical services.59 Doctors including specialists and 94 paramedical staff presently postedfor prisons health care.15 more doctors are likely to join soon.Round the clock casualty services in Central Jail Hospital.Various specialists/Senior Residents in the fields of Medicine, Orthopedics,Skin, Psychiatry etc. are available in Delhi Prisons from the side of thereferral hospital also.HIV + Prevention and Management of Drug Abusers.Should the UK authorities require any further specifies in relation to the above, in orderto consider the application for Mr. Chawla's extradition, we are ready to supply such details.The Government of India solemnly assures the UK authorities that the undertakings provided above shall be provided to Mr. Chawla if he is extradited to India.The Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, avails itself the opportunity to renew to the Home Office, Government of United Kingdom and the Competent Judicial Authorities in United Kingdom the assurances of its highest consideration."and (III) "No.25015/56/2016-LC (Vol.II) dated 11.06.2018 The Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi presents its compliments to the Home Office, Government of United Kingdom and the Competent Judicial Authorities in the United Kingdom.The Government of the Republic of India seeks the extradition of Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Chawla @ Sanjeev Chawla @ Sanjay Chawla @ Sanjay [Mr.Chawla] from United Kingdom to face trial in India in Case FIR No. 111/2000 under section 420 (Cheating) and Section 120-B (Punishment of Criminal Conspiracy) of Indian Penal Code.We make itclear that all of the identified cells comply with the personal space and hygienerequirements the court expects.The size of each cell (excluding sanitary and toilet area) is 6 square feet occupied by toilets/sanitary facility (Photographs of Cell No.1 and Cell No.2 and Ward No.9 are enclosed).The sanitary facilities provided in the Cell No.1 & 2 duly meetthe European standards as per Article 3 of ECHR and CPT norms.The Cells are provided with flush toilet and wash basin with adequate supply of water (photographs attached).The Cells are provided with flush toilet and wash basin with adequate supply of water (photogrphas attached).As reflected in the photographs, there is partition for the toilet area from the living area of the main cell for the privacy.In the bath room there is toilet/WC with flush facility, wash basin and a tap to meet the basic/daily requirement of an inmate.The Ward No.4 consists of 20 cells where the prisonershaving satisfactory conduct are lodged /confined.All cells are built in a row withopen yard in front of each cell.CRL.M.C.870/2020 Page 17 of 76Out of the available / proposed options for lodging ofMr.Mr. Chawla will be provided single occupancy.The toilet facility is available within the cell itself.(a) All above mentioned cells are equipped with sink facility.(b) Toilets are western style(c) Toiletries / sanitary items would be provided to the inmate.Theinmate shall be able to keep himself and his cell neat and clean.(d) Toilets in all cells proposed for lodging of Mr. Chawla are wellpartitioned to ensure complete privacy.E. Security from violence:-It is clarified that the identified lodgment facilities (Jail No.1 Ward No.9 andJail No. 3 Ward No.4) are not High Security Wards.Inmates having satisfactoryconduct are lodged in these wards.A special duty pointwould also be deployed in addition to existing security arrangements of theordinary wards.There is a high level of security provided at the entrance of Ward No.9 in Central Jail No.l and similarly at Ward No.4 in Central Jail No.3, along with sufficient number of CCTV cameras which are monitored 24 x 7 from the control room.It is assured that the Ward and adjoining area of the cell in which Mr. Sanjeev Chawla will be kept will definitely be covered with CCTV surveillance.Pan Tilt Zoom [PTZ] CCTVs are also installed at the prominent locations in the jails to cover maximum area.One guard, shall be available 24x7 in the ward where Mr. Chawla will be lodged.F. Medical care:-There is sufficient medical, staff in the Delhi Prison.As on date, 86 medicalofficers, are available against 112 number of sanctioned posts.Medical facilitiesinclude 200 bed, hospital in Jail No.3 premises, Medical Inspection Room in alljails,special treatment facilities, Dental, X-ray etc. It is further mentioned thatimmediate treatment is extended to every needy inmate patient lodged inTihar/Delhi Prisons.In addition referral hospitals located outside prison areavailable for specialized and specialty medical requirements.Regular medicalvisits by specialists are also carried out to ensure effective medical treatment.There are certain other things which are necessary to be mentioned as follows:-An outdoor (Open to sky) yard is available to the inmates who maintain proper discipline asper Delhi Prison Rules, from morningLock-Out to 12 O'clock in the noon and from 1500 hrs to Lock-Up in the evening.Willing Inmates are allowed to participate In Yoga classes, Meditation courses; higher education courses CRL.M.C.870/2020 Page 20 of 76 available through Indira Gandhi National Open University, vocational courses etc. subject to maintaining good conduct inside prison.CRL.M.C.870/2020 Page 20 of 76There is also a Library in each jail for the use of inmates and they are also permitted to receive their reading material / books as available in the Library.The inmates are also allowed to participate in various cultural programs organized within the jails.The Inmates are also allowed to have daily newspaper in English or in Hindi as per their choice.In order to consider the application for Mr. Chawla's extradition, we are ready to supply such details.The Government of India solemnly assures the UK authorities that the undertakings mentioned above shall be provided to Mr. Chawla If he is extradited to India.The Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, avails itself the opportunity to renew to the Home Office, Government of United Kingdom and the Competent Judicial Authorities in United Kingdom the assurances of its highest consideration."Vide order dated 14.02.2020, it was inter alia reiterated on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner having been extradited from the United Kingdom in terms of the Letters of Assurances dated 28.02.2017, 22.09.2017 and 11.06.2018 of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India to face trial in India with it having been detailed in each of the said Letters of Assurances that he would be held at the Tihar Jail Complex, New Delhi, if extradited, the remand to police custody is erroneous.Time was sought on behalf of the State to CRL.M.C.870/2020 Page 21 of 76 submit the status report and vide order dated 14.02.2020, the petitioner who at that time was in the custody of Inspector Gagan Bhaskar, STARS-I, Crime Branch, Sector-8, R.K. Puram, New Delhi was directed to be lodged at the Tihar Jail, Delhi in terms of the Letters of Assurances of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India referred to hereinabove dated 28.02.2017, 22.09.2017 & 11.06.2018 till further directions of this Court.CRL.M.C.870/2020 Page 21 of 76It was also considered essential that the Union of India is heard in the matter, in as much as, the Letters of Assurances had been issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India and Court notice was thus issued to the Standing Counsel for the Union of India to ensure presence and representation on behalf of the Union of India for their submissions for the date 19.02.2020 and the learned ASG for the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, Mr. Sanjay Jain appeared thus for the Union of India.I said that I was not prepared to do it unless we were assured of a place in the final of the triangular series.I was spinning them along as I do not think I had any real intention of throwing a match.Sanjay handed me a cell-phone box containing US dollars in case I changed my mind.Para 38 I did not count the money, which was kept in a filing cabinet at home together with my prize money from the World Cup, the Kenya tour and left over sustenance allowances.He indicated that Sanjay wished to resume contact with me, along the same lines as in India.I had by now developed sufficient resolve to put it all behind me and told him I was not interested.I thereafter had no contact with Hamid after the incident described above until 7 April, when I telephoned him and told him that news of what had happened in relation to the One-Day games in India had broken.Page 9 para 7.3 I became more friendly with Mr. Cronje in or about 1996 when Iwas invited to the Sharjah Cup which was being played in Dubai where South Africa were participating Para 7.4 I had given Mr. Cronje my mobile number and he had also given me his mobile number.Page 12 para 8.5 He arrived on Sunday morning and I fetched him at the airport.Para 8.6 He is a young Indian male approximately between 30 and 35 years of age, tall and thin.Para 8.7 I took him with me to my business premises in Fordsburg wherehe relaxed and had something to eat.Para 8.8 CRL.M.C.870/2020 Page 30 of 76 In the time that he was in my company he told me that he had heard about me from a lot of people in India.He told me furtherthat he had heard that I had an exceptionally good relationship with a lot of international cricket players.He told me that he himself was a cricket enthusiast who followed cricket worldwide and he also told me that he liked to gamble on cricket.Para 8.9 In the time that I spent with him as well as the telephone calls that I had from him, I gathered the distinct impression that he was more interested in gambling on cricket and he was most definitely not what is commonly termed "a bookmaker".Para 8.10 He enquired where the South African players were staying in Durban as he was going to Durban that evening and I told him that they usually stayed at the Beverley Hills Hotel in Umhlanga Rocks.He asked me to accompany him to Durban in order to introduce him to some of the cricketers and he especially wanted to be introduced to the captain, Mr. Hansie Cronje.Page 13 para 8.11 I told him that I had a very good relationship with Mr. Cronje but was not able to go to Durban that evening as I had family commitments.Para 8.12 I took Sanjay to the airport and he left for Durban that evening.Para 8.13 He phoned me from Durban and told me that he was staying atthe same hotels as the South African cricket players.Para 8.14 It was eventually arranged that I would fly to Durban the following day and meet him at the CRL.M.C.870/2020 Page 31 of 76 Beverley Hills Hotel.I flew to Durban and thereafter met Sanjay at the Beverley Hills Hotel.Sanjay told me that he in particular wanted to meet the captain of the South African cricket team, Hansie Cronje.Para 8.15 I phoned Hansie Cronje who was with the South African teamin Durban itself practicing for the one day international and he told me that he would be back at the hotel at approximately 05.30 p.m. Para 8.16 Mr. Cronje then contacted me and told me that he was back from training and I went up to his room and told him that I had a friend who had come from London who wished to meet him.The status report dated 19.2.2020 submitted on behalf of the Government of NCT of Delhi, states to the effect that the petitioner herein so far has not joined the investigation and did not respond to the Letter Rogatory sent to the United Kingdom and that he had left India pursuant to the registration of the case and that it is for the first time that he is now before the Investigating Agency.CRL.M.C.870/2020 Page 34 of 76The said status report further states to the effect that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings being conducted in India but did not join the investigation and that on the grant of the police custody remand of the petitioner vide the impugned order, the petitioner was brought to the office of the ACP(STAR-I) Crime Branch, R.K.Puram with the escort team around 7:30/8 p.m. and that keeping in mind the assurances given by the Government of India, the petitioner was not lodged in any lockup of any police station and was kept in a room specially prepared for him and that all assurances given by the Government of India were strictly complied with in true spirit.CRL.M.C.870/2020 Page 36 of 76The learned Additional Solicitor General, for the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, Mr.Sanjay Jain, at the outset has categorically stated to the effect that the Government of India shall adhere to the Letter of Assurances given by the Ministry of Home Affairs dated 28.2.2017, 22.9.2017 and 11.6.2018 in letter and spirit and that the petitioner shall be held at the Tihar Jail Complex only and shall be lodged therein in accordance with the said Letters of Assurances.It was however been submitted on behalf of the Union of India that the assurances given vide the Letters of Assurance dated 28.2.2017 and 22.9.2017 were reiterated and reconfirmed vide the Letters of Assurance provided in addition to the previous assurances and vide Clause 'C' of the Letter of Assurance dated 11.06.2018, it was stipulated to the effect:"C. Applicability of assurances:It is stated that the assurances below and those contained in the prior assurances will apply to all periods of his detention/during his judicial custody in India in the said cases (including any pre- trial detention, detention during the trial phase and post-sentence in the event of conviction)."(emphasis supplied) CRL.M.C.870/2020 Page 37 of 76 and that thus, the petitioner herein had to continue to remain lodged at the Tihar Jail Complex in conformity with the terms of the Letters of Assurance issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs for any pre-trial detention during the trial faced and post-sentence in the event of the conviction."That from the investigation conducted so far, there is sufficient evidence to prove that the accused persons namely Sanjeev Chawla, Hansie Cronje, Krishan Kumar, Rajesh Kalra, Sunil Dara @ Bittoo and Manmohan Khatter mentioned in Column No 11 of the chargesheet had entered into a criminal conspiracy to fix the cricket matches played between India and South Africa from 16.02.2000 to 20.03.2000 in India.In furtherance of this conspiracy, the 1st Test Match at Mumbai and the 1st One Day International at Cochin were CRL.M.C.870/2020 Page 38 of 76 fixed and the same resulted in wrongful gain to the accused and wrongful loss in general to the public at large, who had gone believing that they would witness truly competitive matches in which each player would perform optimally.The accused persons have thus committed offences punishable u/s 420/120B of IPC."CRL.M.C.870/2020 Page 38 of 76This reference was forwarded by Interpol Delhi to Interpol Secretariat General for issuance of Red Comer Notice against accused Sanjeev Kumar Chawla, and for circulation to member countries.An application was thereafter filed by the State seeking the grant of 14 days police custody of the petitioner herein for confronting him with the evidence allegedly collected against him and to unearth the conspiracy and to find out the details of the persons who were involved in order to give the petitioner herein a fair trial and to file the supplementary charge sheet against the accused as submitted on 19.02.2020videthe status report filed by the State under the signatures of Mr. Manoj Dixit, Assistant Commissioner of Police, STARS-I, Sector-8, R.K. Puram.Vide the impugned order dated 13.02.2020, the prayer made by the State seeking the police custody remand, was granted to the extent of remanding the petitioner to police custody for 12 days.The avowed contention raised on behalf of the petitioner herein urged before the learned Trial Court was to the effect that in terms of the Letters of Assurances of the Government of India, the petitioner had to be kept at the Tihar Jailcomplex, Delhi during the pre-trial detention and in the event of the prison sentence upon conviction also and that thus, the petitioner could not be remanded to police custody and that the charge sheet having been filed, the police could not investigate the matter without permission of the Court with it having also been submitted before the learned Trial Court on behalf of the petitioner that in as much as, the extradition proceedings had commenced earlier and bail had been granted to the petitioner at London and therefore, the period of 15 days from his arrest in London having expired, no police remand could be granted.The learned Trial Court vide the impugned order observed to the effect that though, arrest warrants had been issued for the petitioner herein, he had been granted bail in the United Kingdom and was subsequently arrested on 12.02.2020 at 8.30 PM GMT at Bay No.B-43, Heathrow Airport, London, U.K. and had thus not remained in custody even for a single day and thus placing reliance on the verdict of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in "Alim A. Patel Vs.State of Maharashtra" 2011 (2) AIR BOM R 271, the accused could CRL.M.C.870/2020 Page 5 of 76 be remanded to police custody even after 15 days excluding the period of bail, with it having been further observed to the effect that in any event, the present petitioner had been arrested on 12.02.2020 and there was no bar to the grant of the police custody remand.A letter/order from the concerned Court justifying accused person's committal for trial on the basis of evidence made available in the Charge Sheet, with a direction seeking accused person's presence in court to stand trial in said court from the country of present stay.", categorically spelt out that the extradition could be granted only for the trial on the basis of the evidence made available in the charge sheet and not for the purpose of any investigation and that even in the Court at London, the State had submitted that the charge sheet had been filed and that thus, the petitioner was being extradited to India only to face trial and not for any investigation purposes.An extradition warrant as a warrant of arrest dated 27.02.2015 was issued by the learned CMM, PHC, New Delhi against the petitioner, which was to the effect:-CRL.M.C.870/2020 Page 8 of 76The Letters of Assurances dated 28.02.2017 bearing F.No.25015/56/2016-LC, 22.09.2017 bearing No. 25015/56/2016- LC(Vol.(a) As per Delhi Prison Rules, 1988 the prisoners are kept in a dormitory (barracks) or cell subject to the circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the safe custody, health and comfort of the prisoners.(b) All the prisoners are supplied necessary blankets and bed sheet for the purpose of using it as mattress and bedding.In case there is medical requirement for a prisoner, mattress and CRL.M.C.870/2020 Page 9 of 76 bedding is provided to him/her as per the recommendation of the Medical Officer.CRL.M.C.870/2020 Page 9 of 76(c) Every prisoner is provided with adequate quantity of clean potable drinking water to meet his daily requirement.It may be mentioned here that in Jail canteen bottled drinking water is also available for the prisoners on reasonable price.(d) Every ward of Delhi Prisons has sufficient number of toilets to meet the daily requirement of the prisoners.Aminor O.T. in Central Jail Hospital.Investigation facility for Biochemistry, Pathology, X-Ray, ECG available.CRL.M.C.870/2020 Page 14 of 76Round the clock dispensaries in all the Jails.The ward wherehe will be lodged has inmates who have not violated any Prison Rules and are of satisfactory conduct.Below, we guarantee Mr. Chawla will be lodged in one of four identifiedcells located in two different wards.The reason we identify morethan one cell I sto enable a degree of operational flexibility, should it be necessary.As reflected in the photographs there is partition for the toilet area from the living area of the maincell for the privacy.In the bath room there is toilet/WC with flush facility, washbasin and a tap to meet the basic/daily requirement of an inmate.It may furtherbe mentioned that the said Ward offers sufficient space to the Inmates to doindoor activities like chess, carom etc. as well as outdoor activities like dailyphysical exercise, Badminton, Volley Ball etc. Further, there is green open yard infront of the Cells.Such facilities are available to all the inmates lodged in the same ward.Ward 4 of Central Jail No.3 CRL.M.C.870/2020 Page 17 of 76 Besides, Cell No. 6 or Cell No.7 of Ward No. 4 in Jail No.3 are also earmarked for Mr. Chawla.The dimension of each Cell is 6 square metres i.e. same as referred in above paragraphs (Photographs of Cell No. 6 and Cell No. 7 of Ward No.4 enclosed).The sanitary facilities provided in the Cell No.6 & 7 duly meet the European standards as per Article 3 of ECHR and CPT norms.Further, as toilet isavailable in the cell, Mr. Chawla will have exclusive access to the toilet facility atall times including 'Lock- up times' as per his requirement.In the present matter, Mr. Chawla will be confined individually in a cell as single occupancy cell and therefore question of sharing / access to such toilet facilities in the cell by otherprisoners does not arise.CRL.M.C.870/2020 Page 18 of 76Delhi Prison ensures that the first time offenders may not mix with, the habitual offenders and vice versa.The, prisoner is allowed to meet with their relatives and friends nominated by him twice a week for 30 minutes each.Lawyer meetings are also permitted twice a week.Apart from this, the inmate is also allowed to talk to his family/relatives through telephone for 05 minutes daily oh the registered numbers.Video conferencing with trial courts is also available in the Tihar jails.Chawla will be provided immediatemedical attention if required, during his stay inDelhi Prisons.As necessary this will be provided within or in medical facilitiesoutsidethe prison to ensure appropriate and attentive medical treatment.Selected T.V. channels are also available for the inmates in their Barracks/ Cells subject to maintaining good conduct as per Delhi Prison Rules.Should the UK authorities require any further specifics in relation to the above.Vide the status report submitted on 19.2.2020 on behalf of the Government of NCT of Delhi, by Sh.Kewal Singh Ahuja, learned APP, it has been submitted that during the investigation, it was found that the present petitioner had played the most vital role in the commission of the crime in as much as not only had he acted as the main conduit between the bookies but that he also fixed matches in connivance with the South African captain and left India on 15.3.2000, after providing a mobile phone connection bearing No. 9810294943 to the co-accused Hansie Cronje and that the statements of Hansie Cronje and Hamid Cassim before the Kings Commission allegedly clearly pointed to his deep rooted involvement in the case.CRL.M.C.870/2020 Page 22 of 76The extracts of the said statements of Hansie Cronje and Hamid Cassim were submitted along with the status report which read to the effect:"Relevant contents of Hansie Cronje statement made before Kings Commission Page No 12 para 36 At the beginning of February I travelled with the team to the Beverly Hills Intercontinental Hotel at Umhlanga Rocks.We were due to play the fourth one day International in the series, against Zimbabwe, in Durban on the 2nd of February.Hamidwas at the hotel when we arrived.He introduced me to a man known to me only as Sanjay, who he said was from London.Iwas not told that he was a bookmaker and thought he was a punter.Para 37 Hamid and Sanjay indicated that Sanjay wanted me to supply them with information but did not specify what information.They also said that I could make a lot of money if we would lose a match.Page 16 para 50 When I got back to the hotel Sanjay was upset because we had scored too many runs, and I blamed the Indian wicket keeper for three chances that he missed, obviously not revealing that the South African players concerned had not been involved and infact none of them knew anything about it.I did not receive any money for that match.I believe Sanjay lost money.This was used for my foreign earning.I was to be paid for doing this.Page 11 Para 8.1 It was during the time period that the Triangular Series was taking place in South Africa between England, South Africa and Zimbabwe that I received a phone call from Sanjay Chawla.Hetold me that he had heard from people in India that I had a very good relationship with many of the international test cricketers and that I also knew a lot of the South African test cricketers.Para 8.2 He told me that he was coming to South Africa for the triangularseries and that he was a cricket enthusiast and that he followed test cricket world wide.Page 14 para 8.17 Mr. Cronje agreed to this and came down to Sanjay's room where I introduced him to Sanjay.In Sanjay's room I had previously been watching provincial game of cricket which was being shown on the television.Para 8.18 Sanjay and Hansie Cronje thereafter had a conversation for approximately 10 minutes relating to cricket.They were talking, inter alia, about match forecasting, pitch conditions, team selection the conditions upon winning the toss.They were further discussing the number of runs in one day international cricket matches.I. also heard them discussing team selection and who would be batting in which order and who would be bowling.Para 8.19 I then saw Sanjay take envelope containing money and hand itto Mr. Cronje.Shortly thereafter Mr. Cronje left the room.Sanjay and Hansie then said that they would talk again.Para 8.20 CRL.M.C.870/2020 Page 32 of 76 I thereafter told Sanjay that I would not be able to stay over in Durban for the one day international as I had other commitments.I left shortly thereafter for the airport and flewback to Johannesburg.CRL.M.C.870/2020 Page 32 of 76Para 8.21 Sanjay also gave me his telephone numbers in London and told me that whenever I was in London I was more than welcome tobe his guest and he would reciprocate with hospitality.His telephone numbers are as follows 0944956459299 and 09447974352755 Page 15 para 8.22 After the cricket series was over, Sanjay left for London and wekept up telephonic contact on occasions and he thanked me for introducing him to Mr. Hansie Cronje Para 8.23 I thereafter received a phone call from Sanjay when South Africa was playing in India and he informed me that he was now in India where he had gone to watch the test series between South Africa and India.I recall that he told me he was staying at the same hotel as the South African players when the first one day international against India was being played at Cochin."(i) On the basis of the investigation conducted so far, statements of witnesses recorded during investigation, conversations recorded between he accused in the seized audio and video cassettes, CFSL report and other documentary and oral evidence, it can be safely concluded that some of the matches were fixed and in some matches, an attempt was made to fix them, as explained in subsequent paragraphs."and vide Sub-clause (3) to the effect:"(iii) That from the investigation conducted so far there is sufficient evidence to prove that the accused persons namely Sanjeev Kumar Chawla, Hansie Cronje, Krishan Kumar, Rajesh Kalra, Sunil Dara @ Bittoo and Manmohan Khatter had entered into a criminal conspiracy to fix the cricket matches played between India and South Africa from 16.02.2000 to 20.03.2000 in India.In furtherance of this conspiracy, the 1stTest Match at Mumbai and the 1stOne Day International at Cochin were fixed and the same resultedin wrongful gain to the accused and wrongful loss in general to the public at large, who had gone believing that they would witness truly competitive matches in which each player would perform optimally.The accused persons have thus committed offences punishable u/s 420/120B of IPC."Thereafter, Interpol Secretariat General vide control No. A-1526/ 11-2004 dated 09.11.2004 issued Red Corner Notice against accusedSanjeev Kumar Chawla and circulated the sameto its member countries.Copy of the Red Corner Notice is placed at (Annexure G).The Red Corner Notice seeks the arrest of the subject with a view to his subsequent extradition and such notice is issued only after (a) a wanted person has committed offence under ordinary criminal of the country (b) the warrant has been issued for his arrest and (c) Extradition of the person will be, requested consequentto his arrest."CRL.M.C.870/2020 Page 66 of 76"That accused Sanjeev Kumar Chawla will be tried in India only for the offences for which, this extradition is being sought or for lesser offences disclosed by the facts."and that thus what had been stated therein was that the petitioner would be tried in India only for the offences for which extradition was being sought or for lesser offences disclosed by the facts and that it had not been stipulated that there would be any further investigation conducted.In relation to this aspect, it is essential to observe that vide verdict dated 23.01.2020 of the Divisional Court of the Hon'ble Queen's Bench (2020) EWHC 102 (Admin) reference was made to para 54 & 55 of the first judgment of the Divisional Court pursuant to proceedings in the Westminster Magistrates' Court and it was observed vide paras 54 & 55 of the said verdict of the Divisional Court as well as adverted to paras 54 & 55 of the first judgment of the Divisional Court in relation to the petitioner to the effect:In these circumstances if matters remain as they are the appeal will be dismissed.However, it is apparent that it will be possible to meet the real risk of article 3 treatment by offering a suitable assurance that Mr. Chawla will be kept in article 3 compliant conditions in Tihar prison before, during trial and, in the event of conviction and sentence of imprisonment, after trial.Therefore, following the approach set out in Georgiev at paragraph 8(ix) and (x), we stay the appeal to give the Government an opportunity to provide further assurances.We require a response from the CPS within 42 days of the date of the handing down of this judgment.We give permission to apply to both parties as regards the wording of any further assurances, the timing for their production, and the final disposal of this appeal."Copy of this order be supplied to either side and be sent to the Superintendent, Tihar Jail, Delhi for compliance.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
146,911,631 |
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.C.No.11814/2014 reason.Under such circumstances, the applicant prays for bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the application.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Pushpendra
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
146,913,188 |
3.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is said to havesexually harassed the defacto complainant's minor daughter, who is belongingto the scheduled caste.The appellant, who was arrested on 19.04.2018, for the offencespunishable under Sections 9(a) (I) 9(m) r/w 10 of POCSO Act 2012 and 341,506(1) IPC and Section 3(1) (r) (i) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 2015 in Crime No.21of 2018 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.2.The appellant has filed a petition in Cr.As against the same, theappellant has filed the present Criminal Appeal for the above said relief.4.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant isan innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case.5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the Statesubmitted that investigation is still pending.6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also takingnote of the period of incarceration of the appellant, I am of the view thatthe appellant could be enlarged on bail.Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal isallowed and it is ordered that the appellant shall be released on bail, onexecuting a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with twosureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned SessionsJudge, Fast track, Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram, Ramnad District and on further condition that the appellant shall report before the respondentpolice daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as andwhen required for interrogation.1.Sessions Judge, Fast track, Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram, Ramnad District.2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rameswaram, Ramnad District.3.Inspector of Police, Rameswaram Town Police Station, Ramnad District.
|
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
145,364,434 |
It is stated that the applicant has got selected on the post of constable and he is a young boy of 19 years having no criminal history.Learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant had strong motive to do away the injured as he was witness in the aforesaid case.In the event of arrest of the applicant Talim @ Talib involved in Case Crime No. 252 of 2018, u/s 307 IPC, P.S. Bahsuma, District Meerut shall be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report if any under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions.(i) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;The applicant is directed to produce a certified copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.Let the copy of this order be sent by the Registrar General of this Court to Sessions Judge concerned for it's compliance.Order Date :- 16.9.2019 Dhirendra/
|
['Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,453,685 |
JUDGMENT Harries, C.J.The appellant was convicted of an offence of criminal breach of trust and was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Bs.He was also convicted of an offence Under Section 81 (4), Defence of India Bales and was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of us.The sentences of imprisonment were made to run concurrently.The appellant together with B, h. Bhartia and Maniklal Pal were tried by an Additional Sessions Judge sitting with a jury upon a number of charges.All throe accused were charged with conspiracy to commit fraudulent breach of trust and offences under Rule, 81 (4), Defence of India Rules, The appellant was also charged on three counts Under Section 406, Penal Code, and on two counts under e. 81 U), Defence of India Rules.B. L, Bhartia and Maniklal Pal were charged' on three counts for aiding and abetting offences Under Section 406, Penal Code.They were also charged upon two counts with offences under Rule 121, Defence of India Rules.The jury returned a verdict of not guilty in the case of B. L, Bhartia and Maniklal Pal-in respect of all charges made against them.The learned Judge accepted this verdict, convicted the appellant Under Section 406, Penal Code and Section 81 (4), Defence of India Rules and sentenced him as I have already indicated.The appellant, S. Q. Khaitan, was the managing director of a company known as the Steel Products Limited having its factory at No. 96, Garden Reach Road, Kidderpore and its-bead office at No. 9, Olive Street, Calcutta.B. L. Bhartia was a cousin of the appellant and used to come to the factory and frequently transacted official business for the appellant in his absence.The accused Maniklal Pal was the Accountant at the head office and used to attend the factory and sometimes collect sale proceeds of goods sold to outsiders.One C. J. Hill was originally an accused person, he being the works manager o the factory of Steel Products Limited.Before the committing Magistrate however Hill became an approver and eventually gave evidence in the ease against the accused persons, It was further alleged that one Sarat Das, a store-keeper, was also concerned in the conspiracy with which the accused Bhartia and Maniklal Pal were concern.ed, but he was not made an accused in this case and he did not give evidence.The learned Additional Sessions Judge accepted this verdict and acquitted them of all charges.The appellant was found not guilty of conspiracy and also not guilty upon two counts Under Section 406, Penal Code, and on one count under B, 81 U), Defence of India Rules.He was however found guilty on one count Under Section 406, Penal Code, and on one count under Rule 81 (4), Defence of India Rules.During the last Great War, Steel Products Limited received large orders for the manufacture of articles required by the military authorities, and amongst other orders they received from Government was an order for the manufacture of 75,ooo "s" brackets which were required by the American Army.The material from which these "S" brackets were to be manufactured was to be supplied by Government and the manufacturers were only entitled to charge the costs of manufacture.Any material left unused and scrap were the property of Government and the Steel Products Limited wore not entitled under the contract to deal with that material without the authorization of Government.Generally speaking, the charge against the appellant and his co accused was that they obtained large quantities of material from Government for the execution of this contract and in executing the contract, used to a large extent inferior material and disposed of the material supplied by Government to buyers on the blaok market at inflated prices.Messrs Steel Products Limited were given 91.205 tons of 3/32 gauge plates by Government for the manufacture of these "S" brackets.The allegation made by the prosecution is that the Steel Products Limited, an the instigation of the appellant, only made a third of these brackets from 3/32 gauge plates and manufactured the remaining ' B" brackets from 14 gauge material.According to the prosecution, of the 91.205 tons of s/32 gauge plates supplied by Government only 17& tons were used, 10 tons being used in the finished material and 7j tons being left as scrap.It ia said that eventually there were some id or 20 tons found at the factory and the allegation was that roughly 5d tons had been disposed of wrongfully by Steel Products Limited.In this 54 tons were included 20 tons alleged to have been sold to one Tapshi Prosad Gupta,The charge upon which the appellant was convicted, namely, fraudulent breach of trust, was in respect of these steel plates entrusted to Steel Products Limited for a specific purpose.It was said that the steel platea had not been used for that purpose and that they had been misappropriated.The charge under the Defence of India Rules upon which the appellant was convicted was the charge of wrongfully selling 20 tons of these plates to Tapahi Prosad, There were-other charges as I have said, but we need not consider them, because the appellant and his eo-accused were acquitted of all such charges,The defence was that all the ''S" brackets had been manufactured out of the steel plates-supplied by Government, and that what was left, namely, 19 to 20 odd tons represented excess plates and there was also a quantity of scrap.In short it was alleged that the work had been done in accordance with contract and what was left was the balance after making all the "S" brackets out of this steel, The defecee also alleged that this prosecution had .been brought, particularly against the appellant, from enmity and serious allegations were made against the police in the conduct of the investigation and in the conduct of these proceedings,The main and indeed the only real evidence against the appellant upon theeo two charges was the evidence of Hill, the works manager, who had turned approver and the evidence of Tapsbi Prosad, the latter being concerned only with the charge under the Defence of India Rules.Further, certain letters Mere put to Hill which were written by him.It ia quite clear from the charge of the learned Judge to the jury that he had formed no view at all as to whether this deposition should be admitted or not.He seema to have admitted it because the Public Prosecutor put the document in evidence and it is quite clear from the charge that the learned Judge was not certain why the Public Prosecutor put the document in evidence.In the charge the learned Judge made this observation :
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,453,896 |
The brief facts which are absolutely necessary to decide this bail petition are recapitulated as under.Mrs. Anju Ilyasi was married to the petitioner on 18.11.1993 in London.hereafter, the couple shifted to their own apartment at B-13 IFS Apartments, Mayur Vihar, Phase I, Delhi.It is alleged that around the midnight of 10.1.2000 Mrs. Anju Ilyasi committed suicide at her apartment referred to above.Since the deceased had died an unnatural death, within 7 years of her marriage, so inquest proceedings under Section 176 Cr.P.C. were initiated by the Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM).The SDM recorded the statement of the father of the deceased, Dr. K.P.Singh, an eminent scientist.The SDM also recorded the statements of Mrs. Rukma Singh, mother of the deceased and Prashant Singh, brother of the deceased.Their statements were read before me by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, Mr.R.K.Anand, Senior Advocate.Neither the father nor the brother of the deceased suspected any foul play in the death of the deceased at the hands of the petitioner.It has come in their statements that the deceased was hot headed, short tempered and had committed suicide.The brother of the deceased, Prashant Singh, stated that once earlier also the deceased had a tempted to commit suicide because of her temperament.The elder sister of the deceased, Ms. Reeta Veneck, had sent a fax message from USA containing her statement that she did not suspect any foul play and she did not blame the petitioner.Another elder sister of the deceased, Ms. Rashmi Singh, who was living in Canada came to India on 14.2.2000 i.e. after one month and four days of the unfortunate incident.On 16.3.2000 i.e. after two months and six days of the incident and after one month and two days of her arrival in India, she submitted a 12 page typewritten statement to the SDM in which she levelled allegations of harassment and torture against the petitioner.On 22.3.2000 she submitted another 7 page supplementary statement to the SDM.she had also handed over two diaries and two letters, purported to have been written by the deceased, to the SDM.On 21.3.2000 Mrs. Rukma Singh, mother of the deceased, appeared before the SDM and she also supported the stand of her daughter, Ms.Rashmi Singh and stated that earlier she had not made statement against the petitioner because she was apprehensive about the welfare of Aaliya, the daughter of the deceased.The SDM prepared his report and sent it to the Deputy Commissioner of police (East) for necessary action.According to the doctors at AIIMS, Anju Ilyasi was brought dead at 12.26 a.m. on 11.1.2000 so, no dying declaration could be recorded.A dying declaration was also not recorded at the Virmani Hospital.It is also mentioned in the FIR that a panel of three Senior doctors from three leading hospitals of Delhi, namely, AIIMS, Safdarjung Hospital and Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital was constituted to conduct the post mortem on 12.1.2000 at AIIMS mortuary.ORDER Dalveer Bhandari, J.This petition is directed against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 26.4.2000 by which the petitioner, Suhaib Ilyasi's bail application was rejected, on the ground that the case is still under investigation and some more relevant facts remain to be investigated.Learned counsel appearing for the parties have argued this bail petition at length, Since this petition is at the stage of bail and the trial of this case is yet to begin, therefore, I would refrain from giving my findings on various submissions made before me.Thereafter, on 27.3.2000 FIR No. 94/2000 was was registered at P.S. Trilok Puri under Sections 498A/304B/201/34 IPC after two months and seventeen days of the incident.From the FIR it is borne out that immediately after the incident the deceased was taken by the petitioner to the nearest hospital namely the Virmani Hospital, where on the advice of doctors Anju was rushed to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS).The doctors were also given the knife seized from the site.Finger prints were also taken of the deceased and of the petitioner, Suhaib Ilyasi as he was the only other adult present in the house at the time of incident.It is also incorporated in the FIR that from the finger prints which were lifted from the wall and from the knife numbered as Q1 to Q5 the report of CFSL (CBI) has ruled out the finger prints of Suhaib Ilyasi.The finger prints Q1 to Q5 on the knife were not confirmed matching to Anju Ilyasi's finger prints either.According to the FIR the board of doctors on 18.1.2000 opined that the injury No.1 is 15.5 cms deep from the external injury to the point of injury to the Aorta.2) The cut of Aorta was obliquely placed on left antereolateral wall.3) The distance of Aorta from ant.abdominal was 10 cms and Aorta was usually placed.4) Injury No.1 & 2 are self inflicted and suicidal in nature.The FIR also mentioned that the statements recorded after the death of Anju Ilyasi in the alleged incident included the statements of the father, brother and mother of the deceased.None of them suspected any foul play.They stated that the deceased was intelligent, head strong and had earlier attempted to commit suicide.According to them Anju committed suicide.In the FIR it is also mentioned that Ms.Rashmi Singh, sister of the deceased, had submitted a 12 page typewritten statement to the SDM on 16.3.2000 and on cross-examination on certain points she stated as under:-(1) The husband of the deceased inflicted extreme mental and physical torture on late Mrs. Anju Ilyasi.(2) Anju was being neglected financially and emotionally and Anju was tortured by Suhaib, his mother, his father and his sister-in-law (Rukhsana in 1994).(4) Anju was ill treated by her husband.(6) Suhaib stopped all financial help to my sister and was neglecting her on all counts (January 1997 onwards).(7) Suhaib developed relation/affair with Neha, daughter of Mrs. Nayyar and driven Anju to start thinking about divorce.(8) On 10th January 2000 Suhaib told Rashmi Singh on telephone that he would take care of Anju & Rashmi need not interfere.(9) A letter sent by Prashant and reportedly destroyed by Suhaib & family members and the letter contained vital facts which might have proved decisive.(11) Allegations that Suhaib acted in a planned and calculated manner with common object & intention to finish my sister.In the FIR it is also incorporated that on 22.3.2000 Ms.Rashmi Singh had submitted a detailed statement mentioning how Suhaib had committed passport forgery, bank forgery, credit card forgery and academic qualifica tions forgery.This was the motive for Suhaib to kill Anju so that these forgeries could never be made public.According to Mr. Rajinder Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, if this fact was within the knowledge of the deceased alone then how did Mrs. Rashmi Singh learn about it? In the FIR it is mentioned that the mother of the deceased, Mrs.Rukma Singh, appeared before the SDM on 21.3.2000 and stated that she was in entire agreement with the statement of her daughter Ms.In the concluding portion of the FIR it is mentioned that the post mortem report has clearly indicated that both injuries No. 1 & 2 were self inflicted and suicidal in nature.The various CFSL reports regarding bloodgroup, finger prints, viscera etc. have also not indicated anything specific to point that Anju Ilyasi was killed.However, Ms. Rashmi Singh (sister of the deceased) in her statments has alleged suspicion of murder along with harassment and torture by her husband and in-laws during her married life and, therefore, the SDM forwarded all the documents (post mortem report, forensic reports, three diaries and statements of all concerned) to DCP (East) for further investigation and necessary legal action as per the relevant provision of law.On receipt of report of inquest proceedings under Section 176 Cr.P.C.into the death of Anju Ilyasi by SDM, Preet Vihar, a case under Section 498A/304B/201/34 IPC was registered at police station Trilok Puri.Rajinder Singh, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that on the basis of the entire material available on record no offences under Section 304A, 498A and 201 IPC can be made out against the petitioner.He submitted that the entire chain of events lead to only one conclusion that Mrs. Anju Ilyasi had committed suicide.The alleged incident had taken place in the night of 10.1.2000 and on the very next day the statement of the father of the deceased, Dr.K.P.Singh, an eminent scientist and a former professor of IIT, Kanpur, Mrs. Rukma Singh, mother of the deceased and Mr. Prashant Singh, brother of the deceased were recorded and all three of them did not suspect any foul play and did not level any allegation against the petitioner.Mr.Prashant Singh had even mentioned that his mother had once told him that the deceased had earlier made an attempt to commit suicide.He also stated that the deceased was intelligent and head strong.Rajinder Singh also submitted that neither in any of the statements nor in the entire material on record there is any allegation of demand of dowry or harassment of the deceased for not fulfillling those demands.Mr. Rajinder Singh submitted that the basic ingredient of Sections 304B and 498A IPC is the demand for dowry.He submitted that in absence of any allegation of demand for dowry the petitioner cannot be held guilty of any offences under Section 498A and 304B IPC.He also submitted that by no stretch of imagination any offence under Sections 498A or 304B IPC can be made out against the petitioner.He further submitted that there is no evidence on record to substantiate the charge under section 201 IPC against the petitioner.He submitted that the police have added the offence under Section 201 IPC which relates to the destruction of evidence and there is no evidence much less any allegation on record by which the petitioner can be involved in any case under Section 201 IPC.He further submitted that when there are no allegations against anyone else then how can Sections 201/34 IPC be made out.Rajinder Singh submitted that the allegations of torture and harassment were made for the first time on 16.3.2000 by Ms. Rashmi Singh after two months and six days of the unfortunate incident in a 12 page typewritten statement.He submitted that even in that statement she does not level any allegation of demand for dowry.He submitted that in the absence of demand for dowry no case is made out against the petitioner under Section 498A and 304B IPC.Singh also submitted that the entire conduct of the petitioner demonstrated his total innocence.The petitioner had immediately after the alleged incident taken Anju to the nearest hospital namely, Virmani Hospital.From there she was rushed to the AIIMS on the advice of doctors at Virmani Hospital.He also submitted that the weapon of offence i.e. the knife was admittedly recovered on the spot itself.The petitioner did not make any effort to wipe out the vital evidence in this case.He submitted that the petitioner had exemplary love and affection towards the deceased and his daughter Aaliya.He has even named his production company after the name of his daughter Aaliya.The deceased too was inducted as director by him in that company.The petitioner had purchased B-13 IFS Apartments with his own finances and had added the deceased as equal owner of the same.It is submitted that the deceased has been abroad for studying and site seeing and the petitioner had been meeting the expenses.The petitioner had got furnished the flat to the liking of the deceased which costed him huge finances.Singh submitted that these are few examples of the petitioner's love and affection towards the deceased and his daughter.Rashmi Singh, sister of the deceased, to the S.D.M. after one month and two days after her arrival in India.He also submitted that immediately upon her arrival she did not make any statement before the SDM and instead she handed over a 12 page prepared typewritten statement at the behest of some other persons after so many weeks only with ulterior motives.Mr. Singh submitted that Ms. Rashmi Singh was interested in the custody of the petitioner's beautiful child Aaliya and that is why, she had made the statement against the petitioner.Mr. Singh also submitted that in this case where there is no legal evidence against the petitioner connecting him with the offences under Sections 304B/498A/201/34 IPC he cannot be denied bail, particularly when the investigation is almost over.Mr.R.K.Anand, learned Special public Prosecutor and Senior Advocate appearing for the State submitted that because of the serious allegations of dowry harassment, the trial court was totally justified in declining the bail to the petitioner.He submitted that the demand of dowry need not be direct and it has to be gathered from the circumstances.Mr. Anand has read out in extenso some portions of the diaries which were maintained by the deceased, Mrs.Anju Ilyasi.He submitted that the contents of the diaries do reveal that the married life of the deceased and the petitioner was far from being cordial or smooth.The contents also reveal that she was facing financial constraints.But the contents of the diaries read out in Court did not reveal that there was any demand of dowry.Anand submitted that the demand of dowry has to be inferred from the circumstances and he has placed reliance on Pawan Kumar & Ors.State of Haryana .He has also placed reliance on Prabhudayal & Ors.State of Maharashtra .He also relied on Baldev Krishan Vs.State of Punjab (1997 (4) SCC 428).Reliance has also been placed by him on Subedar Tiwari Vs.State of U.P. & Ors.(1989 Supp.(1) SCC 99), State of U.P. Vs.Ramesh Prashad Mishra & Anr.He submitted that in the instant case a loan given to the petitioner or a payment of Rs.18,000/- towards telephone bill cannot by any stretch of imagination be termed as a demand for dowry.Mr. Rajinder Singh has read out Sections 304B and 498A IPC.They are reproduced as under:-
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
235,094 |
This appeal has been filed by the accused appellants against thejudgment and order dated 11.06.2010 passed by learned Special Judge,SC/ST (PA) Act, Fast Track Court No. 5, Hardoi in Sessions Trial No. 543of 2000 (Crime No. 106-A of 1999): State Vs Awdesh and others, underSections 323/34, 324/34, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) 10 SC/ST Act,Police Station Beniganj, District Hardoi, whereby learned Special Judge hasheld the accused guilty under Sections 323/34, 324/34, 506 (para II) I.P.C.,consequently he has convicted and sentenced each of the accused toundergo different terms of imprisonment and to pay fine with defaultstipulation.The maximum sentence awarded by the trial court is three yearsunder Sections 324/34 and 506 (para-II)Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A on theprayer for bail of the accused appellants.Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the maximumsentence awarded by the trial court is three years under Sections 324/34 and506 (para-II) I.P.C. The accused-appellants were on bail during trial andthey did not misuse the liberty of bail.They are still on interim bail grantedby the trial court to them.Therefore, they deserve to be released on bail.Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail.Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellantsand the learned Additional Government Advocate.Let accused-appellants Awdesh and Sahablal be released on bail in aforesaid Sessions Trial number during pendency of the appeal on theirfurnishing personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to thesatisfaction of the court concerned.However, the realization of fine is not stayed and the same bedeposited by the appellant, if not already deposited, within one month fromthe date of their release, failing which this order of bail shall standcancelled.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 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.
|
23,522,966 |
as per rules.(AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE navin Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAGDEVE Date: 2020.11.27 15:06:45 ISTRecord of the trial Court is available.Heard on I.A.No.8232/2020, which is the second application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant.Appellant has been convicted for an offence punishable under section 307 of IPC on two counts and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10-10 years, with fine stipulation.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has served the jail sentence of more than four years.He has placed reliance on the order passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Kamal Vs.State of Haryana reported in (2004) 13 SCC 526 wherein jail sentence of appellant has been suspended and he was enlarged on bail after serving the substantial part of jail sentence of 2 years and four months on conviction u/s 307 of IPC.Further, considering the said order of Supreme Court, jail sentence of appellant has been suspended by this Hon'ble High Court in Cr.A. No. 928/2016 dated 14/11/2017 (Arvind Rajput Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh).Under such circumstances jail sentence of appellant be suspended and he be released on bail.Learned Govt. Advocate for the State has opposed the application for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.The first I.A. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail filed by the appellant has already been dismissed on merits and in this matter appellant has been convicted u/s 307 of IPC on two counts with sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10-10 years.The case law on which reliance has been placed by counsel for the appellant i.e. Kamal Vs.State of Haryana (supra), order passed on the first application and conviction and sentence u/s 304-B of IPC was on single count.Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAGDEVE Date: 2020.11.27 15:06:45 IST 2 CRA-54-2017 Therefore, I.A. No. 8232/2020 stands rejected.List the appeal for final hearing in due course of time.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
23,536,543 |
The lawyers are reported to be abstaining from work and, therefore, this application is being decided after going through the contents thereof.This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the FIR in Crime No.25/2016 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Bhind for offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506, 327 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)In the present application it is nowhere mentioned that whether the police after concluding the investigation has filed the charge sheet or not and if the charge sheet has been filed, then what is the status of the trial.Be that as it may.The facts of the case are that apart from the different offences under the Indian Penal Code, an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has also been registered against the applicant.This Court by order dated 23.1.2017 had directed the parties to appear before the Principal Registrar of this Court for verification of factum of compromise.After recording the statements of the witnesses, the Principal Registrar of this Court has given the following report:
|
['Section 294 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.
|
23,545,385 |
ap C.R.M. 645 of 2016 In the matter of: an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 21.01.2016 in connection with Park Street Police Station Case No. 510 of 2014 dated 26.12.2014 under Sections 380/120B/419/420/468/354/384 of the Indian Penal Code and added Sections 354A/376 of the Indian Penal Code and subsequently added Sections 363/342/376D of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.And In re.: Javed Khan....... Petitioner Mr. Saibal Mondal....... for the petitioner Mr. Manjit Singh, Ld.P.P. ..for the State.
|
['Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
32,465,910 |
The petitioner is a Sub Inspector.He submits that the petitioner despite becoming aware of the interim protection granted to the complainant, forcefully, in BAIL APPLN.BAIL APPLN.1099/2018 Page 2 of 4Learned counsel appearing for the complainant opposes the bail application and submits that the petitioner is not the only officer involved in the larger conspiracy with the relatives of the complainant.Learned counsel submits that he is representing the complainant before a Division Bench and is taking his remedies before the Division Bench with regard to the alleged involvement of other officers and other individuals involved in larger conspiracy against the complainant.The petitioner has been in custody for nearly 50 days.The investigation qua the role of the petitioner in the subject FIR is already complete.Since the investigation already stands transferred to the Special Cell, and is being monitored by senior officers and regular reports are being submitted to the Division Bench of this court, there is no likelihood of the petitioner influencing the course of BAIL APPLN.1099/2018 Page 3 of 4 investigation.1099/2018 Page 4 of 4BAIL APPLN.1099/2018 Page 4 of 429.05.2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL) BAIL APPLN.1099/2018 & Crl.M.(Bail) 787/2018 (for interim bail)The petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No.14/2018 under Sections 387/323/454/427/354D/506/509/120B/34/365 IPC, Police BAIL APPLN.1099/2018 Page 1 of 4 Station Special Cell (SB).BAIL APPLN.1099/2018 Page 1 of 4The allegations against the petitioner are that the petitioner in connivance with the relatives of the complainant had committed an offence of house trespass, assault, abduction, threatening to kill to commit extortion in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy to coerce the complainant into giving up her rights in a property which has been gifted to her by her mother.The allegations against the petitioner are that the petitioner was the Investigating Officer in an FIR against the complainant and had obtained warrants of her arrest from court.1099/2018 Page 2 of 4 contravention of the instructions given by his superior officers, sought to execute the warrants.Learned counsel further submits that an internal inquiry was conducted and the report came adverse to the petitioner and accordingly an appropriate departmental inquiry has been initiated and petitioner has already been suspended.BAIL APPLN.1099/2018 Page 3 of 4Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, if not required in any other case.The petitioner shall not do anything which may prejudice either the investigation or the prosecution witnesses.The petitioner shall join the investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer.The petition is, accordingly, disposed of.SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J MAY 29, 2018 st BAIL APPLN.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
32,467,794 |
Heard on the question of admission.sh Appeal is admitted for hearing.ad Heard on I.A.No.3677/2018 an application for suspension of Pr sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.The appellant stands convicted for commission of offence a hy punishable under Section 354 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years, with fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, ad additionally he is sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 month and for M Section 506-II of IPC, he is sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years, with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additionally of he is sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 month.Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without C expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, I.A.No.3677/2018 h is allowed, subject to deposit of fine amount if not already deposited.ig It is directed that the custodial sentence of appellant-Vijay be H suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Thirty Thousand), along with one solvent surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.It is further directed that the applicant shall appear and mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on 1.8.2018 and on such other future dates as may be fixed by the Registry of this Court in this regard, till disposal of the appeal.Certified copy as per rules.(H.P. SINGH) JUDGE Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Date: 2018.03.09 04:32:34-08'00' A.Praj.sh e ad Pr a hy ad M of rt ou C h ig H
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
3,247,239 |
The prosecution story as unfolded by the written report of the incident (Ext.Ka.1) and as testified later by the prosecution witnesses of fact produced during the trial is that while P.W.1 Tahir and his uncle Abdul Aziz on their way to Khadar on 13.1.1992 where they were going to recover their amount which was due to them form certain persons in connection with the sale of their cattle, were passing through the jungle of Kanawali at about 1:30 P.M., three persons armed with lathi, danda, tabal and country-made pistol stopped Abdul Aziz (deceased) and P.W.1 Tahir and asked them to part with all their belongings forthwith on which Abdul Aziz, who had recognised one of them as Bijendra exclaimed that why he was behaving with him in such a manner despite being his old acquaintant.On being recognised, accused-appellant Bijendra exhorted his other two companions to kill Abdul Aziz.Immediately after the exhortion, accused-appellant Bijendra struck a lathi blow on Aziz but somehow P.W.1 Tahir managed to escape from the scene of occurrence, raising cries for help.In the meantime, the remaining two unknown accused also started beating Abdul Aziz.Hue and cry raised by P.W.1 Tahir attracted P.W.2 Yasin, P.W.3 Riyasat Ali, Qasim and many other persons to the place of occurrence who witnessed the same.The accused ran away, leaving Abdul Aziz in an injured condition.P.W.1 Tahir arranged a buffalo cart from nearby village Yogendra Nagar and put the injured Abdul Aziz into the buffalo cart with the help of P.W.2 Yasin, P.W.3 Riyasat Ali and Qasim for taking him to the hospital.However, Abdul Aziz succumbed to the injuries received by him at the hands of the accused-appellant and his two companions on way to the hospital at village Sikri.Leaving behind the dead body of his uncle Abdul Aziz at the "chaupal" of village Sikri, P.W.1 Tahir went to his village and returned from there, with the village Pradhan back to the place where he had left the dead body of the deceased in the custody of P.W.2 Yasin, P.W.3 Riyasat Ali and Qasim from where he went to P.S. Bhopa and on his dictation, one Mohd. Nadim, S/O Israt, scribed the written report of the incident (Ext.Ka.1) outside the P.S. Bhopa which was lodged by him at the same police station on 13.1.1992 at 7:45 P.M. P.W.4 Head Moharrir Harsaran Sharma on the basis of the written complaint (Ext.Ka.1) registered the case at crime no. at 18 of 1992 at 7:45 P.M. against accused-appellant Bijendra and his two other unknown companions.P.W.4 Head Moharrir Harsaran Sharma noted extract of the F.I.R. (Ext.Ka.2) in the G.D. (Ext.Ka.3).He recorded the statements of P.W.4 Head Moharrir Harsaran Sharma, P.W.1 Tahir, P.W.2 Yasin, P.W.3 Riyasat Ali, Qasim and Nadim etc. On 14.1.1992, P.W.7 S.O. Manoj Kumar Kaushik visited the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan (Ext.Ka.11).He collected blood stained and plain earth from the scene of occurrence and prepared recovery memo (Ext.Ka.12).He sealed the blood stained and plain earth in two different packets.The same were produced during the trial and marked as material (Ext.Ka7 and Ext.Ka8).Inquest on the cadaver of deceased Abdul Aziz was conducted on 14.1.1992 by P.W.5 S.I. Madan Lal Sharma prepared the inquest report of the deceased (Ext.Ka.4), letters addressed to R.I. (Ext.Ka.9 and Ext.Ka.7), letter addressed to C.M.O (Ext.Ka.8) and the diagram of the dead body of the deceased (Ext.Ka.5).After concluding the inquest, P.W.5 S.I. Madan Lal Sharma put the dead body in a sealed cover and handed over the same to Constables Omprakash and Rajeshwar Prasad under challan (Ext.Ka.6) for being taken to the hospital for conduction of postmortem.The postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Abdul Aziz was conducted by P.W.6 Dr. Ashok Kumar Jain on 14.1.1992 at 4 P.M. On external examination, the P.W.6 found that deceased was aged about 55 years and had died about half a day back.The deceased was a man of average built.Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.(Delivered by Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J.)Accused-appellant Bijendra has preferred this appeal u/s 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. against the judgement and order dated 23.3.1993 passed by Special Judge Muzaffarnagar in S.T. No. 328 of 1982, State Vs.Bijendra, convicting the accused-appellant u/s 302/34 I.P.C. and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for life.His hair was grey.Rigor mortis was present all over the body.On internal dissection, P.W.6 noted following anti-mortem injuries on the body of deceased Abdul Aziz:-Terminal phalanx of right little finger amputated.L.W. 1/2cm x 1/2cm x muscle over down of right hand.L.W. 3cm x 1cm x through & through over upper top.L.W. 2cm x 1cm x muscle below left nostril.L.W. 5cm x 2cm x bone over right eye-brow underlying skull fractured.L.W. 4cm x 1.5cm x bone over forehead in midline near hairline.L.W. 2cm x 1/2cm x bone x 1.5cm above left eye brow.Multiple L.Ws.In an area 13cm x 12cm x bone over right occipital area & left ear also torn.Multiple L.W. In an area 18cm x 11cm x bone covering parts of right & left parietal area.Both frontal bones, right parietal and adjoining area of right temporal bone fractured.In the opinion of P.W.6 Dr. A.K. Jain, who had prepared the postmortem report of the deceased (Ext.Ka.10), Abdul Aziz, he had died as a result of shock due to anti-mortem head injuries.After concluding the investigation, P.W.7 S.O. Manoj Kumar Kaushik submitted chargesheet (Ext.Ka.13) against the accused Bijendra.Since the offence mentioned in the chargesheet was triable exclusively by a Court of Session, the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate committed the case for trial of the accused to the Court of Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar where it was registered as S.T. No. 328 of 1992, State Vs.Bijendra and made over for trial to the Court of Special Judge, Muzaffarnagar.The learned Special Judge, Muzaffarnagar, after hearing the accused on the point of charge, on the basis of material on record, framed charge u/s 302/34 I.P.C against accused-appellant no.1, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.The prosecution, in order to prove its case against accused-appellant, examined as many as seven witnesses, of whom P.W.1 Tahir, P.W.2 Yasin, P.W.3 Riyasat Ali were examined as eye witnesses of the occurrence while P.W.4 Head Moharrir Harsaran Sharma, P.W.5 S.I. Madan Lal Sharma, P.W.6 Dr. Ashok Kumar Jain and P.W.7 S.O. Manoj Kumar Kaushik were produced as formal witnesses.The accused-appellant in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., alleged that a false report had been lodged against him.He further stated that one Surat Singh, S/O Harchand, R/O village Yogendra Nagar who was litigating against his uncle Kanak Singh was inimical towards him.It was at his instance that P.W.1 and other witnesses of the incident had falsely implicated him in the present case.The accused-appellant filed certified copy of plaint of original suit number 53/91-92 instituted by Surat Singh against Kanak Singh u/s 229B of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act ( Ext.Kha.1).The accused-appellant however did not lead any oral evidence in his defence.The learned Special Judge, after considering the submissions advanced before him by the learned counsel for the parties and scrutinising the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, convicted the accused-appellant u/s 302/34 I.P.C and awarded him the aforesaid sentence.Hence this appeal.Sri Ambrish Kumar, appearing as Amicus Curiae on behalf of appellant Bijendra castigated the prosecution story on the ground that no man of even ordinary prudence in the normal course of human behaviour or in his normal senses would dare to rob a person who is previously acquainted to him, in broad daylight without making any effort to conceal his face and it is apparent that the complainant and the other two witnesses who were produced by the prosecution to prove the charge against accused-appellant at the trial had given false evidence against him at the behest of Surat Singh, who was involved in civil litigation with the accused-appellant.The presence of both the eye-witnesses, P.W.1 and P.W.3, at the place of incident and their having witnessed the crime, is fully established.The impugned judgement and order do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, requiring any interference by this Court.The only question which arises for our consideration in this appeal is that whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused-appellant beyond all reasonable doubts or not.The record shows that the prosecution in order to establish the charge framed against accused-appellant had examined seven witnesses, of whom P.W.1 Tahir, P.W.2 Yasin and P.W.3 Riyasat Ali were examined as eye-witnesses of the occurrence.Besides Dr. A.K. Jain, who was examined by the prosecution as P.W.6 proved the postmortem report (Ext.Ka.10).P.W.5 S.I. Manoj Kumar Sharma proved the inquest report (Ext.Ka.4), letters addressed to R.I., CMO photo lash and challan lash as (Ext.P.W.4 Head Moharrir Harsaran Sharma proved the check F.I.R. (Ext.Ka.2) and the relevant G.D. Entry (Ext.The truth or otherwise of the evidence has to be weighed pragmatically and the Court would be required to analyse the evidence of related witnesses and those witnesses who are inimically disposed toward the accused.After saying so, this Court held that if after careful analysis and scrutiny of their evidence, the version given by the witnesses appears to be clear, cogent and credible, there is no reason to discard the same."22. P.W.1 in his evidence recorded before the Trial Court, has deposed that on the date and at time of occurrence, he along with his uncle Abdul Aziz was passing through the jungle of Yogendra Nagar while on way to Khadar to realise their money from certain persons.They were stopped by three persons near village Kanawali, armed with lathis, tabal and country-made pistol and asked by them to hand over their belongings to them.He further stated that after his uncle Abdul Aziz recognized one of the culprits as accused-appellant Bijendra and requested him to desist from robbing him as both of them were familiar and known to each other, accused-appellant Bijendra exhorted his companions not to spare Abdul Aziz as he had recognised him whereupon accused-appellant Bijendra and his two companions started beating Abdul Aziz with lathis, tabal, etc. In the meantime, P.W.1 managed to run away from the scene of occurrence, raising shouts of help which attracted the attention of P.W.2 Yasin, P.W.3 Riyasat Ali, Qasim and several other persons who upon coming to know about the occurrence, immediately rushed to the crime scene together with P.W.1 and on reaching there, he as well as the witnesses, witnessed the accused-appellant Bijendra and his associates beating his uncle Abdul Aziz.It is noteworthy that P.W.1 was cross-examined at great length but he remained consistent throughout on the fact that he was present at the place of incident at the time his uncle was severely beaten by the accused-appellant and his companions.Ka.1) was registered and hence there was a strong possibility of the F.I.R being ante-timed.The aforesaid submissionof the learned counsel for the appellant is also bereft of any merit.The prosecution case has also been castigated by the learned counsel for the appellant on the ground of there being an inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of P.W.1 in lodging the F.I.R. of the incident.Record shows that the occurrence had taken place on 13.1.1992 at about 13:30 hours in the jungle of village Yogendra Nagar, Kanha Wali.The F.I.R of this case was registered on the same day at 19:45 hours at P.S. Bhopa.The distance between the place of occurrence and the P.S. Bhopa is about 17 kilometers.The conviction of the accused-appellant in this case has also been challenged by the learned counsel for the appellant on the ground that the investigation in this case was faulty and unfair which seriously prejudiced the cause of accused-appellant.The investigating officer of this case, P.W.7 Manoj Kumar Kaushik did not send blood stained and plain earth to the chemical analyst for obtaining test report.The documents prepared during the inquest including the photo lash (Ext.Ka.5) and challan lash (Ext.Ka.6) did not bear the number of the case crime and names of the accused, indicating that the F.I.R was not in existence till the time when these papers were prepared.There is no force in the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the appellant inasmuch as the inquest report (Ext.The omission to mention crime number on Ext.Ka.5 and Ext.After going through the statements of the P.W.4 Harsaran Sharma, P.W.5 S.I. Madan Lal and P.W.7 S.O. Manoj Kumar Kaushik, the investigating officer of the case, their evidence appears to be quite dependable.No instance of any unfairness on the part of the investigating officer has been pointed out.The failure of the investigating officer to send blood stained and plain earth to the forensic expert cannot be a ground to doubt the place of occurrence mentioned in the F.I.R. in the face of the clinching evidence on record, both oral and circumstantial, to establish the place of occurrence.There is consistent oral testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.3 to the effect that the accused Bijendra and his two unknown companions had assaulted Abdul Aziz with lathi, danda, tabal and caused injuries to him as a result of which Abdul Aziz became unconscious in the jungle of Kanha Wali and later succumbed to his wounds.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
32,482,496 |
Heard on I.A. No.9337/2015, which is an application under section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of present appellants No.2 to 5 namely - Nandram S/o Chainsingh, Prakash S/o Mangilal, Usan S/o Ramlal and Santosh S/o Gulab.The appellants suffered conviction and sentence as under:-He further submits that initially section 365 of IPC was not included in the charge-sheet.It was filed only for inflicting injuries on the injured and subsequently, section 365 of IPC was added in which present appellant was sentenced to undergo 5 years of imprisonment.
|
['Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
324,852 |
3.The short facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals and therevision case can be stated thus:(a) P.Ws.1 and 6 are the parents of the deceased Manikandan.When the saidproposal was rejected by the family of P.Ws.1 and 6, the families were oninimical terms.An incident had taken place on 2.6.2006, in which A-1 wasassaulted by the deceased, and a case came to be registered by Pudur PoliceStation in Crime No.562 of 2006 pursuant to which the parties continued to havetheir enmity.(b) On the date of occurrence, that was on 3.6.2007, when P.W.1 and hiswife P.W.6 were in the house, P.W.2, the brother-in-law of P.W.1, rushed overthere and informed them that when he was coming across the bazaar near AnnaStatue, he found A-1 to A-8 in an assembly, and A-7 was telling that from thetime of the earlier occurrence, one year was over, and if not the deceased wasput an end, it would be a dishonour to the family, and hence something should bedone immediately.In reply, A-1 to A-6 toldthem that they need not bother about the same, and they would come with a goodnews.Then P.W.1 accompanied by P.W.2 took his car driven by the driver, andwhen they were just coming on the way, they found P.Ws.3 and 4 rushing in theopposite direction, and they enquired them.P.Ws.3 and 4 informed that the sonof P.W.1 Manikandan was being attacked by number of persons.Then P.W.1 askedhis driver to take the car with high speed, and the car was just moving nearRace Course Road, when P.Ws.1 and 2 found A-1 to A-4 and A-6 armed with aruvalsand A-2 with a sword and were attacking him indiscriminately.They were able tosee the occurrence from the street light and also with the help of the car lightsince they were inside the car.Then A-1 to A-6 fled away from the place ofoccurrence.(c) Immediately, P.Ws.1 and 2 got down from the car and when P.W.1 liftedManikandan, he found him dead.He immediately rushed to the respondent policestation and gave Ex.P1, the report, to P.W.17, the Inspector of Police.On thestrength of Ex.P1, the complaint, he registered a case in Crime No.734 of 2007under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324, 302 and 120(B) of IPC.The printed FIR,Ex.P20, was despatched to the Court.(d) The Inspector of Police who registered the case, took upinvestigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared anobservation mahazar, Ex.P2, and also a rough sketch, Ex.Then he recoveredthe bloodstained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence.Heconducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of witnesses andpanchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, which is marked as Ex.P22.Following the same, the dead body was sent to the Government Hospital for thepurpose of autopsy.(e) P.W.12, the Reader in Forensic Medicine & Office of District PoliceSurgeon, Madurai Medical College, on receipt of the requisition, conductedautopsy on the dead body of Manikandan and has found 13 external injuries.TheDoctor has issued a postmortem certificate, Ex.P14, with his opinion that thedeceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to externalinjuries 01 - 05 and its corresponding internal injuries and cumulative effectof all other injuries, 8 - 12 hours prior to autopsy.They were recorded inthe presence of witnesses.They are marked as Exs.P4, 6 and 8 respectively, andthree aruvals were recovered from them under a cover of mahazar.Theadmissible part is marked as Ex.both appealsCRL.R.C.No.3/2010Marisamy .. Petitioner invs(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) This judgment shall govern both these appeals namely Crl.A.Nos.373 and 374of 2009 whereby A-1, A-2 and A-4 to A-8 in S.C.No.132 of 2008 and also A-2 inS.C.No.285 of 2008 have challenged a judgment of the Additional SessionsDivision, Fast Track Court No.III, Madurai, whereby they along with A-10 stoodcharged as follows:2.On trial, A-1 to A-6 were found guilty under Sections 148 and 302 of IPCand were sentenced to undergo three years Rigorous Imprisonment under Sec.148 ofIPC and to undergo life imprisonment under Sec.302 of IPC, while A-7, A-8 and A-10 were acquitted of all the charges levelled against them.A-1 to A-6 wereacquitted of the charge under Sec.120(B) IPC.The revision case has been broughtforth by the de-facto complainant challenging that part of order of acquittal.(f) Pending the investigation, A-1, A-3 and A-4 were arrested on 5.6.2007,when they came forward to give confessional statements.He also gave a confessional statement, the same wasrecorded.A-10 who surrendered on 7.6.2007, was taken into police custody, andhe gave a confessional statement voluntarily.That apart, on 10.9.2007, A-2 was taken into police custody, andhe volunteered to give a confessional statement, which was recorded.A-5 surrendered before the JudicialMagistrate's Court and a confessional statement was recorded from him while hewas in police custody.All the accused were sent for judicial remand.(g) A requisition was made by the Investigator to the concerned JudicialMagistrate for putting forth all the material objects for chemical analysis, andaccordingly they were subjected to, which has brought forth two reports namelyEx.P25, the chemical analyst's report, and Ex.P26, the serologist's report.P.W.18, the Inspector of Police, took up further investigation and on completionof the same, filed the final report.4.After the charge sheet was filed against 10 accused, A-9 was absconding.After thecase was taken on file, A-3 was absconding.Both the caseswere taken up jointly for trial, and necessary charges were framed.In order tosubstantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses and also reliedon 29 exhibits and 17 material objects.On completion of the evidence on theside of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. asto the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecutionwitnesses which they flatly denied as false.No defence witness was examined.The trial Court heard the arguments advanced on either side and took the viewthat the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt in respect ofA-1 to A-6 under Sections 148 and 302 of IPC and hence found them guilty andawarded the punishment as referred to above.Hence these appeals at theinstance of the appellants.Aggrieved over the part of acquittal of A-7, A-8and A-10, the de-facto complainant has brought forth the criminal revision casebefore the Court.5.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellants, the learned SeniorCounsel Mr.P1 could not have come into existence in time; and thatit would also further speak about the fact that P.Ws.1 and 2 could not have seenthe occurrence at all.7.The learned Senior Counsel would further urge that as far as therecovery of weapons of crime was concerned, the trial Judge should havedisbelieved that part of the evidence in toto for two reasons; that firstly,only one sword was actually recovered from the place of occurrence which isalleged to have been used by A-5; that as far as A-1 to A-4 and A-6 wereconcerned, all of them wielded aruvals according to the witnesses; thataccording to the Investigator, all have produced the weapons of crime, and theywere recovered in the presence of witnesses; but it is a matter of surprise tonote that the weapons were recovered after a few days; that the Investigator hasspoken to the fact that they were actually keeping all the weapons in theirbody; that all are big and lengthy weapons; that in such circumstances, it isquite unnatural for anybody keeping the weapons attached with the body after anumber of days; that apart from that, as far as all the weapons were concerned,they were actually sent for chemical analysis except the sword, which, accordingto the witnesses, was wielded by A-5, and no one weapon was found to be withhuman blood, and hence they were not actually put forth for serology test; thatall would go to show that if they were actually cutting the deceasedindiscriminately with those weapons, they should have definitely contained withhuman blood, but no human blood was found; and that all would go to show thatthe recovery was actually introduced for the purpose of the prosecution case.8.Added further the learned Senior Counsel that as far as P.Ws.1 and 2 areconcerned, they have given complete narration speaking of the injuries whentheir statements were recorded by the Investigator under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C., butwhen they came before the Court, they have not narrated even one injury, andinstead, they have repeatedly spoken that the accused caused injuriesindiscriminately; that all would go to show that these two witnesses could nothave seen the occurrence at all; that the delay coupled with the above factswould go to show that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case;but, the trial Judge has taken an erroneous view, and hence they are entitledfor acquittal in the hands of this Court which the trial Judge has failed to do.9.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on all theabove contentions.13.In order to substantiate the theory of conspiracy and also the incidentthat had taken place at 11.00 P.M. on 3.6.2007, in which Manikandan was put anend, the prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5.Unfortunately, P.Ws.3 and 4 have turned hostile.According to P.W.2, he wasactually proceeding in the bazaar, and at that time, he found all the accusedpersons standing in the opposite side, and they were hatching up a conspiracy,and after hearing the same, he rushed home and informed to P.W.1, and thereafterP.W.1 accompanied by P.W.2 went in the Car driven by the Driver.On perusal of the materials available and also the judgment underchallenge, this Court has to necessarily agree with the learned trial Judge whorejected the conspiracy theory.At this juncture, the contentions put forth bythe learned Counsel for the revision petitioner cannot be accepted, and thatpart of the judgment has got to be affirmed.14.Insofar as the part of crime alleged to have been committed by A-1 toA-6, now the case of the prosecution is that on being informed by P.W.2, P.W.1accompanied by him went in his car, and while they were proceeding, P.Ws.3 and 4were coming in the opposite direction, and they informed them that Manikandanwas being attacked by number of persons, and then P.W.1 asked his driver to takethe car speedily, and accordingly, they were proceeding near Race Course Road,where they found all the accused persons armed with deadly weapons namely A-1 toA-4 and A-6 with aruvals and A-5 with sword, and indiscriminately attacking him,and both of them were witnessing the same from inside the car.The trial Judgehas believed the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 along with the other attendingcircumstances in the evidence to take a decision that the prosecution has provedthat there was an unlawful assembly with the common object of killing Manikandanand in furtherance of the same, they have acted so and caused his death, andhence found them guilty for those offences.On scrutiny of the evidenceavailable, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned trial Judgehas taken a correct view in coming to the conclusion.15.According to P.Ws.1 and 6, they were actually in the house at about10.00 P.M., and at that time P.W.2 came over there and informed that their sonManikandan was about to be attacked.She has categorically stated thatwithin 10 minutes from the time of information, P.W.1 accompanied by P.W.2 leftthe house, and within half an hour she received information that her son wasmurdered.Thus the evidence of P.W.6 inspired the confidence of the Court.That apart, P.Ws.1 and 2 have spoken in one voice that they proceeded from theplace, and while they were going in the car, they found P.Ws.3 and 4 coming inthe opposite direction, and they informed them that Manikandan was beingattacked.Both of them have spoken to the fact that the Driver was asked totake the car speedily, and when they were just proceeding at the Race CourseRoad, they found six persons indiscriminately cutting the deceased Manikandan.Now the learned Senior Counsel brought to the notice of the Court that P.Ws.1and 2 could not have seen the occurrence at all, and according to P.W.2, eventhe light post was actually situated away, and they were proceeding just about500 meters away from the place of occurrence.This Court is of the consideredopinion that these measurements given by him that they saw the occurrence from500 meters away and the contention that they could not have seen the occurrencecannot be given importance at all.There are two documents available toindicate that the occurrence has taken place in a place where there weresufficient light.They are Ex.P21, the rough sketch, wherein two light postsare shown on the one side situated within 15 feet and on the other side situatedwithin 30 feet, and Ex.P2, the observation mahazar, would clearly indicate thatthe occurrence has taken place just in front of the Government Press, and sodiumlamp post is also found therein.Both P.Ws.1 and 2 were actually sitting in thecar.It is not their evidence that they have got down from the Car to see theoccurrence, but from inside the car, they have witnessed the occurrence.As faras the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 are concerned, the trial Judge has properlymarshalled that there is nothing to find fault with.16.Apart from the above, the evidence of these witnesses has got to betaken as true and genuine since other circumstances are also noticed.Theoccurrence has taken place at about 11.00 P.M. and the eyewitnesses were underthe grip.Even then they have immediately phoned over to the Control Room atabout 11.50 P.M., and it is actually mentioned in Ex.P1, the complaint.Thereafter they rushed to the respondent police station which is situated within1 kilometre, and the complaint was given.The case was registered at about 0030hours, and the FIR along with Ex.As regards the comment made by the learned SeniorCounsel for the appellants that there was a delay, this Court is unable tocountenance the same since the occurrence has taken place at 11.00 P.M., and theinformation was given to the control room at 11.50 P.M., and the complaint,Ex.It is not incontroversy that all the accused persons were already known to P.Ws.1 and 2.All would go to show that P.Ws.1 and 2 have seen the occurrence because of whichthey were able to narrate the same.Now, at this juncture, by whom Ex.P1complaint contains the necessary particulars.Now Ex.P1 complaint contains thetime, place of occurrence, the assailants and also the eyewitnesses who haveactually been in the place of occurrence.Now the contentions put forth by thelearned Senior Counsel in that regard are liable to be rejected and accordingly,rejected.In the case on hand,even barring the confession and recovery of the weapons of crime, this Court isable to see that there is sufficient evidence for the prosecution to indicatethat there was an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of the common object ofA-1 to A-6 to kill Manikandan, they have acted so.Further the occurrence hastaken place at 11.00 P.M. in a solitary place where Manikandan was being cutindiscriminately by A-1 to A-6 at the time and place of occurrence, and unlessand until there was a common object in furtherance of which A-1 to A-6 haveacted so, they could not have committed the offence.All would go to show thatit was with the common object and in furtherance of killing him, they have actedso and caused his death.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
32,491,692 |
This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to alter the FIR in Crime No.2184 of 2020 to offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 448, 324, 326, 307 and 506 (ii) of IPC.It is averred that on the complaint lodged by the petitioner the 2nd respondent registered the case in Crime No.2184 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 448, 324 and 506 (ii) of IPC.It is further averred that on verification of discharge summary, it was found that the petitioner sustained head injury and even the 2nd respondent did not register the case for the offence under Section 307 IPC.The investigation is still under progress.O.P.No.14168 of 2020 11.09.2020 4/4http://www.judis.nic.in2.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the discharge summary stated that the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries in which four cut injuries in head and three in the face near the nostril and one in left shoulder.2/4http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.14168 of 20203.Considering the above submission, the 2nd respondent is directed to complete the investigation within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order by investigating the crime.If any materials available to attract under Section 307 of IPC while investigation, the 2nd respondent is directed to alter the offence accordingly and file a final report.4.With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.11.09.2020 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order gbi To1.The Superintendent of Police, Thiruvannamalai, Thiruvanamalai District.2.The Inspector of Police, Thiruvannamalai Town Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.3/4http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.14168 of 2020 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.J, gbi Crl.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
32,496,785 |
All the sentences shall run concurrently.Prosecution case as alleged against the appellants, is to the effect that on 24.08.2010 S.I. Dipak Kumar Das (PW 7) attached to Sagardighi Police Station received source information and upon diarising it as Sagardighi Police Station GD Entry No.1321 dated 24.08.2010, he along with others proceeded to Sagardighi Cattle Haat to work out the information.Upon arrival at the spot, the source identified the appellants and they were intercepted.On interrogation, the appellant disclosed their identities.One of them was a Bangladeshi national.In the presence of witnesses, search was conducted and upon search a sum of Rs.15,000/- in Currency Notes of denomination of Rs.500/- each suspected to be fake was recovered from the Bangladeshi National.Similar currency notes amounting to Rs.5,000/- each were recovered from the possession of the other appellants.The currency notes were seized in the presence of witnesses under a seizure list.Thereafter, the said notes were packed, sealed and labeled and signatures of accused persons were obtained on the labels.None of the independent witnesses identified their clients in court.PW 12 also deposed seizure of currency notes from the spot.These witnesses identified Safikul Islam son of Late Abdul Sattar, a Bangladeshi national in court.PW 11 admitted his signatures on the seizure list and other documents.He was declared hostile.He was extensively cross- examination with regard to his previous statement to police.Hence, there is no breach in the chain of custody and the prosecution has been proved beyond doubt.PW 7 is the de facto complainant and leader of raiding party.He deposed on receipt of secret information which was diarised at the police station he proceeded along with other police personnel to Sagardighi Cattle Haat.On being identified by the source, appellants were apprehended.They disclosed their identities.Upon search, currency notes suspected to be fake in denomination of Rs.500/- each amounting to Rs.15,000/- was recovered from the possession of Safikul Islam son of Late Abdul Sattar a Bangladeshi national.Similar currency notes amounting to Rs.5,000/- each were recovered from the other appellants.Currency notes were seized under seizure lists.Accused persons as well as the witnesses signed on the seizure list.The notes were packed, sealed and labeled and appellants along with 5 witnesses signed on the labels.Currency notes were taken to the police station where he lodged complaint (Exhibit 2).He proved the formal complaint (Exhibit 1).He also proved the aforesaid seizure lists (Exhibit 3, 4 and 5 respectively).PW 1, Sovan Saha and other members of the raiding party namely PW 2, PW 3, PW 4, PW 5, and PW 8 have corroborated the evidence of PW 7 and also proved their signatures on the seizure list.PWs 9 to 12 were examined as independent witnesses.PW 9 deposed police seized currency notes from the possession of Safikul Islam son of Late Abdul Sattar a Bangladeshi national.He identified him in court.He proved his signature on the seizure list.PW 12 deposed that police officers had arrested three persons from whom they recovered Fake Indian Currency Notes.He, however, only identified Safikul Islam son of Late Abdul Sattar a Bangladeshi national.PWs 10 and 11 did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile.PW 11 admitted his signature on the seizure list.Accused persons along with the 3 seized currency notes, suspected to be fake, were taken to the police station.On the written complaint of PW 7, Sagardighi Police Station Case No.368/2010 dated 24.08.2010 under Section 489B/489C/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellants.PW 13 dispatched the seized currency notes for forensic examination and on receipt of the report (exhibit 7) showing that they were fake, charge-sheet was filed against the appellants.Charges were framed under Section 489B/489C of the Indian Penal Code against all the appellants.Additional charge under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act was framed against Safikul Islam son of Late Abdul Sattar (appellant in CRA 93 of 2012).In the course of trial, prosecution examined 15 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents.Appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.The defence of the appellants was one of innocence and false implication.In conclusion of trial, trial judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 29.11.2011 and 30.11.2011 convicted and sentenced the appellants, as aforesaid.Mr. Soubhik Mitter with Ms. Sreyashee Biswas learned advocates appearing for the appellants in CRA 47 of 2012 argued that the independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case.PW 9 deposed for the first time in court.Chain of custody of the seized currency notes has not been established and, therefore, the report (exhibit 7) is not a reliable one.It is also submitted that ingredients of offence punishable under Section 489B of the Indian Penal Code are not disclosed in the facts of the case.Mr. Sumanta Ganguly who was requested to assist the court has also adopted the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants.Both the witnesses were extensively cross-examined with regard to their previous statement to police.PW 13 dispatched the currency notes for examination at Salboni.PW 14 collected the report and submitted the charge-sheet (Exhibit 7).PW 15, manager of Bharatiya Note Mudran Pvt. Ltd. proved the examination report (Exhibit 7).From the aforesaid evidence on record, it appears on the fateful day PW 7 along with police force had gone to Sagardighi Cattle Haat to work out the source information received by him.Upon being identified by source, the appellants were confronted by the raiding party.They disclosed their identifies and pursuant to a search, a large quantity of Fake Indian Currency Notes were seized.One of the appellants (a Bangladeshi national) failed to produce his passport and other travel 6 documents.Learned counsel appearing for the appellants in CRA 47 of 2012 submitted that PWs 9 and 12 did not identify the appellants namely Jhantu Sk, Safikul Islam son of Late Amirul Sk.Hence, their presence at the place of occurrence is doubtful.I am unable to accept such contention.The appellants had been identified by PW 7 and other members of the raiding party.PW 12 unequivocally stated that police had arrested three persons from whom Fake Indian Currency Notes were seized.It is possible that the independent witnesses due to imperfect recollection were unable to identify two appellants in court.The other independent witnesses, namely PWs 10 & 11 appear to have been won over.PW 11 admitted his signatures in the seizure list.However, he did not support the prosecution case in court.Both these witnesses were declared hostile and were extensively cross-examined with regard to their previous statements to police.Accordingly, I am inclined to rely on the consistent evidence of official witnesses and ought not to be swayed by the prevaricating stance of PWs 10 and 11 who appear to be untruthful witnesses.I am further fortified to come to such conclusion as one of the independent witnesses that is P.W.12 has substantially corroborated the substratum of the prosecution case of seizure of Fake Indian Currency Notes from three persons who were arrested from the spot particularly when apprehension and arrest of the appellants from the spot is beyond any pale of controversy.For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion seizure of a large number of Indian currency notes from the appellants, suspected to be fake, amounting to 7 Rs.25,000/- in aggregate, at Sagardighi Cattle Haat has been proved beyond doubt.Prosecution has also been assailed on the score that the chain of custody of the seized notes has not been proved.P.W.1 and P.W.7 have unequivocally stated that they brought the arrested persons along with the seized currency notes to the police station.P.W. 13 sent the seized notes for examination to Salboni and the examination report (Ext. 7) was received by the second IO (P.W 14) who submitted the chargesheet.Reading the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses as a whole, I have no doubt in my mind that the seized currency notes suspected to be fake were dispatched from the police station by the investigating officer, P.W.13 for examination at Salboni.Hence, I am of the opinion that there is no snap in the chain of custody between the currency notes seized at the spot and those which were examined at Salboni.They have been called upon to answer the charge as follows:-They are directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each i.d. to suffer one year more.Sentences imposed on Safikul Islam (appellant in C.R.A 93 of 2012), son of late Abdul Sattar, a Bangladeshi national on the score of section 489C IPC and under section 14 of the Foreigners Act remains unaltered.Both the sentences shall run concurrently.The appeals are, thus, is disposed of.Copy of the judgment along with L.C.R.s be sent down to the trial court at once.In view of the fact that Safikul Islam son of late Abdul Sattar (appellant in C.R.A 93 of 2012) has already served out the sentence imposed on him, correctional home as well as the appropriate authorities are directed to take immediate steps for his repatriation to his own country i.e. Bangladesh at the earliest.Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities.I agree.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
324,990 |
Brief facts giving rise to the prosecution are as under:Akbarbeg (PW-4) is the father of Sayarabi (hereinafter referred to asthe `deceased').The marriage of the deceased Sayarabi with accused No.5Riyazoddin, present appellant was preferred one year back.It was alleged that the accused were giving ill treatment to deceasedSayarabi during the period of her stay in the matrimonial house at Parola,Dist.The accused No.5-appellant was abusing and beating thedeceased Sayarabi.Accused Nos.1 and 2 had brought the deceased to herparent's house at village Dherangeon Tal Onerrangaon Dist.Jalgaon threemonths back.Deceased disclosed about her ill treatment at the hands ofaccused to her relatives.2 On 12.5.1996 the marriage of niece of P.W.4 Akbarbeg wasperformed at Dharangaon.Accused No. 3 and 5 had attended the saidmarriage.They demanded Rs.2000/- for the construction of a house fromP.W. 4 Akberbeg.He expressed his inability to pay the amount.On 25.5.1996 at about 2.00 midnight P.W.4Akbarbeg received the message through police about the serious conditionof the deceased.Thereafter he along with his relatives paid visit to thematrimonial house of his deceased daughter.He saw the dead body of hisdaughter with burn injury in her matrimonial house.He found kerosenesmell on the hair and half burnt cloth.Ramesh (PW-1) the Police Patil of Parola lodged an occurrencereport to the police.On the basis of his report A.D. bearing No. 35/96 wasregistered.Inquest panchanama on the dead body was prepared on25.5.1996 in A.D. case.Spot panchanama was also prepared in A.D.Case.Dead body was sent for conducting the post mortem to the cottage Hospital,Parola.3 Akberbeg came to know through his relative Rahanabi (PW-5) thatthe accused No.5 committed the murder of the deceased by pouringkerosene oil on her person and setting her on fire.Accused Nos.1 to 4 and 6abetted the accused No.5 in the commission of murder of the deceased.Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Leave granted.Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench ofBombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, dismissing the appeal filed by theappellant who was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC'), so far as the conviction under Section 302 IPC is concerned, while directing acquittal inrespect of offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC.Seven personsfaced trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amalner.P.W.4 Akberbeg lodged the complaint dated 25.5.1996 alleging ill-treatment to the deceased prior to 25.5.1996 and committing her murder on24.5.1996 at about 11-00 P.M.On the basis of his complaint crime bearing No.121/1996 wasregistered with Parola Police station at about 1.00 p.m. M.D. Patil (PW-11)carried out the investigation of the crime.On 27.5.1996, he sent the seizedarticles for examination to the C.A. Aurangabad.After the completion ofinvestigation on 14.8.1996 he submitted the charge sheet against theaccused for the offences as stated above to the learned Judicial Magistrate,First Class.The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Parola by an order dated21.8.1996 committed the case to the Additional Sessions Judge, Amalner, asthe offence punishable under Section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by theCourt of Sessions.4 In Sessions case charge was framed against accused Nos.1 to 6 forthe offence punishable under Section 498-A read with section 34 IPC andagainst accused Nos.1 to 4 and 6 under Section 302 read with Section 114IPC.The charge was read over and explained to the accused in vernacular.They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.The defence of the accusedis that the house caught fire due to short circuit.Deceased sustained burninjury on account of house catching fire in a short circuit.The trial Court directed acquittal of A-1 to A-4 and A-6 but held thepresent appellant guilty of offence punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A IPC.In appeal, as noted above the High Court found that the accusationsso far as Section 498-A are concerned are not established, but the evidencewas sufficient to hold the appellant guilty of offence punishable underSection 302 IPC.In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submittedthat there was no direct evidence and the prosecution case was based on 5 circumstantial evidence.The circumstances highlighted do not lead toconclude about the guilt of the accused.Learned counsel for the State on the other hand supported thejudgment.The circumstances highlighted by the trial Court and the High Courtare essentially as follows:(iii) Kerosene smell in the body and articles around the body.(iv) False defence (i.e. fire by short circuit).Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no evidenceto show that the deceased was sprinkled with kerosene.The evidence clearlyestablished that there was no homicidal death and it was due to short circuitof electricity.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
325,006 |
4.Necessary facts for the disposal of these appeals can be stated thus:(a) P.W.1 is the elder brother of the deceased Mahalingam, while P.W.2 isthe brother-in-law.The deceased was running a parota stall in Indira Nagar,LKB Nagar Bus Stop.On 20.2.2005, the marriage function of P.W.1 was held.On13.3.2005, the close relations of P.W.1 came to his house to attend certaincustomary function.After the function was over, there was a quarrel between A-1 and the deceased.At that time, A-1 threatened the deceased "you would liveor I would live".P.W.1 was informed about the same.The matter was notbrought to the notice of the police since it was a function in P.W.1's house,and the incident has taken place at that time.(b) On 14.3.2005 at about 9.45 p.m., P.Ws.1 and 2 and the deceased went tothe parota stall of the deceased for cleaning work since the shop was keptclosed for a few days earlier.At about 10.30 p.m., while the deceased was justsleeping on a cement pial situated at Saravana Telephone Boothe, both P.Ws.1 and2 were actually doing cleaning work.At that time, A-1 to A-6 and others armedwith deadly weapons, came over there and began to attack the deceased.P.Ws.1and 2 on hearing the distressing cry, came out.Immediately, all the accusedattempted to stop a running bus and tried to get in; but, they could not.Atthat time, the deceased who was attacked by the accused, woke up, and on seeingthis, they came back and all of them attacked him indiscriminately.Hesuccumbed to the injuries.(c) P.W.1 proceeded to Silaiman Police Station, the respondent herein, andhas given an oral complaint to P.W.14, the Sub Inspector of Police, which wasreduced into writing.The said complaint is Ex.P1, on the strength of which acase came to be registered at 23.45 hours in Crime No.181 of 2005 under Sections147, 148, 306 and 302 of IPC.The printed FIR, Ex.P31, was sent to the Courtand reached the Magistrate by 1.30 a.m. A message was given through VHF to theInspector of Police concerned.(d) P.W.15, the Inspector of Police of that Circle, on receipt of the copyof the FIR, took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection inthe presence of witnesses and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P32, and arough sketch, Ex.The photographs were caused to be taken.M.O.9,bloodstained earth, and M.O.10, sample earth, and other material objects wererecovered from the place of occurrence under a cover of mahazar.The admissible part is marked as Ex.P8, pursuant to which he produceda patta knife, which was recovered under a cover of mahazar. A-4 has also givena confessional statement, which was recorded.The admissible part is marked asEx.He produced a patta knife, which was recovered under Ex.P10, themahazar.On 23.5.2005, the accused Murugesan was arrested, and he gave aconfessional statement, pursuant to which a knife produced by him, wasrecovered.(h) The Investigator gave a requisition to the Court for the conduct ofidentification parade.He took A-2, who was arrested in Crime No.1637/2005 ofThideer Nagar Police Station, to police custody. A-2 has also given aconfessional statement, the admissible part of which is marked as Ex.Heproduced an aruval, which was recovered under a cover of mahazar, Ex.(i) Pursuant to the requisition made, P.W.13, the Judicial MagistrateNo.III, Madurai, conducted the test identification parade on 8.4.2005, whereP.Ws.1 and 2 participated.At that time, P.W.1 identified A-5 and A-6 and oneManimaran, and P.W.2 also identified Manimaran, the absconding accused.On7.6.2005, he conducted the identification parade for the second time.At thattime, P.W.1 identified A-3 and A-4 and one Murugesan.On 14.7.2005, for thethird time, identification parade was conducted in which P.W.1 identified A-2.Those identification parade proceedings were marked as Exs.P26, P28 and P30respectively.!For Appellants inCA 515/2007 ... Mr.A.P.MuthupandianFor Appellant inCA 525/2007 ... Mr.Ananth C.RajeshFor Appellant inCA 641/2007 ... Mr.V.S.BalakrishnanFor Appellant inCA 656/2007 ... Mr.A.Jeyaram^For Respondent ... Mr.2.All the above appeals challenge the judgment of the Principal SessionsDivision, Madurai, made in S.C.No.126 of 2007 whereby these appellants stoodcharged i.e., A-1 to A-5 under Sec.148 IPC, A-6 under Sec.147 IPC and A-1 to A-6under Sec.302 read with 34 IPC.3.On trial, A-1 to A-5 were found guilty under Sec.148 IPC and awarded oneyear Rigorous Imprisonment.A-6 was found guilty under Sec.147 IPC andsentenced to undergo six months Rigorous Imprisonment. A-1 to A-6 were foundguilty under Sec.302 read with 34 IPC and awarded life imprisonment along with afine of Rs.1000/- and default sentence.Then, theInvestigator conducted inquest on the dead body of Mahalingam in the presence ofwitnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex.Arequisition, Ex.P2, was given to the hospital authorities for the conduct ofautopsy on the dead body.(e) P.W.3, the Professor of Forensic Medicine and District Police Surgeon,Madurai Medical College, on receipt of the said requisition, conductedpostmortem on the dead body of Mahalingam and has given a postmortemcertificate, Ex.P3, wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to havedied of shock and haemorrhage due to external injuries No.1 to 9 and theircorresponding internal injuries and cumulative effect of all other injuries 10to 12 hours prior to autopsy.(f) On 24.3.2005, the Investigator arrested A-1, A-5, A-6 and oneManimaran in the presence of P.W.4, the V.A.O., and another witness.A-1 cameforward to give a confessional statement.The admissible part is marked asEx.P4, pursuant to which, he produced a knife, which was recovered under a coverof mahazar, Ex.A-5 also gave a confessional statement, pursuant to which heproduced M.O.16, knife, and M.O.7 series, wooden logs, which were recoveredunder a cover of mahazar, Ex.Pending investigation, the Investigator alsoarrested one Kannan and he was also taken to custody.(g) P.W.16, the Inspector of Police, took up further investigation.Hecame to know that A-3 and A-4 were actually arrested in connection with CrimeNo.1242/2005 of Teppakulam Police Station, and they were in custody.They werealso produced before the Court under P.T. warrant, and police custody was askedfor.It was also ordered.A-3 gave a confessional statement, which wasrecorded.Following the same, all the material objects recovered from theplace of occurrence and from the dead body, were sent for chemical analysis.Accordingly, they were subjected to which resulted in two reports namely theChemical Analyst's report, Ex.P17, and the Serologist's report, Ex.Oncompletion of investigation, the Investigator filed the final report.5.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 35 exhibits and 17 material objects.On completionof the evidence on the side of the prosecution, all 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.Nodefence witness was examined.The Court below heard the arguments advanced,took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonabledoubts, and found the appellants guilty.Hence, these appeals at the instance ofthe appellants before this Court.6.Advancing arguments on behalf of A-1 and A-5, the learned CounselMr.A.P.Muthupandian would submit that the prosecution has miserably failed toput forth any evidence worth mentioning; that the occurrence has taken place on14.3.2005 at about 10.30 p.m.; that at that time, since it was dark, thereshould have been light to witness the occurrence; that even the sketch preparedby the Investigator, would indicate that there was a light, but, there was noevidence to show that the light was burning; that even as per the prosecutioncase, the accused immediately after attacking the deceased, made an attempt toboard a running bus; but, they could not, and when the deceased woke up, againthey came back and attacked him; that this fact was not mentioned in Ex.P1, theearliest document; that further the prosecution attempted to prove the chargeslevelled against the appellants by examining P.Ws.1, 2, 5 and 6 as occurrencewitnesses; that out of these witnesses, P.Ws.2, 5 and 6 have turned hostile, andhence, it was of no use to the prosecution; that the prosecution had no otherevidence to rely on except P.W.1; that P.W.1 could not have been an eyewitnessto the occurrence at all for more reasons than one; that the fact that theaccused after attacking the deceased attempted to board a running bus; but, theycould not, and when the deceased woke up, they came back and attacked him wasnot mentioned in Ex.P1 by P.W.1; that under the circumstances, the documentitself is highly doubtful; that further, the prosecution came with the specificmotive to state that A-1 entertained a suspicion that it was the deceased whowas the informant to police regarding his criminal activities, and hence, heattacked all of them; and that this motive was nowhere found in the FIR.7.Added further the learned Counsel that as far as all other accused areconcerned, their names are not found in the FIR; that what is mentioned thereinwas they are aged between 18 and 25; that no physical features are mentionedtherein; that at random, it is mentioned as 18 to 25; that in the instant case,in Ex.P1, the report, it is mentioned as 4 or 5 persons excepting A-1; but, atthe time of evidence, P.W.1 has stated 8 or 9 persons as assailants; that it isa thorough deviation from Ex.P1; that all would indicate that P.W.1 could nothave been an eyewitness to the occurrence; that he has not even narrated theovert acts attributed to them, in Ex.P1; but, at the time of evidence, hedeveloped such a story; that at the time of Ex.P1 or the statement under Sec.161Cr.P.C., he has not mentioned any names at all; but, at the time of evidence, hehas completely developed and gave full narration of all the accused withfather's name, all the weapons wielded at the time of occurrence, and also theindividual overt act; that these are all developments and improvements made atthe time of evidence, and thus, the evidence of P.W.1 could not be believed;that it is true that identification parade was conducted; that as regards theseaccused, some of them have already been arrested in connection with some othercrime, and they were actually in custody, and they were all produced under P.T.warrant; that in view of the same, there is all possibility for the witnesses tosee them before they identified before the Judicial Magistrate at the time ofthe identification parade; and hence, that cannot be taken to be as evidencewhich is pointing to the guilt of the accused; that under the circumstances, theevidence of P.W.1 is highly improbable and unbelievable; that it would be highlyunsafe to sustain a conviction on the solitary testimony of P.W.1, and hence,they are entitled for acquittal.8.As regards A-5, the learned Counsel would submit that according to theprosecution, he had a knife, but not wielded, and thus, he has not caused anyinjury; that all the points which are available for the other accused, areequally available to him, and hence, he is also entitled for acquittal.9.Advancing arguments on behalf of A-4, the learned Counsel would submitthat on 24.3.2005, A-1 was arrested; that he is alleged to have given aconfessional statement wherein he has pointed out all other accused; that A-4was arrested in connection with a case in Crime No.1242/2005; that he was incustody; that he was actually taken for the purpose of identification parade on7.6.2005, and thus, there was a delay of 30 days; that the delay caused in theidentification would nullify the result of the same; that no weapon was alsorecovered from him; that no weapon was attributed to him or held by him; thatthe prosecution had no case against A-4, and hence, he is entitled foracquittal.10.The learned Counsel appearing for A-6 would submit that P.W.1 was theonly witness; that he knew A-6; and that if A-6 is really known to him, therewas no need for any identification parade.Added further the learned Counselthat according to the prosecution, he was having a stick; but, there was nocorresponding injury found; that all the injuries noted in the postmortemcertificate, would clearly reveal that those injuries were caused by a knife;that if to be so, the stick was not wielded at all; that P.W.1 was the onlywitness, who has categorically spoken to the fact that there were six weaponswhich were produced before the Court; that all these six weapons were held byall those accused before the Court; that if to be so, even according to P.W.1,A-6 was not holding a knife; that in the FIR, excepting A-1, it is mentioned as4 or 5 persons, and hence, A-6 could not have been present at the place ofoccurrence; that originally, the charge against A-6 was under Sec.147 IPC; thatunder the circumstances, it is highly doubtful whether A-6 could have beenpresent in the place of occurrence at all, and hence, he is to be acquitted.11.The learned Counsel for A-4 would further submit that P.W.14, the SubInspector of Police, has given evidence that P.W.1 came to the police stationand gave an oral complaint, and the same was reduced into writing; but, P.W.1would state that he gave complaints both by oral and also in written form; thatthe same would cast a doubt in Ex.P1; that as regards the test identificationparade, there was all possibility for P.W.1 to see the accused before theaccused were shown to him in the parade; that the entire narration of theaccused by P.W.1 in evidence before the Court was actually contra to thephysical features, and hence, the evidence of P.W.1 could not be relied, andunder the circumstances, he is entitled for acquittal.12.The learned Counsel appearing for A-2 would submit that he never gaveany confession as alleged by the prosecution; that the test identificationparade was conducted after the alleged confessional statement was taken in thepolice custody; that the witnesses could not identify him at the identificationparade; that under the circumstances, the identification proceedings should nothave been believed; that there is no specific description about the accusedeither in the FIR or in the statement under Sec.161 Cr.P.C., and hence, he isentitled for acquittal.13.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the abovecontentions and made its anxious consideration on the submissions made.14.It is not a fact in controversy that in an occurrence that took placeat 10.30 p.m. on 14.3.2005, the deceased Mahalingam was attacked brutally, andas a result, he died instantaneously at the spot.After the registration of thecase by the Sub Inspector of Police, the Investigator proceeded to the spot andmade an inspection and after the inquest, he made a requisition to the hospitalauthorities for postmortem.The Doctor, P.W.3, after doing the postmortem, hasgiven his opinion in Ex.P3, the postmortem certificate, and also deposed beforethe Court that the deceased would appear to have died due to cumulative effectof all the injuries both external and corresponding internal, sustained.Hence, it could be recorded so.15.In order to substantiate the charges that all the accused before thetrial Court along with three others in furtherance of the common object, armedwith deadly weapons, proceeded to the spot and attacked the deceasedindiscriminately, the prosecution marched P.Ws.1, 2, 5 and 6 as occurrencewitnesses.It is true that out of those four witnesses, P.Ws.2, 5 and 6 turnedhostile.Thus, their evidence was not available to the prosecution.True it is,P.W.1 was a close relative of the deceased.Even afterapplying the both the tests as stated above, the Court is thoroughly satisfiedthat the prosecution has brought home the guilt of A-1, A-2, A-4 and A-5 asnarrated below.16.P.W.1 has categorically stated that following his marriage on20.2.2005, there was a function that had taken place on 13.3.2005, where therelatives were to meet on that day; that after it was over, at that time therewas a quarrel between the deceased and A-1, of which he (P.W.1) was not a directwitness; that thereafter, that night, P.Ws.1 and 2 and the deceased and otherswent over to the parota stall which he was running, for the purpose of cleaningthe same since it was locked for a few days and to keep it open the next day;that at that time, the deceased was sleeping outside the shop in a cement pial;that after hearing the distressing cry of the deceased, they came out and sawthe accused attacking the deceased.He would further state that after seeingthese witnesses, the accused tried to fly away by stopping a bus and boardinginto it; that at that time, the deceased who was attacked by them, woke up; thaton seeing this, they immediately came back and attacked him indiscriminately,and as a direct consequence, he succumbed to the injuries.Now, the earliestdocument which has come into existence, was Ex.P.W.14 is the Sub Inspectorof Police, who reduced into writing the oral complaint given by P.W.1, andwithin a short span of about half an hour, the FIR has come into existence.Ithas also reached the Magistrate in the City of Madurai at about 1.30 a.m. Allwould first go to show that immediately after the occurrence, a case came to beregistered; that P.W.1 as an eyewitness has given the narration; and that theFIR has also reached the Magistrate in point of time.A requisition was made pending theinvestigation, for an identification parade to be conducted.As could be seen from the identificationparade proceedings, the procedural formalities have been strictly followed, andP.W.1 has identified the above accused.19.Added further, following the identification parade, the weapons ofcrime have been recovered.24.For the reasons stated above, as regards A-1, A-2, A-4 and A-5, thejudgment of the trial Court is confirmed.As far as A-6 is concerned, thejudgment of conviction and sentence passed by the lower Court, is set aside, andhe is acquitted of the charges.The bail bond executed by A-6, shall standterminated, and the fine amount if any paid by him, will be refunded to him.1.The Principal Sessions Judge Madurai2.The Inspector of Police Silaiman Police Station Madurai (Crime No.181/2005)3.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
32,501,420 |
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.112 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police for the offences under Sections 143, 341 and 188 of I.P.C. against the petitioner.However, the officials of the respondent police had beaten the petitioner and others.When there was lot of members involved in the protest, the respondent police had registered this case, under Section 143, 341 and 188 of IPC against the petitioner and others.Therefore, he vehemently opposed the quash petition and prayed for dismissal of the same.Therefore the respondent police levelled the charges under Sections 143,341 and 188 of I.P.C. against the petitioner and others.
|
['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
32,504,442 |
In the matter of : An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 20.09.2018 in connection with Maipith Coastal P.S. Case No. 169 of 2018 dated 12.02.2018 under Sections 147/148/149/447/188/326/307/325/354B of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of : Balaram Mandal & Anr.... ... petitioners Mr. Mazhar Hossain Chowdhury ... ... for the petitioners Mr. Madhusudan Sur, Mr. Rudradipta Nandy ... ... for the State The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Maipith Coastal P.S. Case No. 169 of 2018 dated 12.02.2018 under Sections 147/148/149/447/188/326/307/325/354B of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioners claim that there was a dispute with the de facto complainant and his associates over a parcel of land that lead to a minor scuffle and injuries being suffered on either side.The State produces the case diary and refers to the injury report.According to the State, the petitioners were the assailants.In addition, the petitioners are directed to meet the investigating officer at such time and place as may be specified by the concerned police officer.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J) (Sanjib Banerjee, J.)
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
100,482,469 |
C.R.M. 8544 of 2010 In the matter of : The applications for Anticipatory Bail Under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on July 08, 2010 And In re.: Kholil Md.This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the petitioner who apprehends arrest in connection with Mal Police Station Case No. 145 of 2010 dated 17.4.2010 under Sections 498A/306/34 of the Indian Penal Code.We have heard the submissions of the learned advocates for the petitioner and the State.Perused the petition as well as the petition of complaint made before the learned Magistrate under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.It is abundantly made clear that our order for grant of anticipatory bail must not preclude the learned Magistrate from considering the prayer for regular bail on his surrender, on the material available to him as on that date.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus disposed of.( Banerjee, J.) ( Raghunath Ray, J.) akb
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
100,483,526 |
Both the sides are heard.2) In short, the facts leading to the institution of theproceedings can be stated as follows :-Deceased Urmila was sister of first informant GaneshMisal.Original accused No.2 Ashok is real brother of Rambhau and original accused Nos. 3and 4 are mother and father of Rambhau.3) The deceased has left behind one daughter and oneson out of the aforesaid wedlock.It is the contention of the firstinformant that after the marriage the deceased started cohabitingwith Rambhau in the house where his parents and three brotherswere living in joint family.They have 50 Acres of agricultural landin village Jaigaon.4) About one year prior to the date of incident, theaccused persons started making demand of Rs.40,000/- from theparents of deceased as they wanted the amount for makingconstruction of house.They used to give threat to deceased andthey used to harass the deceased mentally and physically to forcethis demand.Onthat day, at about 8.00 a.m. Hanwatrao Game, who is relative ofboth the sides went to the house of first informant Ganesh andinformed that Urmila was dead and she had heart attack.Ganeshand other relatives of deceased from parents side went to theplace where the dead body was kept.It was a farm houseconstructed in the field of accused persons.and order of Sessions Case No. 243/2005 which was pendingbefore Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai, DistrictBeed.Appellant Rambhau is convicted and sentenced for offencespunishable under sections 302 and 498-A of Indian Penal Code(hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short) and sentence ofimprisonment of life is given to him.The respondents of revisionare acquitted in the case and so, the original complainant hasfiled the revision.Ganesh is resident of Laul, Tahsil Majalgaon, District Beed.::: Uploaded on - 23/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2018 01:01:02 :::::: Uploaded on - 23/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2018 01:01:02 :::Appeal 18/2007 & Anr.The deceased was given in marriage to appellant Rambhau fouryears prior to the date of incident.Rambhau hails from villageJaigaon, Tahsil Parli-Vaijanath, District Beed.The deceased had disclosed about the illegaldemand and about the illtreatment which she was receiving fromthe accused to her parents and other relatives from the side ofher parents.::: Uploaded on - 23/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2018 01:01:02 :::::: Uploaded on - 23/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2018 01:01:02 :::Appeal 18/2007 & Anr.The first informantand his relatives noticed that there were some marks around neckof the dead body.They suspected that the deceased was finishedby hanging her or by strangulating her and so, Ganesh gavereport to Sirsala Police Station.On the basis of this report, thecrime came to be registered at C.R. No.6/2005 for aforesaidoffences against four accused persons.6) During the course of investigation, the spotpanchanama and inquest panchanama were prepared and thedead body was referred to Rural Hospital Parli Vaijinat for postmortem.The doctor, who conducted post mortem on the deadbody gave opinion that the death had taken place due to asphyxiadue to hanging.All the accused came to be arrested.While inpolice custody, accused Rambhau produced one rope from farmhouse and it was taken over by police as ligature material.Statements of some witnesses who include mainly relatives of::: Uploaded on - 23/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2018 01:01:02 ::: Cri.Appeal 18/2007 & Anr.::: Uploaded on - 23/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2018 01:01:02 :::deceased on parents side came to be recorded and chargesheetcame to be filed for aforesaid offences.The charge was framedand the plea was recorded.All the accused pleaded not guilty.Theprosecution examined in all eleven witnesses to prove theoffences.The defence examined one witness who was working aslabour in the field of accused at the relevant time.The accusedtook the defence of total denial, though during cross examinationand the statement under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code(hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.' for short), it was contended byaccused No. 1 Rambhau that the deceased had committed suicidein the farm house by hanging herself.The Trial Court has believedthe prosecution witnesses and the Trial Court has held that onlyRambhau had an opportunity to finish the deceased and therewas also illegal demand of Rs.40,000/- which acted as motive forfinishing the deceased.The deceased was carrying of 6-7 weeksat the relevant time.The issues were with the accused persons.The evidence only given as against accused Rambhau is believedby the Trial Court and he is convicted.The points raised by boththe sides in these proceedings are being discussed at properplaces in the reasoning.7) Before considering the evidence given by prosecutionon involvement of the accused persons in the death of Urmila and::: Uploaded on - 23/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2018 01:01:02 ::: Cri.Appeal 18/2007 & Anr.::: Uploaded on - 23/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2018 01:01:02 :::before considering the evidence given on illegal demand ofRs.40,000/-, it is necessary to ascertain first as to whether Urmiladied homicidal death.8) Dr. Anant Gite (PW 6) conducted the P.M. examinationon the dead body on 12.1.2005 itself between 7.00 p.m. and 8.00p.m.He noticed that rigor mortis was fully developed in all theextremities, there was postmortem lividly on back and buttock.The deceased was aged about 22 years and she used to work inthe field.No external injury was found on the dead body exceptthe ligature mark which was 'V' shaped.The ligature mark isdescribed as depressed groove and it was having size of 5 to 10m.m.The depth was present on anterior aspects of neck, butabove the level of thyroid cartilage.The ligature mark wasextending from right mastoid region and it was extending up tolateral aspect of neck on left side at the level of sterno mastoidmuscle left side.The ligature mark was reddish in colour.Thismark was antimortem in nature.There was no internal injury.Theleft ventricle was empty and right ventricle was full of blood.The entire evidence ofthe Medical Officer does not show that even suggestion was givenby the prosecution to this witness that such ligature mark can be::: Uploaded on - 23/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2018 01:01:02 ::: Cri.Appeal 18/2007 & Anr.::: Uploaded on - 23/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2018 01:01:02 :::This Court has carefully gone through the reasoninggiven by the Trial Court and the reasoning appears to besurprising and not sustainable.The Trial Court has observed thatwhen in inquest report the colour of ligature mark was notmentioned as red, the doctor has mentioned the colour as red.The Trial Court has observed that there were probably twoligature marks.In inquest panchanama at Exh. 14 also, there isno mention that two ligature marks were noticed.Even in inquestpanchanama, there is no specific mention that ligature hadcompleted circle.On the contrary, inquest panchanama showsthat the ligature mark was extending up to right ear on one sideand to the left ear on the other side.Due to such evidence on therecord, this Court holds that the Trial Court has committed seriouserror in holding that it is a case of homicide.It needs to be keptin mind in the case like present one when there are no otherexternal injuries found on the dead body and when on the::: Uploaded on - 23/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2018 01:01:02 ::: Cri.Appeal 18/2007 & Anr.::: Uploaded on - 23/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2018 01:01:02 :::persons of accused no injury was found, the possibility of suicidecan never be ruled out and the possibility which is in favour of theaccused needs to be always accepted by the Courts.10) The Trial Court had not framed the charge for offencespunishable under section 306 r/w. 34 or 304-B r/w. 34 of IPC andthere was charge for the offence punishable under section 302r/w. 34 of IPC only.In any case, such charge would not havemade much difference in the present case in view of the nature ofother material available in the case.11) So far as the conduct of the accused is concerned, itcan be said that the conduct was not consistent with the guilt andit was consistent with the innocence.The evidence of Ganesh (PW5) itself shows that the message was reached by the relative ofaccused viz. Hanwatrao about the death by approaching Ganeshin his village.Not only that, the evidence of Ganesh and otherrelatives of deceased show that a jeep was sent for them forcoming to the village of accused.This jeep was actually used bythem for going to the village of accused.Thus, the intimation wasgiven at 8.00 a.m. in the village of the first informant.In theevidence of Dr. Anant Gite (PW 6), it is brought on the record thatthe death had taken place at about 6.00 to 6.30 a.m. on::: Uploaded on - 23/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2018 01:01:02 ::: Cri.Appeal 18/2007 & Anr.::: Uploaded on - 23/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2018 01:01:02 :::It can be said that within no time the incident wasnoticed and steps were taken to do the needful including sendingthe news to the parents of deceased.It showsthat stomach contained 100 to 120 M.L. of semi-digested foodand the deceased was carrying of 6-8 weeks at the relevant time.It is the case of defence that on the night between 11.1.2005 and12.1.2005, accused No. 1, brother of accused No. 1 namelyMahadu, labour Shakeel (DW 1) and deceased were working inthe field and they were plucking cotton.They had collected thecotton for entire previous day and they had worked in the nighttime also and the work was going on till 4.00 a.m. of 12.1.2005.Defence evidence is given through Shakeel that after doing thiswork the male persons were taking rest near the shed and onlyfemale member was inside portion of shed constructed in thefield.Evidence is given that early in the morning, they noticedthat the deceased had hanged herself in the shed and as they feltthat legs, feet of the deceased were still warm, they took herdown from the beam with the hope that she can be saved.Theevidence is given that as she was already dead, the dead bodywas then taken out and it was kept near the cotton bags by givingsupport of cotton bags to the dead body.::: Uploaded on - 23/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2018 01:01:02 :::::: Uploaded on - 23/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2018 01:01:02 :::Appeal 18/2007 & Anr.12) The defence taken by the accused shows that accusedNo.1 is admitting that the dead body was taken from beamwhere it was hanging and that was done prior to arrival of firstinformant and police.It is the case of prosecution that theligature material i.e. rope was subsequently recovered undersection 27 of the Evidence Act on the basis of statement given byRambhau.In the spot panchanama, there is no mention that therope was hanging at the beam.Though the rope is shown to berecovered at the instance of Rambhau, the rope was not sent toOffice of Chemical Analyser to ascertain as to whether the samerope was used in the incident.Further, one inconsistency ispointed out by the learned counsel of appellant that the length ofrope mentioned in the seizure panchanama does not match withthe length of rope shown to be produced in the Court.In anycase, the circumstance that rope was not with the beam is notsufficient to infer that the deceased had not hanged herself tocommit suicide and the accused had finished her.Thus, even ifother circumstances are considered, it is not possible to drawinference that the accused persons or accused No. 1 hadmurdered Urmila.In ordinary course also, ordinary prudent manwould make an attempt to save the life, if he feels that the bodywas still warm and she can be saved.For such an attempt, theycannot be blamed and inference against them cannot be drawn.::: Uploaded on - 23/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2018 01:01:02 :::::: Uploaded on - 23/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2018 01:01:02 :::Appeal 18/2007 & Anr.13) So far as the charge for the offence punishable undersection 498-A of IPC is concerned, it can be said that theallegations in that regard are very vague.The F.I.R. was givenimmediately on 12.1.2005 and the crime was registered at 2.00p.m.The F.I.R. shows that vague contention was made in theF.I.R. that there was demand of Rs.40,000/- and on that count,there were threats of life and there was illtreatment, bothphysical and mental to the deceased.The time when demand wasmade is not mentioned, though the reason for demand like forconstruction of house, is mentioned.It is not mentioned that thedemand was made by any of the accused directly to Ganesh orany other relative of the deceased and it was also not mentionedthat the deceased had disclosed about the demand or about theilltreatment.When such information was given in F.I.R., Exh. 26,every witness then exaggerated the things and tried to giveparticulars about the demand and the illtreatment.14) Ganesh (PW 5), the first informant has given evidencethat the accused were demanding Rs.40,000/- and they hadmade the demand to his father about one year prior to the date of::: Uploaded on - 23/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2018 01:01:02 ::: Cri.Appeal 18/2007 & Anr.::: Uploaded on - 23/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2018 01:01:02 :::In substantive evidence, he has not mentioned thereason like need of money for construction of the house.In thecross examination, he has admitted that family of Rambhau ishaving a house in the village itself.In examination in chief, he hasstated that the deceased was cohabiting with accused No. 1 in thehouse constructed in the field and the parents of the husbandwere also living in the same house.Thus, in examination in chief,the evidence is not given that accused Ashok was not living inthat house.The spot panchanama at Exh.15 does not show thatthe shed was being used for living as there was only a cot and abed and almost all the portion was used for storing agriculturalproduce.15) It is already mentioned that in the F.I.R., Exh. 26,itself Ganesh (PW 5) had mentioned that the family of accusedowns 50 Acres of agricultural land.He has admitted in the crossexamination that accused Nos. 1 Rambhau was getting goodincome from cotton crop.In the F.I.R., there was no mention thataccused were living in the farm house where the incident tookplace, though such an attempt is made in substantive evidence byGanesh.These inconsistencies are confronted to Ganesh.It is alsobrought on the record that every member of family of Ganeshincluding female members are required to do the labour work and::: Uploaded on - 23/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2018 01:01:02 ::: Cri.Appeal 18/2007 & Anr.::: Uploaded on - 23/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2018 01:01:02 :::they do labour work of cutting sugarcane for others also.Thus,the evidence given by Ganesh on both the contentions that all theaccused were living in the farm house where the incident tookplace and the accused were in need of money as they wanted toconstruct house, is not that convincing in nature.When thefinancial condition of accused was sound and when they werealready having constructed house in the village, it does not lookprobable that they were in need of money and they haddemanded money from parents of deceased when parents werenot in a position to meet such demand.16) Tulsabai (PW 8), mother of deceased has givenevidence that there was no harassment to the deceased for firstthree years of the marriage and illtreatment was started fromfourth year of the marriage.She has given evidence that thedeceased disclosed to her about the illtreatment at the time ofDiwali festival which preceded to the incident.She has givenevidence that the deceased had disclosed to her that they wereliving in the farm house and so, they wanted amount ofRs.40,000/- for construction of the house.She has given evidencethat she had promised to consider the demand subsequently asher family had no money at that time.It is the case ofprosecution that illtreatment was started one year prior to the::: Uploaded on - 23/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2018 01:01:02 ::: Cri.Appeal 18/2007 & Anr.::: Uploaded on - 23/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2018 01:01:02 :::date of incident, but evidence of mother shows that disclosurewas made at the time of Diwali festival preceding to the incidenti.e. four months prior to the date of incident.Thus, the time givenis not matching.Further, this lady had an opportunity to makeinquiry with accused No. 1 as accused No. 1 had taken back thedeceased from the house of this witness after Diwali festival wasover.But, no inquiry was made with accused No. 1 either inrespect of illtreatment or about the demand.Thus, the evidencegiven by the mother of deceased on illtreatment and demand isnot that convincing.17) Similar is the evidence of Ashruba (PW 9), father ofthe deceased.Tulsabai (PW 8) has tried to say that there was onemore incident in which disclosure was made and that was inJaigaon and the disclosure was made to her husband.The fatherhas tried to say that there was such incident, but he has notgiven evidence that he had informed about such disclosure to anyof relatives including his wife.His evidence also does not showthat he or any of his relatives had convinced the accused personsor they had questioned them as to why they had made suchdemand and as to why they were giving illtreatment to thedeceased.In the cross examination, Ashruba (PW 9) has admittedthat Hanwatrao, his relative, who gave news about the incident::: Uploaded on - 23/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2018 01:01:02 ::: Cri.Appeal 18/2007 & Anr.::: Uploaded on - 23/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2018 01:01:02 :::and family of Sadashiv, accused No. 4 of the present matter wereliving in a big building, Wada situated in the village at the relevanttime.An attempt is made to show that false information wasgiven by Hanwatrao that Urmila died due to heart attack.IfHanwatrao was related to complainant's side and he hadopportunity to see the conduct of accused persons, in ordinarycourse, the prosecution ought to have been examined Hanwatraoto give such evidence.Hanwatrao is not examined in the presentmatter and no explanation is given in that regard.18) It is admitted by Ashruba (PW 9) that accused No. 1Rambhau is illiterate, but his brother accused No. 2 Ashok isliterate and Ashok was living at Parli for education purpose.Nothingis said specifically about the residence of Ashok by thecomplainant and that is already mentioned.This circumstanceshows that vague allegations were made against the husband ofthe deceased and relatives of the husband of the deceased.19) Ashruba (PW 9) has admitted that in those dayspeople were plucking cotton.The spot panchanama and otherevidence show that there were many bags filled with cotton in theaforesaid shed.This circumstance cannot be ignored as accused::: Uploaded on - 23/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2018 01:01:02 ::: Cri.Appeal 18/2007 & Anr.::: Uploaded on - 23/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2018 01:01:02 :::No. 1 and the defence witness have come with the case that onthe previous day and on the night, they had plucked cotton andthey had done the work of filling bags with the cotton.Thus,probability is created that from previous day and also on theprevious night, there were many persons working in the field ofaccused and at the early hours of the day of incident also, therewere many persons.The Trial Court has drawn some inferenceagainst accused No. 1 Rambhau on the basis of defence evidencethat only he had an opportunity to commit the murder.Suchinference could not have been drawn.The prosecution evidence orthe defence evidence cannot be read that way.It was not thecase of prosecution that all the accused were living together inthe farm house.During substantive evidence, they have admittedthat accused had a big house in the village.In the spotpanchanama, there is nothing to show that even family ofaccused No. 1 was living there.20) It is brought on the record that all the witnesses, whowere used as panch witnesses in the present matter were brought::: Uploaded on - 23/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2018 01:01:02 ::: Cri.Appeal 18/2007 & Anr.::: Uploaded on - 23/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2018 01:01:02 :::by the complainant from his village.They are relatives ofcomplainant side.The Trial Court has held that they are related toaccused side also and so, the circumstance of relation of panchwitnesses with the complainant's side cannot be used to discardtheir evidence.This circumstance need not be used for discardingthe evidence.But, the fact remains that the investigating agencyused only the witnesses given by the complainant's side.Noindependent material was collected by the investigating agency.It is already observed thatthe rope having length of 13 ft. is shown to be recovered, but inMuddemal property, rope having length of 18 ft.was producedand that can be seen from the documents filed as Muddemal Yadialong with chargesheet.It is already observed that this rope wasnot sent to C.A. Office to ascertain as to whether it was used forstrangulation or hanging.If the rope was really used in theincident, the traces of blood or skin could have been found on therope.21) The conduct of the accused was not consistent withthe guilt and the aforesaid circumstances show that they did not::: Uploaded on - 23/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2018 01:01:02 ::: Cri.Appeal 18/2007 & Anr.::: Uploaded on - 23/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2018 01:01:02 :::conceal everything.The news was immediately given to therelatives of the deceased.It is true that A.D. report was not givenand there is no such record produced and the panchanamas wereprepared only after registration of the crime.In this regard alsosufficient observations are made.If accused No. 1 was there, hewas illiterate and he had done the thing which he felt as needfulor proper like sending the information to the parents of thedeceased.It cannot be said that villagers did not know about theincident.Hanwatrao who was living in the village gave news tothe family of the complainant.The evidence shows that the jeepwas sent for the relatives on parent's side of deceased for comingto the place of accused.All these circumstances show that theaccused were not afraid as they were not concealing or hidinganything.In the F.I.R. itself, there was no mention about theexact time when the demand was made and the evidence is givenby some witnesses that demand was made one year back andsome witnesses have said that demand was disclosed at the timeof Diwali festival.It is already observed that at no time, inquirywas made by the first informant or parents of the deceased withthe accused about such demand or illtreatment.In spite of thesecircumstances, the Trial Court has believed these witnesses andhas held that there was illegal demand and there was illtreatmenton the count of said demand.This Court holds that the evidence::: Uploaded on - 23/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2018 01:01:02 ::: Cri.Appeal 18/2007 & Anr.::: Uploaded on - 23/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2018 01:01:02 :::given on 'cruelty' as mentioned in section 498-A of IPC is notsufficient and also not convincing.Thus, it is not possible toconvict the accused No. 1 Rambhau for offence punishable undersection 498-A of IPC.There can be many reasons for woman tocommit suicide and the reason of simple quarrel can be alsothere.Though the defence has suggested that due to pregnancy,the deceased had probably become over sensitive and doctor hasgiven few admissions in that regard, not much can be made outof that circumstance.The deceased was having two issues.Thepossibility is there that they were working in the field for longertime and some incident had taken place.There is probability thatthe husband was involved in the incident, but there is noprobability that he had taken steps like to finish the deceased orhe had abetted suicide.Such inference on the basis of aforesaidmaterial is not possible in the present matter.22) The learned counsel for original complainant placedreliance on some observations made by this Court in the casesreported as 2016 ALL MR (Cri) 2478 [Sachin RamchandraArwade Vs.The State of Maharashtra] and 2015 ALL MR(Cri) 3095 [Vishwajeet Pralhad Devnath Vs.The State ofMaharashtra].In those cases, this Court has discussed theevidence given in those cases and provisions of sections 6 and::: Uploaded on - 23/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2018 01:01:02 ::: Cri.Appeal 18/2007 & Anr.::: Uploaded on - 23/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2018 01:01:02 :::106 of the Evidence Act. In the present matter, entire materialwhich is available is discussed and it is difficult to hold thatprovision of sections 106 can be used against accused persons.The material already available has created a probability that it is acase of suicide.The learned counsel for appellant placed relianceon the case reported as 2007 (2) Supreme 546 [ManjunathChennabasapa Madalli Vs.State of Karnataka].In that case,the Apex Court held that only on the basis of circumstances thatit was unnatural death and provision of section 498-A of IPC isapplicable, inference of murder was not possible.The facts andcircumstances of each and every case always different.Criminalcases are required to be decided on the material available inthose cases.This Court has no hesitation to observe that theevidence is not sufficient and it is also not convincing to convicteven the husband for both the offences.In the result, followingorder is made :-ORDER(I) Criminal Appeal No. 18/2007 is allowed.The judgmentand order of the Trial Court, convicting and sentencing theappellant Rambhau s/o.Sadashiv Game for the offencespunishable under sections 302 and 498-A of IPC is hereby setaside.The appellant Rambhau s/o.Sadashiv Game is acquitted ofboth the offences.His bail bonds to continue for further period of::: Uploaded on - 23/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2018 01:01:02 ::: Cri.Appeal 18/2007 & Anr.::: Uploaded on - 23/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2018 01:01:02 :::six months in view of provisions of section 437-A of Cr.P.C. Fineamount, if any, deposited by the appellant, be refunded to him.(II) Criminal Revision Application No. 67/2007 standsdismissed.::: Uploaded on - 23/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2018 01:01:02 :::
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
100,490 |
JUDGMENT Jaspal Singh, J.(1) The petitioner was a permanent employee of the Delhi Development Authority and bad remained posted for some time as Director (Land Management).The prosecution alleges that he alongwith some other employees of the Delhi Development Authority entered into a criminal conspiracy to allot a commercial plot to one Saraswati Devi Dolya and to mate her eligible for such allotment went to the extent of preparing false record first showing her to be in unauthorised possession of some land belonging to the Delhi Development Authority, then showing it as having been resumed and thereafter allotting her some commercial land as an alternative plot.The learned Special Judge, however, turned it down.(3) Although in the petition before me the petitioner has challenged the order of framing of charge also on the ground that no prima facie case is made out, during arguments the learned counsel for the petitioner had confined himself only on the point of sanction.(4) It was not disputed that the petitioner was a public servant at the relevant time and that he has since retired from service.(17) The law being as noticed above, let us have a look at the necessary facts.The appeal succeeds to that extent.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
100,496,623 |
The Petitioners are all relatives of the husband of the victim.Item No. 82And In the matter of: Rahit Biswas & Ors.- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Manas Kumar Das Mr. Asraf Mandal For the Petitioners Mr. Prasun Kumar Dutta Mr. Santanu Deb Roy For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Hogalberia Police Station Case No. 102 of 2013 dated 02.07.2013 under sections 498A/302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned Advocate for the State.Hence, we allow this application and direct that in the event of arrest, the Petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond `10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) each with two sureties each of like amount, one of whom must be a local surety, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and with the further condition that the Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3, Rahit Biswas and Joydeb Biswas, shall report to the concerned Police Station once a week until further orders. .The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 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.
|
1,004,975 |
(5) About 10 years before the occurrence Pritam Kaur separated from her husband.She lived Along with her children at 16/16, Ashok Nagar, Jaspal Singh some time before the occurrence started living separate from the mother.The rest of the family lived together.According to Pritam Kaur the deceased Surjit Singh was on friendly terms with Harnam Singh and Harnam Singh almost treated him like his son.The accepted case of Pritam Kaur is that Surjit Singh advised him on all family matters and he would come whenever she needed his advice.A few months before the occurrence Pritam Kaur sold the house at Ashok Nagar and purchased the house B-152, Ganesh Nagar, where Pritam Kaur Along with her children started residing.Pritam Kaur in the report Ex. Public Witness 1/A stated that the house at Ashok Nagar was sold for Rs. 1,00,000.00 but in court she stated that the house was sold for Rs. 48,000.00 .She admits that the house at Ashok Nagar was sold under the advice of the deceased Surjit Singh.The further case of Pritam Kaur is that Jaspal Singh wanted Rs. 20,000.00 out of the sale proceeds of the house but she had refused to.give any money to Jaspal Singh.The further admitted part of the case is that the house at Ashok Nagar belonged to Harnam Singh.Harnam Singh gifted the house to his wife Har Kaur and Har Kaur transferred the house in favor of Pritam Kaur.The reason for this stated is that Surjit Singh husband of Pritam Kaur was a drunkard and not of a good character and, therefore, Har Kaur transferred the house in favor of Pritam Kaur.(6) As regards the occurrence the case for the prosecution is that on the night of 13th-14th March, 1981 Public Witness I was in the house Along with her children.The deceased Surjit Singh was also in the house.At about 110 clock in the night Tripat Singh came.Gurdyal Singh asked him as to where he had been during the last 4 to 5 days.There was exchange of hot words between Tripat Singh and Gurdyal Singh and Karamjit Singh.Surjit Singh intervened and pacified both the sides.After sometime Tripat asked the mother to give him some clothes as he wanted to go to Jagadhari.Tripat after packing his clothes in a bag left.At about 1.30 a.m. the call bell rang.Public Witness I went and opened the door and she found Tripat Singh.Tripat told the mother that as he did not get the bus he had returned.After sometime Jaspal Singh came with a Kirpan in his band.(7) Pritam Kaur, Gurdyal Singh, Karamjit and Surjit Singh were sitting on separate cots in the room and were chatting.After entering the house Jaspal gave a kirpan blow on the shoulder of Surjit Singh.Pritam Kaur, Gurdyal Singh and Karamjit tried to save Surjit Singh.Tripat threatened that if any one intervened he shall be done to death.Tripat had a small kirpan with him.Thereafter Jaspal gave more injuries with the sword.Surjit Singh ran upstairs to save himself.Jaspal and Tripat ran after him to the roof and gave further injuries.Both the accused after inflicting number of injuries on Surjit Singh ran away.(8) The police was informed of the occurrence.Sub Inspector Shankar Singh (P.W. 23) was entrusted with the investigation.Public Witness 23 reached the spot and recorded the statement Ex. Public Witness I/A of Pritam Kaur.The crime team was sent for and the scene of crime was photographed.Surjit Singh Was removed to the hospital where he was pronounced dead.(9) Public Witness 2 Dr. Bharat Singh performed post-mortem on the dead body of Surjit Singh and he found more than 28 incised wounds on the various parts of the body of Surjit Singh.The eldest son is Jaspal who may have been about 26-27 at the time of the occurnce, Tripat may be about21:Therest are younger to Tripat.The daughter was aged about II.Pritam Kaur separated from her husband some 10 years prior to the occurrence.She lived with her children at 16/16 Ashok Nagar.JUDGMENT R.N. Aggarwal, J.(1) Jaspal Singh aged 27 and Tripat Singh aged 22, sons of Surjit Singh Along with Joginder Singh (since acquitted) were tried on the charge of murdering Surjit Singh son of Avtar Singh (the name of the deceased and the name of the father of the appellants is the same).The trial Judge found both Jaspal and Tripat guilty of the offence charged with and sentenced each one of them to imprisonment for life.They were also charged under Section 27 of the Arms Act and were convicted and sentenced to 3 years' rigorous imprisonment on the said charge.(2) The accused have come in appeal against their convictions and sentences.The doctor gave the opinion that all injuries except injuries Nos. 19, 20 and 22 were possible with a sword and injuries Nos. 19, 20 and 22 were possible by adagger.The doctor further opined that injuries 19, 20 and 22 were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.(10) On 14th March, 1981 both the accused were arrested by Public Witness 17 Ram Saran and Public Witness 18Bhagat Saran.A sword was recovered from the possession of Jaspal Singh and a small kirpan (dagger) from Tripat The clothes worn by Jaspal and Tripat were found to be stained with blood and they were also seized.On Chemical examination both the sword and the dagger were found to be stained with human blood.The clothes worn by both the accused were also found to be stained with human blood.(11) Both the accused in their statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denied the prosecution case.Jaspal Singh stated that his mother had sold the house and she wanted to deprive him of his share in the property and she had involved him falsely in the case.Tripat Singh took a plea similar to his brother.The accused in defense examined two witnesses, namely, D.W. 1 Piara Singh and D.W. 2 Gurnam Singh.(13) The occurrence took place in the house of Public Witness 1 Pritam Kaur, mother of the appellants.Pritam Kaur and her two sons Public Witness 4 Gurdyal Singh and Public Witness 6 Karamjit Singh are eye witnesses to the occurrence, Public Witness s 1, 4 and 6 have in unison testified that Jaspal armed with a kirpan and Tripat armed with a dagger (small ki'ipan) had caused injuries to Surjit Singh resulting in his-death.We have carefully perused the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses and we find that they had no motive to implicate falsely the two appellants.Their depositions regarding the actual assault are substantially true.The kirpan and the dagger were seized from the two appellants on the next day and they were found to be stained with human blood.The clothes Worn by the accused were also found to be stained with human blood of 'AB' group which is the blood group of the deceased.The sword and the dagger were also found stained with human blood of 'AB' group.The aforesaid recoveries fully corroborate the prosecution case.We, thus, agree with the trial Judge that it were the appellants who bad caused the injuries resulting in the death of Surjit Singh.(14) The Supreme Court in the famous case of K.M. Nanavatt v. Stale of Maharashtra, , had the occasion to consider and deal with Exception I to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code.(15) Now, reverting to the case in hand, she undisputed facts are that Pritam Kaur was married to Surjit Singh some 30 years before the occurrence, she gave birth to 7 children, out of which 6 are alive (5 sons and t a daughter).This house was owned by Harnam Singh who had gifted it to his wife Har Kaur who had further transferred it in favor of Pritam Kaur.Sometime before the occurrence Jaspal Singh had separated.The rest of the family continued to stay together.A few months before the occurrence Pritam Kaur sold the house at Ashok Nagar and purchased the house B-152, Ganesh Nagar and shifted to.the said house.The deceased Surjit Singh was known to the family of Pritam Kaur and he would visit Pritam Kaur when ever she wanted his help.Pritam Kaur gave out her age as 45 years when she made the statement in court.(16) The important dismissions made by Public Witness .1 in her deposition arc (1)that she is living separate from the husband for the last about 10 years, (2) that Surjit Singh deceased used to help them with money, (3) that she had sold the house at Ashok Nagar and purchased the house at Ganesh Nagar under the advice of Surjit Singh deceased, (4) that after the sale of the house her sons did not like her to meet Surjit Singh (5) that she had come to know Surjit Singh deceased through her husband some 15 to 16 years back and that whenever she needed any advice in family matters she would consult Surjit Singh, (6) that on the night of the occurrence She had sent for Surjit Singh who had come at about 9.30 p.m. and he had stayed back on the request of her son Gurdyal.(17) Public Witness .1 in cross-examination stated that Surjit Singh had never stayed during the night at her house and that since the death of her mother- in-law he had visited her only 5 or 6 times.Public Witness .I in the first report Ex. Pw 1/A had stated that Jaspal and Tripat did not like Surjit to visit the house and that both of them had told her that she had been keeping Surjit at her house as per husband.Public Witness .1, in court, also stated that after the sale of the house her sons did not like that she should meet Surjit Singh.Suggestions were made during the cross-examination to Public Witness .1 that she had illicit relations with the deceased and that on the night of the occurrence also they were not fully dressed and the deceased was lying in bed with her, P.W. 1 refuted the said suggestions.1 that'she had no illicit relations with the deceased Surjit Singh is not true.The deceased was a bachelor and he was visiting Public Witness .I after she had separated from her husband.During post-mortem examination alcoholic smell was found in the stomach contents of the deceased.The stomach also contained semi- digested food about 3 ounces in which solid yellow ghee was present.It was suggested to Public Witness .1 that she had served Churri (wheat cooked in ghee) to the deceased which was denied by her.She stated that the deceased bad come after taking his meals.It seems to us that the deceased had liquor and food at the house of Public Witness .1 or come after taking liquor.It is an admitted case that the deceased used to monetarily help Public Witness .1 and her family.There must be some strong reason for the deceased to financially help Public Witness .We may notice here that when Public Witness .1 separated from her husband all the children were of young ages and they may not have fully realised the implications of the visits of the deceased to Public Witness .1 but after Jaspal and Tripat grew up they must have realised and found out that the deceased was having illicit relations with their mother and this must have been seriously resented to by them, specially when their father was alive.(18) The statement of Public Witness .1 that the deceased stayed back in the house at the asking of Gurdyal Singh (P.W. 4) does not seem to be correct.We are also not prepared to believe Public Witness .1 that at 1.30 a.m. in the night she, the deceased, Gurdyal and Karamjit were Chatting sitting on their cots.Gurdyal is only aged 14-15 and he must have gone to sleep.The other children must also have gone to sleep.It is lately and possible that Public Witness .1 and the deceased were sleeping together.Public Witness .1 could not have expected Tripat and Jaspal at that late hour of night and it is possible that she went to open the door in semi-clad condition.On entering the house, it may be that the deceased was also found in the bed in a semi-naked condition.(19) In the above background, the crucial question arises whether it could be said that the appellants had acted on grave and sudden provocation.There is no plea by the accused that they had acted on a grave and sudden provocation.We may notice here two judgments of the Supreme Court (i) Munshi Ram and others v. Delhi Administration, A.I.R. 1968 Supreme Court 702 and (ii) State of U.P. v. Ram Swamp and another, .(22) It is clear from the above decisions that even if an accused does not take up the pica of private defense but the necessary basis for that plea is laid down in cross-examination, of the prosecution witnesses, the court can consider such a plea.We have earlier discussed the testimony of Public Witness .1 and We find that the case put to P. W.I in cross-examination clearly is that she was having illicit relations With the deceased Surjit Singh and that on the night of the occurrence also they were sleeping together.The evidence brought on the record, in our View) proves,' in any case, is strongly suggestive, that the deceased was having a liaison with Public Witness .1 and on the night of the occurrence also the deceased had come to enjoy the company of Public Witness .(23) It is clear from the deposition of Public Witness .1 in court, and from her statement Ex. Public Witness 1/A made before the police that the appellants Were objecting to her meeting the deceased.It is likely that for this very reason Jaspal started living separate from the mother.It is in evidence of Public Witness .I that lately Tripat had started siding with Jaspal.This shows that both the appellants were mentally worked up and they did not like the deceased visiting their mother.The situation further got aggravated because Public Witness .1 had completely gone under the influence of the deceased and she had sold the house at Ashok Nagat and purchased the house at Ganesh Nagar and shifted to that house under the advice of the deceased The suggestion put to Public Witness .We further have in evidence that after the occurrence P.W. I had shifted to the house occupied by the deceased at Ashok Nagar. .This circumstance also shows the closeness between Public Witness .
|
['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
100,501,787 |
(i) The deceased is the wife of the first accused.PW.1 and 2 are theparents of the deceased.At the time of marriage, eight sovereigns of goldjewelries were given.After the marriage, the first accused and deceasedwere living separately in Vellanore.The deceased was seven months pregnant.After marriage, the accused demanded Rs.50,000/- as dowry fromthe parents of the deceased.However, P.W.1 and P.W.2 pacified the accused and his family members.On 04.03.2017 at about 04.00p.m., P.W.1 and P.W.2 were informed through phone that their daughter died.Immediately P.W.1 andP.W.2 rushed to the spot and thereafter, P.W.1 lodged a complaint, which wasmarked as Ex.On the date of occurrence, PW.3, who is the sister of thedeceased and P.W.10, who is running a Social Welfare Organisation, went tothe house of the deceased and they saw the first accused trying to kill thedeceased.Hearing the sound, the first accused ran away from the scene ofoccurrence.Immediately, P.W.10 reported the same to P.W.2-the mother of the deceased.P.W.6, who is the brother of the first accused, on informationreached the house of the deceased.The first accused informed that thedeceased fell unconscious and died.P.W.21, who is the Sub Inspector ofPolice, received the complaint Ex.P.1 and registered a case in Crime No.208of 2007 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C and forwarded the same to the Court.P.W.14, who is the Revenue Divisional Officer, conducted inquest over thedead body and recorded the statements of witnesses and filed Ex.P.6 statingthat the deceased died due to dowry harassment.P.W.22-the Deputy Superintendent of Police, conducted an investigation and prepared observationmahazhar, Ex.P.17 and rough sketch, Ex.After completion ofinvestigation, P.W.22 filed final report for the offences under Sections498(A), 302, 306 r/w.109 of IPC and P.W.22 and he arrested the accused 05.03.2007 and thereafter, the offence was altered into 304 (ii) of IPC andthe alteration report was marked as Ex.2(ii)P.W.15 ? Doctor A.Rajukmar attached to the Government Hospital,Lalkudi, conducted autopsy over the dead body and found the followinginjuries:?Finger and toe nails- intact and cyanosed.Blood discharge from thenostrils and mouth present.Genital examination ? Hymen- Old tear Present,no fresh wound, No discharge present.Signs of decomposition; Post Mortem peeling of skin and Post mortem blebs present on the front of both sides of the chest.Hyoid bone is intact.The above mentioned wounds are ante mortem in nature.Anti bite marks : On the front of left side of the chest, front ofleft elbow, front of inner aspect of left thigh.O/E Base is pale, edges areirregular ? Post mortem in nature.Other Findings : Peritoneum- intact, cavity- empty, pleura-intact,cavity- empty, Pericardium- intact, cavity ? Straw colour liquid, Heart-Flabby, chambers- empty, Lungs-decomposed, Larynx, Trachea- vide wound column, Hyoid bone- intact, stomach- contains undigested cooked ricepartials, no specific smell, Mucosa-decomposed, Oesophagus- intact, Mucosa- decomposed, pancreas- decomposed, liver, spleen and Kidneys- decomposed, Omentum and Messentry- intact, Small intestine ? yellowish , Chyme- so specific smell, mucosa- decomposed, Appendix- decomposed, Large intestine- filled with gas, Urinary bladder- intact and empty, Uterus - Enlarged, size24cm x23camx7cm,c/s.cavity contains 7 months old dead male foetus , length-33 cm.Head circumference ? 23 cm, Pelvis- intact, Scalp,Skull bonesand Membranes- intact, Brain -pulpy, Vertebral Column and cord- intact.This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated20.03.2008, made in S.C.No.171 of 1997, on the file of the learned MahilaJudge, Tiruchirapalli.Marling of skin on thefront of the chest, front of both upper limbst, front of abdomen and front ofboth thigh.Wounds: 1)face suffused 2)Bruising of lips- Dark red.3) contusion onthe front and sides of neck- dark red.On Bloodless dissection of neck-Bruising of the soft tissues of neck- Dark Red.Diffusion of blood into thesoft tissues present.Fracture of lamina of thyroid cartilage and both sidesvertically and fracture of other laryngeal cartilages present.Haemorrhagicspots on the mucous membrane of upper part of wind pipe present.Allother internal organs on c/s. decomposed.Opinion as to the cause of death ?RESERVED?During Autopsy, viscera preserved and sent for chemical analysis.Onconclusion of the Post-mortem, he issued the Post-mortem Certificate(Ex.P.11) 2(iii).Before the trial court, on the side of the prosecution, 22witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.22 and marked 20 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.20 and material objects M.O.1 to 12 and on the side of the accused, 3witnesses were examined as D.W.1 to D.W.3, 1 document marked as Ex.Based on the evidence and materials, the Trial Court has found the appellant/firstaccused guilty under Section 304(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and sentencedto undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, indefault, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment and the trial courtacquitted the appellant/first accused for the offences under Sections 498(A),302 r/w.109 & 316 r/w.109 IPC.Aggrieved over the same, the first accused isbefore this Court.It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant thatthere is no eye witness to the occurrence.P.Ws 1 to 3 are the father, motherand the sister of the the deceased.P.W.s 4, 5, 9, 11, 12 and 22were turned hostile.Further, there are certain inconsistencies anddiscrepancies in the evidences relied on by the prosecution.The Trial Courthas not appreciated the evidence properly.The prosecution has not proved theguilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts.He prayed for acquittal of theaccused.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the firstaccused and deceased lived in the same house.Homicidal death has been clearly established on record.Prosecution had proved the guilt of theaccused beyond all reasonable doubts.Hence, he prayed for dismissal of theappeal.I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made oneither side and perused the materials carefully.The deceased is the wife of the first accused.At the time of death, she was sevenmonths pregnant.The accused and the deceased are residing separately in thehouse of the first accused after the marriage.P.W.1 and P.W.2-the parents ofthe deceased have clearly spoken that after the marriage, the first accusedused to demand dowry and caused cruelty to the deceased.When the matter stood thus, on 04.03.2007, they received an information that their daughterdied and immediately they rushed to the house and found their daughter dead.P.W.1 lodged Ex.P.1, on the basis of which, a case was registered underSection 174 of Cr.P.C. These facts are not in dispute.The Medical evidence and Post-mortem Certificate would clearlyestablish the fact that the deceased died out of homicidal violence and infact, the deceased died out of compression of the neck.P.W. 10, thoughclaims to be eye witness.After witnessing such occurrence, she has notinformed the same to the family members.Such evidence is highly improbable.It is not the case of the accused that he was residing somewhereelse and the deceased alone was residing in the house.Admittedly, thedeceased died in the dwelling house, where the first accused and deceasedwere residing.These facts have been clearly established on record.Thus,the entire burden lies on the appellant to come out with an explanation onthose facts, which are exclusively within her knowledge as per Section 106of Indian Evidence Act.Though the appellant has taken stand in his 313 Cr.P.c questioningthat he left the house in the morning and he has returned in the eveningafter his work and when he returned home he found his wife dead, such reasonis imaginary for the simple reason that he has taken a different stand duringcross-examination in this regard.During cross examination, his stand wasthat the deceased suffered epilepsy and she was hit against wall and diedeven P.W.6-own brother of the accused has also stated appellant informed himthat deceased fell down unconscious and died.When he found his wife lying dead, the immediateconduct would be to take some steps to take her to hospital or inform thesame to the parents.But he has not taken any steps in this regard, but, heremained silent claiming himself to be innocent.The above conduct also wouldgo against him under Section 8 of the Indian EvidenceThe trial court though convicted the accused under Section 304(ii)of IPC has not considered any materials to find out how the act of appellantwould fall within the ambit of Section 299 of IPC.The trial court simplyconvicted the accused under section 304(ii) of IPC without any materials.In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed and the convictionunder Section 304(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and sentence imposed on theaccused to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine ofRs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment, by thelearned Mahila Judge, Tiruchirapalli , in S.C.No.171 of 1997, dated20.03.2008, are, hereby, confirmed.The respondent police is directed tosecure the accused viz., Napolean, aged about 30 years, S/o.Abraham, Mathakoil Street, Vellanore Lalkudi, Trichy, to custody, to undergo theremaining period of sentence.The period of sentence already undergone by theaccused is ordered to be set off under Section 428 of the Code of CriminalProcedure.Bail bond executed by the appellant, if any, shall standcancelled.Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2008 is closed.1.The Mahila Judge Tiruchirapalli2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police Lalgudi Police Station Trichy3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.4.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
100,502,709 |
Adv., Mr. Soumya Basu Ray Chowdhury, Mr. Subir Guha ... ... for the petitioners Mr. Sudip Ghosh, Mr. Bitasok Banerjee ... ... for the State The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Dinhata P.S. Case No. 171 of 2018 dated 06.05.2018 under Sections 147/148/149/186/332/333/353/307/379 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act and Sections 9/10 of the Maintenance of Public Order Act read with Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.The petitioners say that since the petitioner no. 16 has already been arrested, the prayer for anticipatory bail is no longer relevant for such petitioner.The State produces the case diary and says that all the petitioners, led by the petitioner nos. 1 and 15, resisted a policy party from conducting raids and recovering a cache of arms about which the police had a tip-off.Considering the nature of the charges and the injuries suffered by some of the police personnel, the petitioner nos. 1 and 15 cannot be excused immediately.In addition, the petitioner nos. 2 to 14 and 17 to 36 are directed to meet the investigating officer at such time and place as may be specified by the concerned police officer.The petitioner nos. 2 to 14 and 17 to 36 will not enter any place within the jurisdiction of Dinhata Police Station till the conclusion of the investigation, except for the purpose of meeting the investigating officer.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J) (Sanjib Banerjee, J.)
|
['Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 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.
|
1,258,963 |
J U D G M E N T(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 746 of 2006)ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.Leave granted.Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.The appellants had filed Criminal Appeal No. 24-SB of 1993 questioning the correctness of the judgment of learned Additional Judge, Amritsar sentencing each of the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each with default stipulation for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC').They were also convicted in terms of Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each.Further each was convicted for offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC.The accusation which led to the trial of the accused person was that in furtherance of the common object of an unlawful assembly there was a murderous assault on Bhajan Singh (PW3) and for causing injuries on Malkha Singh (PW4).They were originally six accused persons and two of them namely Dilbagh Singh and Jaswant Singh were acquitted by the trial court.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
125,901,970 |
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner to call for records in C.C.No.4704 of 2011 pending on the file of the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.The case of the prosecution is that on 18.4.2011 at about 7.00 P.M., the first accused who was working in the Sri Adhikesava Perumal temple as Archagar trespassed into the office of the said temple and abused the defacto complainant using foul words, pushed and beat him.On 23.3.2011 at about 6.00 P.M., accused 1 and 2 alleged to have insulted the temple Chairman Sridhar and abused him in filthy language.It is further alleged that accused 1 and 2 said to have often quarrelled with the other staff in the temple.Hence, the accused 1 and 2 have committed the offence under Sections 294 and 323 IPC.Originally, the first respondent police had conducted a petition enquiry by issuing CSR, but thereafter, the case was registered and charge sheet was also filed.I heard Mr.L.Murali Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs.Shobana, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the first respondent and Mr.P.Pazhamalai, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and perused the entire materials available on record.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, a case in Crime No.1048 of 2011 on the file of E- Mylapore Police Station was registered against the petitioner and another for the offence under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(i) IPC.After investigation, the 1st respondent police filed a final report against the petitioner and one Parthasarathy for the offence punishable underhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 Section 294(b) and 323 IPC.The averments set out in the quash petition are matter of evidence and therefore, there is no necessity to quash C.C.No.4704 of 2011 and prayed for dismissal of the Criminal Original Petition.The learned counsel for the second respondent supported the arguments of the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the first respondent.I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and also perused the materials available on record.As far as the alleged occurrence dated 18.4.2011 is concerned, in the complaint, it has been stated that at about 7.00 P.M., the first accused Parthasarathy Bhattar trespassed into the office of the temple and had abused the defacto complainant in filthy language, pushed and beat him.Even according to the complaint and the statement given by the defacto complainant and other witnesses to the police, the petitioner was not participated.Thus, no prosecution can lie as against the petitioner for the alleged occurrence dated 18.4.2011, in which the petitioner has no role.As far as the occurrence dated 23.3.2011 is concerned, in the complaint, it has been stated that at about 6.00 P.M., the first accused and the petitioner and their assistants insulted the Chairman Sridhar in temple's glass room and also abused him in filthy language.Admittedly, no complaint was lodged for the occurrence dated 23.3.2011 by Sridhar, who is said to have been really aggrieved.Though one or two witnesses have stated that the petitioner scolded the defacto complainant, there is no corroborative evidence to prove the same.Since the witnesses cited and examined by the 1 st respondent police are staff members of the temple, naturally, they would support the defacto complainant only.The complaint is silent about details of injury sustained.The defacto complainant was not treated by any Doctor.In the absence of medical report and other related documents, no charge can lie under Section 323 of IPC.As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, even assuming that if the defacto complainant had sustained any injury, the petitioner has nothing to do with the same, as even according to the prosecution, the petitioner has not participated in the occurrence on 18.4.2011, in which the defacto complainant is alleged to have abused and pushed down.The complaint as well as the other materials producedhttp://www.judis.nic.in 8 before this Court would show that for a mere difference of opinion between the fellow staff on the issue of administration of the temple, the defacto complainant has lodged a complaint.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
125,902,911 |
The petitioner is the brother of the deceased Prabir Kumar Das.On July 10, 2011 the said Prabir Kumar Das was found lying killed on the street.After the discovery of the dead body, an FIR relating to the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC was started against unknown miscreants.During the investigation the police arrested four persons, who are the wife of the victim, one Basudev Das and two others, the hired killers.Finally, all of them were charge sheeted under Sections 302/120B/34 IPC.Now, the petitioner has come up before this Court being aggrieved by the refusal of the police to submit charge sheet against one Dipankar Nandy.It is contended by the learned Counsel of the petitioner that the said Dipankar Nandy was the paramour of the wife of the deceased and very much involved in the commission of 2 the offence, but no steps has been taken against him by the police due to some hidden consideration.It is further submitted that he is a Development Officer of the L.I.C and at his behest, the deceased purchased huge L.I.C. Certificates.It is further contended in collusion with the wife of the deceased those LIC was purchased and intending to grab the entire sum assured, he was killed by hired killer.The learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that police motivatedly did not submit the charge sheet against the said Dipankar Nandy and showed him as witness.The learned Counsel for the State vehemently opposed this application.He produced the Case Diary and submitted that no material was collected during investigation, which might justify submission of charge sheet against the said Dipankar Nandy.It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the State that already charge has been framed and three schedules have been failed due to non- availability of the witnesses and urged this application be dismissed at once since same is without any substance.This Court has very carefully gone through the Case Diary and the materials collected during investigation.Neither those materials disclosed any link between the Dipankar Nandy and the murder in question.It is further found during investigation, no such clue surfaced, which may justify the police to make further investigation as regard to his role.This criminal revision has no merit and accordingly, stands dismissed.3 This order shall be communicated to him through the Superintendent of Police, Hooghly at once.Office is directed to communicate this order to the court below at once.Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties at an early date.( Ashim Kumar Roy, J. ) 4 5
|
['Section 34 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.
|
125,903,969 |
There is delay in registration of FIR.He was CRL.A. 412/1999 Page 1 of 6 neither named in the FIR nor arrested at the spot and thus he is entitled to be acquitted.In the alternative, it is contended that at best even believing the prosecution witnesses, the fight took place on the spur of moment and hence offence punishable under Section 304 IPC is only made out.Shorn of unnecessary details, the prosecution case is that Inspector Bhagwant Singh, SHO, PS Seelampur PW-20 while on patrolling duty at Yamuna Pusta near ISBT Road on May 13, 1993 received a wireless message that an altercation was going on at a place near Jamal Hotel, Chauhan Bangar, Delhi.He reached at the spot where ASI Ishwar Singh PW-13 along with other police officials had already reached.They informed him that one boy had been stabbed and removed to GTB Hospital by ambulance.SI Amar Nath was posted to guard the spot and Inspector Bhagwant Singh went to the hospital.He obtained the MLC of Mohd.Akram declaring him brought dead.He met Mohd.Arshad stated that he resided at H.No.5412, Kucha Rehman, CRL.A. 412/1999 Page 2 of 6 Town Hall, Delhi and was a student of 12th standard.His elder brothers Mohd.Akram and Mohd.Aslam PW-5 were doing business of embroidery and sewing at premises bearing No.C-5/1131, Gali No.7, Chauhan Bangar, Delhi under the name and style of S.K.Exports and S.K.Fabrications.They reached the factory premises at about 1.00 PM.'S' a juvenile, who resided in their neighbourhood and his associate, who also resided in the same street, were present in the factory premise and were beating their employees.Imtiaz, the father of 'S' was present in the street.He was having a danda in his hands and was hurling filthy abuses.His brother Akram protested saying that in case Imtiaz had any complaint against his employees, he ought to have brought the matter to his notice.On this, those boys came in the street and alleged that their employee was peeping in their house and encroaching upon their privacy and they will not leave Akram and pounced upon him.Imtiaz attacked Akram with Danda.He also exhorted "Maro Sale Ko".On this exhortation, 'S' caught hold of his brother from his hands and his friend stabbed him in his chest.Friend of 'S' was having small moustaches and long hair over his head.He combed his hairs on the back.His height was about 5'8" and his complexion was wheatish.When he tried to overpower the assailant, he wielded a blow on his neck but he turned on one side and saved himself.Thereafter, he ran away with the help of Imtiaz.Imtiaz and his son also ran way from there.His brother walked upto 4-5 paces and fell on the ground.He lifted his brother with the help of employee and tried to remove him on a scooter but his brother fell down before boarding it.He made his brother to board a rickshaw however in the meantime police gypsy followed by an ambulance came.Akram was taken to hospital in the ambulance where Akram was CRL.A. 412/1999 Page 3 of 6 declared brought dead.CRL.A. 412/1999 Page 2 of 6CRL.A. 412/1999 Page 3 of 6Post-mortem of the deceased was got conducted by Dr.N.K.Aggarwal PW-4 who exhibited the report vide Ex.PW-4/A. On external examination of the deceased he found one stab wound of 4 x 1.8 cm into cavity deep which was present over outer middle back of left side of chest, lower angle of the wound was more acute than the upper angle.The wound had gone upwards, inwards lacerating the muscles of sixth and seventh inter costal space in the back and then entered the chest cavity in the post auxiliary line where it entered the left lung on the posterior surface of lower wall making a stab wound 4.2 x 0.5 cm into lung deep and then went obliquely downwards in front and came out from the front of left lung by making an exist of 2.5 x .5 cm.The injury was ante-mortem.Cause of death was shock as a result of haemorrhage produced from injury to left lung.The above injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.Time since death was about 22 hours.The assailant was later identified to be Dilshad.Thus Dilshad and Mohd.Imtiaz were sent for facing trial. 'S'faced proceedings before the Juvenile Justice Board.The appellant surrendered before the Court on May 22, 1993 and thus after permission from the Court he was formally arrested and police remand taken.He made a disclosure that he could get the knife recovered from a drain at 66 foota road vide Ex.PW-14/A and got the knife recovered from there.Imtiaz to see whether the underwear had fallen down or not.In the meantime, Mohd.The appellant is already on bail.The bail bond and the surety bond of the appellant stand discharged.TCR be sent back.(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE AUGUST 05, 2014 'v mittal' CRL.A. 412/1999 Page 6 of 6CRL.A. 412/1999 Page 6 of 6Dilshad has been held guilty of murder of Mohd.Akram on the strength of statements of eye-witnesses Hazi Hamidar Khan PW-8, Mohd.Iqbal PW-11 and Mohd.Vide order dated July 24, 1999, Dilshad has been directed to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of `10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year.Dilshad assails the conviction on the ground that the witnesses are planted and inimical to him.CRL.A. 412/1999 Page 1 of 6Dilshad had also taken the plea of juvenility claiming that he was below 16 years of age on the date of alleged incident and thus could not be tried by the Court concerned.In light of this opinion of the Medical Board, this Court has already held that he was not a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence.The defence of Dilshad is that of denial and false implication.No specific plea has been taken nor any defence evidence led.Arshad PW-12 in the hospital and recorded his statement Ex.PW-12/A on the basis of which FIR was registered.During the course of investigation Imtiaz also got recovered the danda.The appeal of Mohd.However, since neither the opinion was taken from the doctor whether the injury was possible with the said knife nor the knife was shown to the witnesses to be the one by which injury CRL.A. 412/1999 Page 4 of 6 was caused in our opinion the recovery of the knife is not connected with the injury caused.CRL.A. 412/1999 Page 4 of 6Thus the prosecution case rests on the testimony of eye witness PW- 12 Mohd.Arshad and the two other witnesses PW-8 Hazi Hamidar Khan and PW-11 Mohd.Arshad had deposed on the lines of his statement on the basis of which FIR was registered.Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of Mohd.Hazi Hamidar Khan has also deposed that he used to work with Akram as a tailor.He had one more tailor with him and the underwear of the said tailor had fallen in the adjoining house of Mohd.The said tailor was peeping inside the house of Mohd.Imtiaz came in the factory premises and had altercation with the said tailor.He abused and beat the said person.Thereafter Mohd.Imtiaz left the factory.After some time when Mohd.Akram came and the employees informed him.Akram along with 4-5 employees went to the house of Mohd.Imtiaz and asked him as to why he had beaten his employee and he could complain to him if he had any grievance.In the meantime, Mohd.Imtiaz came along with the danda and beat Mohd.Crowd collected and Dilashad along with the juvenile came there.Mohd. Imtiaz exhorted Mohd.Akram "MARO SALEY KOO" on which Dilshand took out a churi used for gutting goats and gave a blow to Mohd.Thereafter they all ran away.Even Mohd.Iqbal who had joined the factory as a worker has also deposed on the lines of Mohd.Arshad and Hazi Hamidar Khan.In view of the testimony of the three eye witnesses duly corroborated by the post-mortem report in our opinion the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the offence of stabbing committed by Dilshad on CRL.A. 412/1999 Page 5 of 6 exhortation of Mohd.The verbal altercation took place between Mohd.Imtiaz and Mohd.Akram, the deceased due to one of the tailors peeping in the house of Mohd.Dilshad reached the spot later and on exhortation gave single knife blow which proved to be fatal.However, the single fatal blow was given on the vital part of the body.Thus the act of Dilshad being on the spur of moment theoffence committed by him is punishable under Section 304 Part-I IPC.CRL.A. 412/1999 Page 5 of 6
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,259,056 |
JUDGMENT S.K. Phaujdar, J.The three appellants were convicted under Sections 302/34, I.P.C. on 5-2-80 by an order of the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai in S. T. No. 297 of 1978 and each was convicted to undergo life imprisonment.for three months.The sentences were to run concurrently.Upon presentation of the appeal on 3-3-80 the appellants were granted bail.The F. I. R. that was lodged against these three appellants was drawn up on the statement of one Tulsi Ram.R. were Sukhpal and Devi Deen.It was stated in the report that for a particular land in front of the house of the complainant they have been given a patta.When they were clearing the land the accused appellants objected to it.When the complainant claimed that the land was his, the accused appellants started abusing in filthy language.When objected to by the complainant, the accused-appellants assaulted with lathies.He shouted which attracted Ram Prakash, Gur Dayal and the daughter-in-law of the complainant.These persons were also assaulted by the accused appellants and they had threatened them with dire consequences, if any report was made to the police station.Upon this report, initially a case under Sections 504, 323 and 506, I. P. C. was started but subsequently the injured Ram Prakash succumbed to his injuries and the case was converted to one under Section 304, I. P. C. as well.After necessary investigation, charge sheet was submitted and after commitment of the case to the court of session a charge under Section 323 read with 34, I. P. C. was framed against the appellants for having caused simple hurt to Maya, Tulsi Ram and Gur Dayal in furtherance of their common intention.A further charge under Section 302/34, I. P. C. was framed against them for having caused the death of Ram Prakash by causing him such injury as was likely to cause death in the ordinary course of the nature.This was also attributed to have been caused in furtherance of their common intention.The charges were denied by the appellants.At the trial nine witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution.After their examinations under Section 313, Cr. P. C. the defence also examined one witness.It came through the defence witness Paramanand that Smt. Maya Devi wife of Ram Prakash had some illicit relationship with Tulsi Ram and Ram Prakash was beaten to death by Tulsi Ram and Gur Dayal and in that incident Ram Prakash also gave lathi blows to Tulsi Ram and Gur Dayal arid he had also assaulted Smt. Maya Devi.The learned trial Court considered the evidence before it and had considered the defence theory also as advanced by the defence witness.He had discarded the defence version and did accept the prosecution evidence as stated by the injured witness and convicted the appellants as indicated above.P. W. 1 was Dr. G. C. Agarwal who proved the injuries of Smt. Maya Devi, Ram Prakash (not dead then), Tulsi Ram and Gur Dayal.The injuries were examined at 1.15 p.m. on that very date.In relation to the injuries of Ram Prakash, the doctor found five head injuries.All injuries were simple except a bone-deep injury on the frontal bone which was kept under observation and x-ray examination was advised.These injuries were examined at 12.30 p.m. on that date.For Tulsi Ram there was a head injury for which x-ray was advised.For Gur Dayal the doctor found two injuries on the hands and there was complaint of pain on his back.These injuries were also possible by lathies at about the same time when the other persons sustained their injuries.In the absence of any relevant cross-examination the evidence of this doctor is to be accepted in its totality.P. W. 2 was Dr. M. K. Goel who had held postmortem examination on the deadbody of Ram Prakash on 20-8-77 at about 4.00 p.m. According to him, death had occurred in the District Hospital, Orai, on 19-8-77 at about 4.30 p.m. There were three head injuries observed by this doctor and death was caused as a result of shock and haemorrhage out of these three head injuries.He had also proved his postmortem report which was marked as an exhibit.His evidence and the report proved by him indicates that there was a linear fissured fracture of the left parietal bone and his evidence indicates that there was external injuries also in the left parietal bone.There was no other internal injury.Death was not due to concussion of brain of any brain injury although the brain was found congested.Death, according to the doctor, was due to shock and haemorrahge.The doctor opined that their injuries, in the ordinary course, could have caused death.His cross-examination however, suggests that on proper treatment of the injured, he could have survived.The doctor further admitted that effect of shock increased with passage of time if no treatment was given.He had also accepted that if a patient was dealt with negligently, a fracture of the head might aggravate.There was no necessity of admitting the patient in the hospital on a mere perusal of the injuries.The third witness Harpal Singh had been an S. I. Police, He proved the general diary of Kuthoud police station, Oria, concerning death of Ram Prakash in the hospital.He was deputed to hold inquest of the deadbody and he proved the panchayatnama.He had made the other necessary papers and sent the deadbody for postmortem examination.His one line cross-examination indicates that before sending the deadbody for postmortem examination he did not contact the concerned police station, Kuthoud.The next witness was a constable Sudhar Singh, who carried the deadbody to the mortuary and had brought back the report to the police station.His cross-examination was declined.P. W. 5 Puntu Lal claimed to have seen the quarrel between the parties.While he had gone to fetch milk from the house of Shukh Lal, quarrel was going on amongst Tulsi Ram, Nathu and Gur Dayal only three persons were there when he saw the quarrel and there was none else.But the witness went on to say that in this quarrel Tulsi Ram, Gur Dayal, Ram Prakash and Smt. Maya Devi had suffered injuries and they were assaulted by Mata Prasad, Har Dayal and Nathu.The incident, according to this witness, had taken place in front of the house of Nathu Ram upon a land which Tulsi Ram had received on a patta.Babu Ram and Shukh Lal also had seen the incident and had raised alarm.His cross-examination indicate that when he had reached, the quarrel was already over.He waited two to four minutes and in his presence the injured persons went to the village.He accepted that Smt. Maya Devi was living with Tulsi Ram.That was the only occasion for him to go for fetching milk.He denied that he was telling a lie.P. W. 6 was the complainant Tulsi Ram, he claimed to have received a patta for a land in front of his house.On the date of the occurrence he was clearing the land which he got on patta when Mata Prasad, Har Dayal and Nathu, who were of his village and were his distant kin, came with lathies and tried to stop the complainant from clearing the land and also abused him.This led to the assault on Tulsi Ram.On his cry, Ram Prakash, Gur Dayal and wife of Ram Prakash came there to save him and they were also assaulted.All of them suffered injuries.Babu Ram, Shukh Lal and Puntu Lal saw the incident and raised the alarm.He started crying and the accused persons fled away.The injured then went to the police station Kuthoud on a bulluck-cart.A report was written there and thereafter they were sent to the hospital.Ram Prakash expired in the hospital.This witness was assaulted by Nathu alone.The other did not assault him.He could not say whose lathi had hit him as on the receipt of a blow from Nathu, he lost consciousness.He admitted that Ram Prakash and Smt. Maya had no child at that point of time but 8 or 9 months after the death of Ram Prakash a daughter was born to Smt. Maya.Tulsi's wife also died after some days but he denied that he was living with Smt. Maya and the child of Smt. Maya was his and was aged 6 months only.He could not get the injuries examined under x-ray as he had no money.The doctor did not ask Ram Prakash to be taken to Orai.Ram Prakash did not speak after receiving the injuries the defence suggestion was given to him that it was he along with others who had assaulted Ram Prakash.According to her, Tulsi Rarn was clearing the land received in patta when the appellants came there.She came out on hearing abuses and she saw them assaulting Ram Prakash and Gur Dayal with lathies.When she ran to save them she was also assaulted.When the witnesses shouted at them the accused persons fled away.The daughter was born to her in the month of chait.She had seen the assault of Tulsi Ram also.She denied that, there was any illicit connection between herself and Tulsi Ram.Concerning the incident there was not much of cross-examination to this witness.Sukh Lal was examined as P. W. 8 and he was the person to whom Puntu Lal had come for taking milk.This witness was busy in milching his buffalos when the incident has taken place.He claims to have seen the actual assault.When he had gone out many people had collected and by that time Ram Prakash was lying unconscious and Tulsi Ram, Gur Dayal and Smt. Maya were not there.He could not have seen the actual incident.The last witness is the I. O. Chand Sen Misra.He proved the different papers prepared during the investigation and he had submitted the chargesheet after investigation and he had submitted the chargesheet after investigation.His cross-examination is a short one.It was contended that out of the witnesses named in the F. I. R., Devi Din was not examined and Shukh Lal would not have seen the incident.Witness Puntu Lal was never named in the F. I. R. and he too could not have seen the incident as the quarrel was already over before his arrival.The injured Gur Dayal was not examined and only Tulsi Ram and Smt. Maya Devi were there to prove the incident.There are also corroborating evidence of the doctors.It was argued that because of absence of examination of Gur Dayal and Devi Din as also of Babu Ram who was stated to be present there as per the statement of Tulsi Ram, the prosecution case becomes doubtful.This argument may not be accepted as the prosecution is not bound to examine all the witnesses on the same point and examination of such witnesses only would be necessary as may be required to unfold the prosecution story.It may also not be proper to discard the statement of Tulsi Ram and Smt. Maya Devi for the simple reason of non-examination of others as these two witnesses themselves were injured in the incident and that fact adds some credibility to their claim.It is true that Puntu Lal has accepted that he had reached the spot when the quarrel was already over.He might have seen the injured persons but he could not have seen the actual assault.Had he been present at the spot his name should have been there as a witness in the F. I. R. He contradicts himself when he says that the quarrel was between Tulsi Ram, Nathu and Gur Dayal only and there was nobody else present at the spot.It was, therefore, impossible for him to claim to be an eye-witness on the point of injuries on Ram Prakash and Smt. Maya Devi and regarding assault by Mata Prasad and Har Dayal.So for Shukh Lal is concerned, his evidence indicates that he was busy in milching his buffaloes and by the time he had reached the place of quarrel, many people had assembled and the quarrel was over by then.Ram Prakash was lying unconscious but Tulsi Ram, Gur Dayal and Smt. Maya Devi were not there.They had already gone to the police station.Reliance may not be, therefore, placed on these two witnesses Puntu Lal and Shukh Lal on the point of actual assault.Tulsi Ram, however, gave a full account of how the quarrel started and how the present appellants had come with lathi, how they had abused and tried to stop clearing of the land by Tulsi Ram and the assault followed thereafter.His evidence indicates that the three appellants are of the same family.He was assaulted by Nathu alone the others did not assault him.He could not say to whose lathies had injured whom.The doctor had advised x-ray examination of Ram Prakash but Tulsi Ram could not arrange for money and could not get x-ray examination done.Ram Prakash lay unconscious for four days and expired as a result of the injuries.Smt. Maya Devi also gave a detailed account of the incident.The quarrel was going on between Nathu, Har Dayal and Mata Prasad on one side and her jeth Tulsi Ram on the other side.She stated about assault of Ram Prakash and Gur Dayal by lathies.She also got lathi blows from these three persons.It was suggested to her that she was living together with Tulsi Ram but she denied this suggestion.It is true that she could not say how many blows were given to whom and who gave them but for herself she could say that she received three or four lathies blows.All the three appellants had given lathi blows on them.The F. I. R. in this ease was lodged about four hours after the incident and in view of the fact that a person had died and arrangements were to be made to lead the injured persons to the police station and to the hospital, the delay may not be taken to be fatal.The injured persons were examined by the doctor on the date of the incident itself at about 1.00 p.m. The injuries of Smt. Maya Devi were three, caused by blunt objects, and these were recent injuries.The injury of Tulsi Ram was also a recent one caused by a blunt weapon.It was lacerated wound on the head.Injuries of Rama Prakash were also recent and caused by blunt weapon.There were injuries on Gur Dayal also but he had not come forward to pledge his oath in court, Ram Prakash died subsequently and his injuries have already been described while discussing the evidence of the concerned doctor.From the statement of Tulsi Ram and Smt. Maya, we find natural corroboration and there is nothing in their statements making the story intrisically impossible.It must, therefore, be held on the basis of the evidence on record that there had been an incident over certain claim and counter-claim of possession of the land in which the three appellants had used their lathies and injured several persons and one of them succumbed to his injuries subsequently.The real question that arises for consideration is whether by their act the accused persons would be liable for an offence under Sections 302/34, I. P. C. The F. I. R. and the statement of Tulsi Ram normally suggest that a land was claimed by Tulsi Ram on the basis of a patta and he was engaged in clearing it.The accused persons took objection to it and a quarrel started.The land is in front of houses of both Tulsi Ram and the accused persons.No paper concerning ownership of the land or no patta in favour of Tulsi Ram was brought on record.Only over this quarrel three persons hurled their weapons (lathies, which are normally carried by villagers) and the injuries were caused.For the death of Ram Prakash the medical report suggests three head injuries but only one could be connected with an internal injury which, too, was a linear fissured fracture.Death was due to shock and haemorrhage but the evidence of Tulsi Ram and that of P. W. 1 suggest that x-ray was advised but it was not done.The doctor holding postmortem examination had admitted that upon proper treatment of injury No. 2 the injured could have been saved.He further stated that the effect of shock would aggravate, if no treatment is given and negligent handling of a case of fracture would also aggravate its effect.Although the doctor had stated that the injuries were sufficient and were such as would ordinarily cause death, the other statements of the doctor suggest that negligent handling and lack of timely treatment accelerated deterioration and that had resulted in the death of Ram Prakash.Looking to the genesis of the trouble, and immediate quarrel over the land and use of lathies only one of which had caused the internal injuries and looking to the fact that the witnesses could not locate as to who gave the fatal blows, it is not proper to infer that the accused persons had the intention to cause death or had the requisite knowledge that in all probability their actions would cause death.The incident must have occurred at the spur of the moment and it could be only inferred from the circumstances of the case that the accused persons had shared a common intention of causing only grievous hurt by lathies so for Ram Prakash was concerned.The conviction of the appellants on the charge under Sections 302/34, I. P. C. should thus be converted to one under Section 325/34, I. P. C. The other charges against them are for causing hurt to Smt. Maya and Tulsi Ram and they were convicted under Sections 323/34, I. P. C. also.From the evidence on record, there ,is no reason to interfere with this conviction or the sentence awarded thereunder.For the conviction under Section 325/34, I. P. C. it may be noted that the incident is of 1980 and for the last 17 years they are facing the prosecution at the investigation, trial or appellate stage.Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed with modification as indicated above.The conviction and the sentence of the three appellants under Section 323/34, I. P. C. is maintained.The appellants who are on bail are to surrender before the G. J. M., Jalaun at Orai within 15 days from today to serve out the imprisonment subject to adjustment under Section 428, Cr. P. C.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
125,910,562 |
2.For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to by their name.3.Badusha (P.W.1) was a resident of Nadupatti village in Krishnagiri district and was a postal employee.He had left his wife Kurshid (P.W.2) in her natal home in Vardanapalli village.On 03.04.2006, he went to his wife's house, picked her up and was returning to his village, by his Bajaj Caliber two- wheeler via Jinjampatti junction.Three persons in a TVS-50 motorcycle, intercepted at a desolate place and stopped his vehicle.He stopped his vehicle.The trio surrounded him and brandished knives and iron rods and asked him to hand over his purse and other valuables.They took him further towards the road margin and Vajravel (A3), the petitioner herein looked at his wife Kurshid (P.W.2) and commented “shall we have a shot”.On hearing this, Kurshid (P.W.2) hollered.In the meantime, the trio had relieved Badusha (P.W.1) of Rs.1,000/- and a sonata watch.On hearing the hue and cry made by Kurshid (P.W.2), the local people started converging to that place and on seeing them, the trio dropped their two-wheeler and ran into the nearby forest and absconded.http://www.judis.nic.in 2/9 CRL.R.C.No.1553 of 20134.On the written complaint (Ex.P1) given by Badusha (P.W.1), the police registered a case in Crime No.132 of 2006 on 04.04.2006 at 02.00 a.m. under Section 394 IPC against three unknown, but identifiable persons.From the residence of Vajravel (A3), a sonata watch (M.O.1) and a torchlight (M.O.2) were recovered under mahazar (Ex.P3).At the request of the police, Subadradevi (P.W.7), District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate conducted Test Identification Parade, in which, Badusha (P.W.1) and Kurshid (P.W.2) identified A1 to A3 vide identification parade report (Ex.P5).5.After completing the investigation, the police filed a final report in P.R.C.No.25 of 2006 before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Pochampalli for the offence under Sections 342, 392 and 397 IPC.6.On appearance of the accused, the case was committed to the Court of Session in S.C.No.28 of 2007 and was made over to the Assistant Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dharmapuri in Krishnagiri, for trial.The trial Court framed charges under Section 342, 392 and 397 IPC and when questioned, the accused pleaded “not guilty”.http://www.judis.nic.in 3/9 CRL.R.C.No.1553 of 20137.To prove the case, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses, marked 11 documents and 3 material objects.8.When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, they denied the same.No witness from the side of the accused was examined nor any document marked.9.After considering the evidence on record and hearing either side, the trial Court, by judgment and order dated 19.12.2007 in S.C.No28 of 2007, convicted and sentenced A1 to A3 as under :Section 342 IPC One year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo one month rigorous Govindaraju (A1) imprisonment Sivakumar (A2) and Section 392 IPC Five years rigorous Vajravel (A3) imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment In the appeal in C.A.Nos.4 of 2008 and 8 of 2008 that were filed by the accused, the appellate Court, vide a common judgment and order dated 05.12.2012, while confirming the conviction of the accused of the offence under Section 392 IPC, set aside their conviction of the offence under Sectionhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4/9 CRL.R.C.No.1553 of 2013 342 IPC and instead, convicted them of the offence under Section 341 IPC and sentenced them to undergo one month simple imprisonment.As regards the substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment of five years for the conviction of the offence under Section 392 IPC, the appellate Court reduced it to three years simple imprisonment; confirmed the fine element; and as for the default clause, modified the nature of imprisonment from rigorous to simple.Challenging the concurrent findings of fact of the two Courts below, Vajravel (A3) has filed the present criminal revision under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C.3.The Inspector of Police Mathur P.S. Krishnagiri District4.The Deputy Registrar Criminal Side High Court, Madras P.N.PRAKASH, J.http://www.judis.nic.in 8/9 CRL.R.C.No.1553 of 2013 gya CRL.R.C.No.1553 of 2013 18.02.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 9/9
|
['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
125,917,145 |
1 High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Indore Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.7710/2019 (Golu @ Mohammad Joab s/o Ashif Khan Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh) Indore, Dated 22.02.2019 Mr. Rajesh Solanki, learned counsel for the applicant.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
125,934,328 |
This is fifth application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The petitioner has been arrested on 14/01/2017 in connection with Crime No.17 of 2017 registered at police station Mayapur, District Shivpuri for offence under Sections 302, 323, 294, 506-B, 34 of IPC.It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the doctor, who had treated the deceased as well as the autopsy surgeon, have been examined and they have stated that the injuries found on the head of the deceased could not have been caused by an axe.Therefore, it is clear that there is direct conflict between the ocular and medical evidence and thus the ocular evidence is not re-liable.Heard the counsel for the petitioner.It is, accordingly, rejected.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
65,329,799 |
2 CRI.APPEAL - 43-2002-JUDGMENTlegal case had been registered on 14-11-1998 at GovernmentHospital, Bhokar requesting to record statement of one SavitaKishor Pitlewad, aged about 24 years, resident of Bhokar suffering90% burns.As such, Police Head Constable Budhewad had been toGovernment Hospital at Bhokar and had taken down her statementand, thereafter, for medical treatment, the injured had been sent toGovernment Hospital at Nanded.A wireless communication for recording her dyingdeclaration had been sent to Police Station, Vazirabad, Nanded.Police Constable Gangadhar Nagorao Bhalerao had presenteddocuments at Police Station, Bhokar and from the same, the FIRhad been recorded.It is recorded, Mrs. Savita Kishor Pitlewad in thestatement before death, had stated that husband had set her onfire by pouring kerosene, upon having been told by her mother-in-law, since they were suspecting her character.Further in thestatement of her mother - Kevalabai Ganpatrao Nagalwad aged 45years resident of Mukramabad, before Police Head Constable in thehospital as well as at Vazirabad stated that Savita had beenquestioned by her husband and mother-in-law - Dwakrabai, as towhy she had not brought motorcycle from her parents and they had ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 01:19:56 ::: 3 CRI.APPEAL - 43-2002-JUDGMENTset her on fire by pouring kerosene on her person igniting bymatch-stick and she was completely burnt and she died whilereceiving treatment in Government Hospital, Nanded on 19-11-1998 around 12.20 p.m. and action be taken against them inaccordance with law.::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 01:19:56 :::It was thus recorded that Savita had been set on fire byKishor - her husband and Dwarkabai - her mother-in-law,suspecting her character and as she did not bring motorcycle fromher parental house, by pouring kerosene on her person and lightingher by match-stick.She died while being treated in hospital atNanded and, therefore, offence was alleged against aforesaid twopersons.Statement of Savita had been recorded at Bhokar on14-11-1998 with endorsements presumably of the doctor, in thebeginning and at the end of the recording of statement, that patienthad been conscious to give statement, that after returning fromparental house - Mukramabad on 04-11-1998, husband andmother-in-law had been abusing her, asking as to why she hadstayed in parental house for two months.On 14-11-1998 around3.00 p.m., there had been quarrel between husband - Kishor andher for the stay at parental house and thereafter, husband - Kishor ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 01:19:56 ::: 4 CRI.APPEAL - 43-2002-JUDGMENTwent out and around 5.30 p.m., she had poured kerosene on herperson and had ignited herself by lighting match-stick from the box.At that time, her mother-in-law was not at home and, thereafter, lotof people from the lane had poured water on her person and hadtaken her to Hospital in an auto-rickshaw and treatment to her wasbeing given.::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 01:19:56 :::On 15-11-1998, around 9.00 p.m., statement of Savitawas recorded by Special Judicial Magistrate of Nanded that around6.00 p.m. on 13-11-1998, her husband Kishor had poured keroseneon her person and had set her on fire while her mother-in-law wastelling to set her on fire.Husband had set her on fire since he wassuspecting her character.The Doctor had endorsed that till thecompletion of the statement, the patient had been conscious.On 19-11-1998, statement of Kevalabai GanpatraoNagalwad - mother of deceased - Savita had been recorded atHospital Police Chowki, Vazirabad, Nanded.She has stated that shehad three daughters, namely, Bharti, Savita, Shanta, all of whomare married.Savita had been married to Kishor Kashiram Pitlewadof Bhokar seven years before as per customs and traditions andfrom the wedlock, she had four year old daughter and had beenpregnant for about five months.Her further statement is that one ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 01:19:56 ::: 5 CRI.APPEAL - 43-2002-JUDGMENTSanjay - younger brother of her son-in-law - Devidas Alnurwad ofMukhed told in the evening of 15-11-1998 that her daughter Savitahad caught fire and she has been admitted in Government Hospitalat Nanded according to the information received from her otherson-in-law - Kishor.Thereafter, she along with one daughter andquite a few other persons had been to Nanded in the night and hadasked Savita, as to what had happened.Savita had said to her thatshe had promised to give motorcycle to her husband and had notgiven the same to him and, therefore, they had left her at parentalhome and had taken her back promising a good treatment,however, after coming at matrimonial house, mother-in-law -Dwarkabai and husband - Kishor used to abuse and beat her, askingas to why her mother had not given motorcycle.She was beingmentally and physically tortured and they were suspecting hercharacter.For said reasons, on last Saturday i.e. 13-11-1998, inthe evening around 6.00 p.m., her husband had poured keroseneon her person and mother-in-law had told him to put her on fire byigniting match-stick.In the circumstances, her limbs, chest,stomach had been burnt.Thereafter, said persons had taken herfor treatment to Government Hospital, Bhokar and after givingprimary treatment there, she had been admitted to NandedGovernment Hospital and while her daughter was being treated,she died on 19-11-1998 around 12.20 p.m. ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 01:19:56 ::: 6 CRI.Inquest panchanama appears to have been drawn on19-11-1998 in the presence of witnesses, one of which was DevidasGovindrao Adgulwar - the other son-in-law of Kevalabai - mother ofdeceased Savita.In hiscross-examination, he purports to refer to that he had been to thehospital in the next morning after admission of Savita inGovernment hospital and that he along with relatives had beenthere for about 4-5 days and that after the incident of fire, accusedKishor had brought Savita to hospital at Nanded and that herfuneral was performed at Mukaramabad.PW 2 - Mohd. Yousuf is panch witness of the spot.PW 3 - Kevalabai - mother of deceased Savita examinedat Exhibit-25, has deposed that since the performance of marriage,accused no. 2 - husband - Kishor used to beat Savita demandingmotorcycle and for arranging employment and used to give threatof life to her.Savita used to inform about the ill-treatment anddemand of money.After Pola till Diwali, accused no. 2 - husband -Kishor had compelled Savita to stay in the parental house, however, ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 01:19:56 ::: 7 CRI.APPEAL - 43-2002-JUDGMENTafter Diwali, accused no. 2 came to take Savita with him and, 9 daysthereafter, the news of burning of Savita and admission andhospitalization at Nanded had come.In the hospital, she had askedSavita, as to how burning took place and she had told that accusedno.2 had beaten her and poured kerosene on her person and thathe had done so because of non-fulfillment of the demand of money.In her cross-examination, she stated that accused no. 1 i.e.mother-in-law of Savita had given a telephonic message to Devidasabout her hospitalization at Nanded and, thereafter, she andDevidas and her brother Maroti had been to Government hospital atNanded and they were there for about 5-6 days till death of Savita.During their stay in hospital, no police official from Police Station,Bhokar had come for enquiry.She purports to state that herbrother Maroti and son-in-law were not present with Savita whenshe had informed her about beating and pouring kerosene on her.She further refers to that Savita had told her that accused no. 2 -husband had rushed her to hospital at Bhokar.She went on tostate that Police at Bhokar had recorded her statement 4 days afterfuneral of Savita had taken place.The complaint had been lodgedin Police Station after her death.Accused no. 1 had been a retiredemployee and had received huge amount by way of pensionary ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 01:19:56 ::: 8 CRI.She referred to that Bharatbai, her daughter had manyoccasions to talk to Savita before her death in the hospital.Shepurports to deny that while police were recording her statement,Bharatbai had requested her to refrain from making any allegationsabout cruelty by the accused.It has been elicited in the cross-examination that accused no. 2 had stayed for over 2 days atMukaramabad in parental house of Savita.In her further cross-examination, she claims that Savita had sent to her a postcard,however, the postcard has been missing for long and that beforethey could read the postcard, they had rushed to Nanded, as theincident had occurred.::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 01:19:56 :::He endorsed the post-mortemreport about death due to 90% burns.PW5 - Bhimashankar Bharati examined at Exhibit-30 isPolice Inspector, L.C.B., Nanded, who refers to having lodged FIR onbehalf of the State and also that he had investigated the crime.Spot panchanama had been drawn.In the cross-examination, he stated that from 14-11-1998 to 19-11-1998,Bhokar Police Station had not received any complaint from therelatives of deceased Savita and further that witnesses Mohd.Haroon and Sk.Chand had told him that Savita had set herself onfire by pouring kerosene.As a matter of fact, third dying declaration, if is to beconsidered as one, allegedly made to her mother by deceasedSavita, is also doubtful on one more count.Kevalabai, to whom thestatement had been made by deceased Savita, stated that whilestatements were made, other than herself and Savita, nobody hadbeen present whereas, Kevalabai's brother, however, states that inhis presence, statement had been made by Savita.Bharti, the other daughter, who had been along withKevalabai in the hospital for over 4-5 days, her statement has notbeen recorded in support of the version of Kevalabai, who couldhave thrown light corroborating evidence by Kevalabai.It appearsthat she has not been examined, for in cross, it has emergedBharti was trying to contain Kevalabai from making statementsagainst the accused.First information report was recorded on 20-11-1998 byBhimashankar Laxmanrao Bharti - the Assistant Police Inspector ofBhokar Police Station, District - Nanded, referring to that a medico- ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 01:19:56 :::::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 01:19:56 :::APPEAL - 43-2002-JUDGMENT::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 01:19:56 :::::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 01:19:56 :::::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 01:19:56 :::Burnt pieces of clothes ofdeceased and match-box from the spot had been seized.Mudemmal articles were sent to chemical analysis and chargesheethad been sent to the Court.The investigation revealed that there ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 01:19:56 ::: 9 CRI.APPEAL - 43-2002-JUDGMENThad been commission of offence punishable under sections 498-Aand 306 r/w. section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The cross-examination further disclosesthat the Investigating Officer had not visited the hospital at Nandedduring 14-11-1998 to 19-11-1998 and had not visitedMukaramabad, although he purports to deny that he had notrecorded statement of Kavalabai.::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 01:19:56 :::PW6 - Nivratti Piraji Shahdeo is the Special ExecutiveMagistrate, who had recorded statement of Savita on 15-11-1998on being requested by Vazirabad Police Station.He has stated thathe had recorded statement of Savita after verification of hercondition and about she being conscious.The recorded statementhad been read over to patient Savita, who admitted the same to betrue and correct and her right hand thumb impression had beentaken on the statement.Statement was recorded in the presenceof Doctor.The recording was during 9.00 pm.to 9.30 pm.In hiscross-examination, it has been elicited that he directly went to theward where the patient had been admitted and went to the patient ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 01:19:56 ::: 10 CRI.APPEAL - 43-2002-JUDGMENTwith identification from sister on duty in the hospital and then theDoctor had been called.He purports to explain in the cross-examination that scoring while answering the third question is dueto his mistake and not for the reason that patient was making afeeble statement.::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 01:19:56 :::PW 7 - Maroti Mangilwad, who is examined at Exhibit-48happens to be maternal uncle of deceased Savita purports tosupport the statement made by Kevalabai - his sister.He, however,in his statement referred to that while he had arrived in theGovernment hospital at Nanded, sister - Keavalabai asked Savita asto what had happened to her and purports to state that it had beenstated by Savita to them that accused was suspecting her characterand poured kerosene on her and told that both the accused had lither.In his cross-examination, he stated that Savita led a happymarried life till she had given birth to child.He also stated to beignorant about financial condition of Kishor.DW 1 - Mohd. Haroon is examined at Exhibit - 52, whoappears to be the landlord and the accused were his tenants.Heclaims in his statement that Savita had closed door of house andburnt herself by pouring kerosene and stated that Savita and Kishorwere leading happy married life till the incident.Savita had not ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 01:19:56 ::: 11 CRI.APPEAL - 43-2002-JUDGMENTspoken anything to persons gathered after the incident and alsopurports to state that he had reached the spot 15 minutes after theincident.His cross-examination he dithered over.While once hesaid that there were quarrels and on the other, he says that therewere no quarrels.::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 01:19:56 :::Savita had been burntto the extent of 90% in the incident that had taken place around6.00 pm.Soon thereafter, she had been moved to hospital atBhokar and with the endorsement of Doctor that she is conscious togive statement, statement had been recorded, which does notimpute any allegation against husband or mother-in-law.In her subsequent statement on the next day in theevening, she has referred to that accused had set her on fire, ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 01:19:56 ::: 12 CRI.APPEAL - 43-2002-JUDGMENTsuspecting her character.She had not stated anything about herharassment and torture over demand of motorcycle or moneytherefor.Her said statement had been recorded by Special JudicialMagistrate.::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 01:19:56 :::In the third statement claimed to have been made toher mother, Kevalabai, however, a reference about non-fulfillmentof demand of motorcycle and harassment over the same as well ascharacter suspicion have appeared.All the statements give different versions and attributedifferent allegations.Multiple dying declarations with differentversions create doubt about truthfulness of the declarations and, assuch, must undergo a very close scrutiny.First dying declaration made at Bhokar does not imputeallegation against any person.Second one recorded by the SpecialJudicial Magistrate refers to character suspicion.The third one,however, makes reference to harassment over motorcycle and ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 01:19:56 ::: 13 CRI.APPEAL - 43-2002-JUDGMENTpassingly character suspicion.It would be required to be taken intoaccount that the third statement imputes harassment overmotorcycle all through from marriage.The three statements arenot consistent.::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 01:19:56 :::In the present matter, the person who has recordeddying declaration on 14-11-1998 and the Doctor with whoseendorsement, the same had been taken down, none are notexamined nor any investigation appears to have been made withthem.The deceased had initially made statement at Bhokartaking the blame upon herself, however, at Nanded, her versionunderwent change.By then, it appears that quite a few relativeshad already seen and met her, yet, there is no reference toharassment over money for motorcycle in her statement at Nanded.However, the version underwent further alteration and improvementas claimed by Kevalabai.::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 01:19:56 :::::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 01:19:56 :::14 CRI.APPEAL - 43-2002-JUDGMENTThe witness - other son-in-law of Kevalabai - PW 1, hasnot supported the prosecution and has not stated anything aboutthe cause of death or for that matter, any statement having beenmade to him or that him being aware of harassment caused toSavita.::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 01:19:56 :::::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 01:19:56 :::15 CRI.APPEAL - 43-2002-JUDGMENTApart from the inconsistencies in the dying declarationsand in the evidence, there is stark absence of examination ofproper persons during the course of investigation as well as in thecourt.None of the neighbouring persons, who may have beenimmediately present on the scene after the incident, has beenexamined.Savita in her statements had referred to that theneighbouring persons had poured water on her while she had litherself.The evidence, to quite a large extent, shows that it isaccused no.2, who had taken Savita to hospital at Bhokarimmediately after the incident and from there to Nanded.Theother prosecution witnesses have thereafter arrived at Nanded.Apart from mother and maternal uncle of deceased noone has imputed any allegations about harassment over demand ofmoney.As a matter of fact, brother-in-law of deceased Savita, whohappens to be husband of her other sister, who has been examineddoes not speak at all about any harassment being caused to thedeceased by her husband or mother-in-law.As a matter of fact,the husband himself had informed him about burning of Savita.There is no independent evidence available in respect ofharassment being caused to Savita.It does not appear that anyperson who might have been there after the incident, had informedanything to mother of deceased and her maternal uncle or the ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 01:19:56 ::: 16 CRI.APPEAL - 43-2002-JUDGMENTsister or brother-in-law.::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 01:19:56 :::Although, during the investigation, Kevalabaipurportedly had passingly referred to that accused harassed Savitaover her character, yet, there is no reference to the same in herexamination in the court.Kevalabai has referred to that mother-in-law of Savita had been receiving pension and was a retiredemployee and had received huge amount by way of pensionarybenefits.No kerosene traces were noticed on the seizedclothes of the accused.Mother-in-law appears to be a retired employee and acouple of years before had received sumptuous pensionary benefits.Deceased Savita appears to have led ahappy matrimonial life for about 7 years and had been carrying for5 months while the incident had occurred.Credibility of the dying declarations, in thecircumstances, gets considerably damaged and lose out on efficacy, ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 01:19:56 ::: 17 CRI.APPEAL - 43-2002-JUDGMENTconclusively.Appreciation by the Additional Sessions Judge, insuch a case of the evidence, placing reliance on the dyingdeclarations, does not appear to be sustainable.::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 01:19:56 :::In view of aforesaid, with such quality of evidence, itdoes not appear that accusations against and the roles imputed toappellants have any sustainable support.Criminal Appeal is, therefore, allowed.Impugned judgment and order dated 08-01-2002passed by IInd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded inSessions Case no. 132 of 1999, therefore, is set aside.Bail bondsof the appellants stand cancelled.Appeal against appellant no.1 is already disposed of asabated.Appellant no.1 - Dwarkabai W/o Kashiram Pitlewad isacquitted of the offences punisahble under section 302 r/w.34 ofthe Indian Penal Code.Appellant no. 2 - Kishor S/o KashiramPitlewad is acquitted of the offences punishable under section 302r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 498-A of theIndian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 01:19:56 :::::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 01:19:56 :::18 CRI.APPEAL - 43-2002-JUDGMENTSince Shri G.D. Jain, Advocate was appointed by thisCourt as amicus curiae to defend the case of appellants, his feesquantified at Rs.10,000/-, be paid to him by High Court LegalServices Sub-Committee at Aurangabad.::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 01:19:56 :::
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
65,330,902 |
The relief sought for in this petition is to quash the entire records in C.C.No.31 of 2018, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirukovilur, Villupuram District .It is the case of the defacto complainant that she was not able to bear a child and therefore she was being continuously tortured and harassed by A2 to A7 in the matrimonial home.It is the further allegation that on account of the torture meted out by her, she was sent back to her parental home.On 25.10.2016, the defacto complainant and her family members came to the matrimonial home for taking back their house hold articles.On that day, a quarrel ensued in which both sides attacked each other.Therefore, on the complaint of Jarin, a case was registered in Arakandanallur Police Station in Crime No.490 of 2016 under Sections 147, 148, 294 (b), 323, 324, 506 (i) of IPC read with Section 4 of TN Prohibition of Harrassment of Women Act, 2002 by the police against the in-laws of the defacto complainant.Similarly, on the counter complaint of Thagi Rafi, the Arakandanallur Police registered a counter case in Crime No.491 of 2016 on 26.10.2016, under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 506(i) IPC on 26.10.2016 against Jarin and her family members.Thus two cases were registered and investigated separately by Arakandanallur Police Station.Thereafter, Jarin approached the All Women Police Station, Thirukoilur and lodged a complaint based on which, a case in Crime No.21 of 2016 was registered on 05.12.2016 and after completing the investigation, the police have filed a charge Sheet in C.C.No.21 of 2016 before the Judicial Magistrate, Thirukoilur, for the offences under Section 498(A), 294(b) and 506(i) IPC against the accused 1 to 7, challenging which A1 to A6 are before this Court.5. Heard the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) for the respondents.He further submitted that for the incident that took place on 25.10.2016, already two FIRs have been registered in Crime No.490 & 491 of 2016 and therefore the present charge sheet which also speaks of the incident that took place on 25.10.2016 deserves to be quashed.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) refuted the contention.This Court considered the rival submissions.Though the law mandates that a person cannot be punished twice for the same offence, yet this question will arise only during the trial in C.C.No.31 of 2018 and cannot be a ground to quash the entire proceedings.However, as the accused 3 to 5 are being ladies, in the interest of justice, their presence before the Trial Court is dispensed with.Accordingly, this Quash Application is dismissed, with a further direction that A3, A4 and A5 shall appear before the Trial Court for collecting the charge sheet under Section 207 Cr.P.C , for answering charges, at the time of questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and at the time of passing judgment.The A3, A4 and A5 shall file an affidavit of undertaking, before the Trial Court that they will not dispute their identity; that the counsel named by them in the affidavit will cross-examine the prosecution witnesses on the day they are examined-in-chief as held by the Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab, [2015 (1) MLJ (Crl.) 288] and that they will not adopt dilatory tactics.If they adopt dilatory tactics, the trial Court can insist on their presence for other hearings.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.05.04.2018vum/avr P.N.PRAKASH,J,vum/avrTo1.The Judicial Magistrate, Thirukovilur, Villupuram DistrictThe Inspector of Police, All women Police Station, Thirukovilur, Villupuram District.3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.O.P.No.10723 of 2018& Crl.M.P.Nos.5487 & 5488 of 201805.04.2018
|
['Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
65,339,065 |
Shri Yogesh Kumar Chaurasiya, learned counsel for the complainant/objector.This is first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.As per prosecution story, on 16/12/2017, the prosecutrix aged about 16 years and 4 months has gone from her house and thereafter, she did not return.During investigation, the prosecutrix was recovered on 16/07/2020 from the possession of the applicant/accused and she disclosed that the applicant kidnapped her and committed sexual intercourse with her.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecutrix is a major lady aged about 19 years; whereas the applicant/accused is a youth of aged about 26 years.The prosecutrix was having love affairs with the applicant/accused, therefore, she solemnized marriage with the applicant and now is blessed with one child.During investigation, the statement of the prosecutrix has been recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C., wherein she stated that used to love with the applicant/accused, therefore, she had gone with the applicant/accused at her own accord and solemnized marriage with him and she is blessed with one child.At this time, due to outbreak of pandemic "COVID-19", Signature SAN Not Verified Digitally signed by Santosh Kumar Tiwari Date: 2020.09.10 16:58:26 IST 2 MCRC-29362-2020 the proceedings of the trial Court is withheld.Conclusion of trial will take considerable time.There is no chance of applicant absconding a n d tampering with the evidence, if he be released on bail.The applicant is ready to furnish bail, as per the order, abiding with all conditions imposed by the Court.On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Per-contra, learned Panel Lawyer opposes the bail application and prayed for its rejection.Learned counsel for the complainant/objector opposes the application by contending that the family members of the applicant/accused stopped the parents of the prosecutrix to meet with the prosecutrix.It is directed that applicant-Mukesh be released on bail subject to furnishing a personal bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount t o the satisfaction of the learned JMFC concerned or trial Court for his appearance before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.It is directed that the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C. In view of the outbreak of 'Corona Virus disease (COVID-19)' the applicant shall also comply the rules and norms of social distancing.Further, in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Signature SAN Not Court in suo motto W.P.No.1/2020, it would be appropriate to issue Verified Digitally signed by Santosh Kumar Tiwari Date: 2020.09.10 16:58:26 IST 3 MCRC-29362-2020 the following direction to the jail authority :-The Jail Authority shall ensure the medical examination of the petitioner by the jail doctor before his release.The petitioner shall not be released if he is suffering from 'Corona Virus disease'.For this purpose appropriate tests will be carried out.With the aforesaid directions, the M.Cr.
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
6,534,456 |
The said orders are also under challenge.CRL.M.C.2790/2000 Page 1 of 5CRL.M.C.2790/2000 Page 1 of 5The complainant alleged that the petitioner got his professional service, guidance and consultancy to get clear 11 FDRs and executed agreement dated 22.07.1991 promising to pay 5% of the net amount realised/ settled in US dollars.He further alleged that after execution of the GPA in his favour, he had correspondence with BCCI, Bombay as well as with RBI.He also filed Suit No.725/1993 in this Court and got the necessary relief.He incurred necessary expenses.In between, KIFCO, Kuwait filed a separate suit against the petitioner in Kuwait for recovery of loan extended to him and got a decree of 3,27,500 Kuwait Dinars.KIFCO could not get their loss/ decree realised and settled the dispute with the petitioner.Later on, he came to know that the said settlement was for US Dollars 5 lacs and it was to be paid in instalments.Arvind Kumar Gupta, accused's counsel filed letter dated 27.03.1997 in this Court.Due to false misrepresentation, he was deprived of his dues and wrongful loss to the tune of ` 19.75 lacs was caused to him.Vide order dated 20.07.2000, the revision petition was also dismissed.CRL.M.C.2790/2000 Page 2 of 5CRL.M.C.2790/2000 Page 2 of 5Vide impugned order dated 11.11.1998, the Trial Court summoned the petitioner under Section 420 IPC.Contents of the complaint reveal that the dispute between the parties was primarily of civil nature.The complainant was aggrieved that he was not given/ paid his entire dues/ professional fee.It has come on record that the complainant had filed a Civil Suit No.216/1997 (New No. S-363/1998) for Rendition of Accouts/ Recovery against Mohinder Pal Singh Sahni (petitioner), SBI Commercial and International Bank and Kuwait International Finance Company, Kuwait.The complainant did not mention that the Civil Suit filed by him was dismissed for non- prosecution.The complainant had already settled the dispute regarding payment of professional fee for a sum or ` 4.25 lacs.He himself admitted that pursuant to the said settlement, he was given cheque for a sum of ` 1 lac as part payment.Subsequently, two cheques for a sum of ` 3.25 lacs were given to him by Babli, accused's brother-in-law which were dishonoured on presentation.The complainant instituted proceedings under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act and also filed criminal CRL.M.C.2790/2000 Page 3 of 5 complaints for forged signatures of the accused on the cheques and got registered FIRs.There was no cogent evidence/ materials to infer that due to the representations/ agreement executed between the parties, the complainant was entitled to ` 19.27 lacs and he suffered wrongful loss.Contrary to that, the petitioner instituted a suit in this Court for damages for retaining 40,000 shares received by the complainant as 'attorney'.The remedy available under Civil Law cannot be permitted to be converted in criminal proceedings to put pressure upon the other party.It is relevant to note that complainant opted to withdraw Civil Suit No.556/1997 for Rendition of Accounts by moving application under Section 151 C.P.C. when it was fixed for argument on the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.The complainant also did not pursue complaint case under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act.CRL.M.C.2790/2000 Page 3 of 5CRL.M.C.2790/2000 Page 4 of 5In the light of above discussion, the impugned order dated 11.11.1998 cannot be sustained and is set aside.The complaint case and the proceedings arising out of it are quashed.The petition is accordingly allowed.Pending applications also stand disposed of.(S.P.GARG) JUDGE MAY 30, 2013 tr CRL.M.C.2790/2000 Page 5 of 5CRL.M.C.2790/2000 Page 5 of 5
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
65,346,000 |
It is alleged by the victim Ravindra Shivhare that the accused Kalu assaulted him by a sword and therefore, an injury was caused in his hand.However, looking to the MLC report, it appears that the sword was not actually sharp and a lacerated wound was caused to the victim Ravindra Shivhare therefore, it shall be presumed that the sword was not so sharp and it may not be considered as a sharp cutting weapon.Consequently, it will be considered as a hard and blunt object.Under such circumstances, prima facie, the offence under Section 325 of the IPC may constitute but the offence under Section 326 of the IPC shall not made out against the applicants.The Additional Sessions Judge has committed an error of law in framing of charges while considering the offence of to be under Section 326 of the IPC.On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the present revision filed by the applicants namely Kalu @ Gaurav and others is hereby allowed.The order dated 8.2.2013 passed by the trial Court is hereby set aside.However, it is made clear that if the trial has been proceeded against the applicants sufficiently i.e. if 4-5 prosecution witnesses have been examined then, present order would not be effective and trial Court is permitted to continue with the trial in that case.(N.K. GUPTA) JUDGE pnkj
|
['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
65,352,626 |
5.The petitioner was arrested on 21.02.2020 and he is in incarceration for 124 days.The Respondent Police have not filed final report till date.The provision gives due recognition to the personal liberty”.(a) Accordingly, the Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on executing his own bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), before the Superintendent of the concerned prison, in which the Petitioner has been confined and thereafter on his release;(b) the Petitioner shall execute two sureties for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each, before the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate,http://www.judis.nic.in 3/7 Crl.O.P. No. 7715 of 2020 Saidapet within 15 days from the date of lifting of the lockdown and the commencement of the Court’s normal functioning, failing which the bail granted by this Court shall stand dismissed automatically;The Petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 21.02.2020 in Crime No. OCU-I, Cr. No. 2 of 2020, which was registered by the Respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 409,420, 465, 468, 471 r/w 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, seeks bail.http://www.judis.nic.in 1/7 Crl.O.P. No. 7715 of 2020He would submit that the investigation is pending, final report has not been filed and would oppose for grant of bail.4.Heard both sides.(c) the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the learned Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar Card or Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity;(d) the Petitioner shall report before the Respondent Police as and when required for interrogation.(e) the Petitioner has to furnish the correct permanent address as well as temporary address at Chennai along with mobile number to the Investigating Officer and to the concerned Court.(f) the Petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature;(j) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is ordered.24.06.2020 ay Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking orderThe XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.http://www.judis.nic.in 5/7 Crl.O.P. No. 7715 of 2020http://www.judis.nic.in 6/7 Crl.O.P. No. 7715 of 2020 A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.ay Crl.O.P. No. 7715 of 2020 Dated: 24.06.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 7/7
|
['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
65,357,506 |
Original accused no.1 - Kiran, who is appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 592 of 2014, original accused no.2 - Suresh, who is appellant no.2 in Criminal Appeal No.745 of 2014, original accused no.4 - Dumya alias Lakhan alias Inamdar Bhosale, who is appellant in ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:45 ::: 4 criapl583-2014-group Criminal Appeal No. 583 of 2014 and original accused no.5 - Santosh, who is appellant in Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2015, were convicted for the offence punishable under section 3(1)(ii) of the MCOC Act r/w section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.Each of them were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,00,000/- each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years, each.::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:45 :::Original accused no.6 - Kishor, who is appellant no.1 in Criminal Appeal no.745 of 2014 and original accused no.7 - Appa, who is appellant in Criminal Appeal No.584 of 2014, were convicted for the offence punishable under section 3(1)(ii) of the MCOC Act r/w section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years each and to pay fine of Rs.5,00,000/- each, in default, they were directed to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years each.Original accused no.1, 2, 4 and 5, as detailed above, were also convicted for the offence punishable under section 3(2) of the MCOC Act r/w.Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.They were sentenced to suffer ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:45 ::: 5 criapl583-2014-group rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years each and to pay fine of Rs.5,00,000/- each, in default, they were directed to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years each.::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:45 :::Original accused no.6 and 7, as detailed above, were also convicted for the offence punishable under section 3(2) of the MCOC Act r/w.Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years each and to pay fine of Rs.5,00,000/- each, in default, they were directed to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years each.Original accused no.1,2, 4 and 5, as detailed above, were convicted for the offence punishable under section 3(4) of the MCOC Act r/w.120-B of the Indian Penal Code.They were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years each and to pay fine of Rs.5,00,000/- each, in default, they were directed to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years each.::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:45 :::were also convicted for the offence punishable under section 3(4) of the MCOC Act r/w.Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.Original accused no.3 was absconding and, therefore, the trial as regards him was separated.Aggrieved by the various convictions and sentences, as detailed above, the appellants have preferred the present appeals.For the sake of convenience, all the appellants would be termed as the accused in the serial as they stood in the chargesheet framed by the trial Court.The prosecution case would reveal that on 18 th April, 2009, at village Bhada, District - Latur ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:45 ::: 7 criapl583-2014-group post-midnight, dacoity has occurred.Sojrabai Gaikwad.The house-breaking and theft were also noted in the house of one Lochanbai Sarvade and one Mallikarjun Swami.Further one motorcycle, each of Yogesh Shivankar and Padmakar Chincholkar were also taken away by the dacoits.As per the FIR of PW1 - Sojrabai, there was Satyanarayan puja and jagran gondhal function in her house in the said night.The same was over by 10.00 pm.In the night at about 2.00 am, as her she-goats started bleating, she awoke and found that 4 unknown persons were in her house.One of them was carrying tin box of valuables.She therefore shouted as "thief thief" ("pksj pksj").One of the dacoits pushed her away and all the 4 started running away towards the field in front of her house.Upon hearing her shouts, her husband PW8 -Vishnu Gaikwad, her son - PW2 - Revnath, Nagnath and other neighbours started chasing those dacoits.After some time, however, PW2 - Revnath, Nagnath and Shivdas as well as her husband PW8 - Vishnu were brought by the ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:45 ::: 8 criapl583-2014-group neighbours in injured condition as the dacoits had hit them while they were making an attempt to catch hold them.::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:45 :::Accused no.5 - Santosh Bhosale was, however, caught by the villagers in the nearby field red-handed.In the incident, three gold rings weighing 5 gm each, two mobile handsets of nokia company, one lady's wrist watch of titan make, totally valued at Rs.21,750/- were looted.From the house of PW4 - Lochanbai Sarvade, cash of Rs.10,000/-, three sarees, one pair of silver chain, gold marriage string and ear studs, totally valued Rs.15,000/- were looted.From the house of PW5 - Mallikarjun Swami, cash of Rs.5,000/- and gold ring weighing 5 gm, totally valued at Rs.10,000/- were looted.The two motorcycles, as detailed above were taken away.The FIR was filed by PW1 - Sojarabai.Accused no.5 - Santosh, apprehended by the villagers, was also handed over to the Police.He was, however, unable to identify any of the accused.PW 4 - Lochanbai and PW 5 - Mallikarjun Swami did not depose anything regarding identity of the present appellants.What thus can be gathered from this piece of evidence is that accused no.5 - Santosh was caught red-handed on the spot and accused no.1 - Kiran and accused no.2 - Suresh were identified by PW 2 - Ramannath.All the appellants in present five appeals were convicted by the learned Special Judge under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (for short, "MCOC Act"), Aurangabad in Special Cae No. 10 of 2009, by judgement and order dated 31st July, 2014, for the offences punishable under section 395 r/w.Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years.They were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years each and to pay fine of Rs.5,00,000/- each, in default, they were directed to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years each.All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.Since the appellants were under-trial prisoners, set-off as per the provisions of section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was granted.The dacoits had barged into the house of the complainant - PW1 -::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:45 :::PW13 - API - Nanasaheb Ubale of Bhada Police Station registered the crime and ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:45 ::: 9 criapl583-2014-group conducted the investigation in the case.The injured as well as accused no.5 - Santosh were sent for medical treatment at Government Hospital, Latur.The Investigating Officer carried further investigation like preparation of panchanama of spot of occurrence at three places.The necessary investigation of the seizure of the blood stained clothes was carried.From the person of accused no.5 - Santosh, two wrist watches, one bracelet, cash amount and mobile phones etc. were seized.::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:45 :::During further investigation and interrogation, the other accused came to be arrested.Either from the their persons certain valuables involved in the offence were recovered or on the basis of the statements made by them, the recovery has taken place.It appears that thereafter, the test identification parade was held (however, the prosecution has not examined the witnesses regarding the test identification parade).Since it was transpired that all the present appellants had earlier committed similar offences regarding the property in the past in organised manner, the Investigating Officer sent the proposal to the ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:45 ::: 10 criapl583-2014-group Special Inspector General of Police to seek his permission for registering the offence punishable under various sections of MCOC Act, as detailed above.Upon grant of permission, he added those sections of MCOC Act. The Investigating Officer thereafter handed over further investigation to Dy.S.P. Mr. Survase.::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:45 :::Upon registration of the crime for the offences under the provisions of MCOC Act, PW14 - Mr. Sanjay Latkar, the then Superintendent of Police, Latur, upon seeking necessary permission from his superior, gave direction to the then Sub Divisional Police Officer to carry further investigation.During his investigation, accused no.2 - Dumya Bhosale and accused no.6 - Kishor Bhosale voluntarily made confessional statements and after giving due time, the statements were recorded.Lateron, accused no.2 -Suresh Bhosale's confessional statement after taking due care was recorded.All these statements were forwarded for verification to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur.PW15 - Mr. Krishnakumar Itolikar, the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur has separately recorded their statements and thereafter the chargesheet came to be ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:45 ::: 11 criapl583-2014-group filed.::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:45 :::Before the learned Special Judge, in all 15 witnesses were examined which included the inmates of the house, the injured witnesses, as detailed above, respective panch witnesses, Medical Officer - PW 12 -Chandrashekhar Ramshette, Investigating Officers and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, as detailed above.The learned Special Judge found that the prosecution case has been fully proved and, therefore, the impugned order of conviction and sentence, as detailed supra came to be passed.The learned counsel for the respective appellants in each of the cases took me through the record of each of the case.They submitted that as per the complainant, only 4 persons had committed the offence.However, the prosecution has arrayed 7 accused persons.It was admitted by the complainant as well as other witnesses that there was darkness in the field and even the dacoits were masked.There are vague statements from some of the witnesses that there were 5-6 thieves.The property is not identified and no ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:45 ::: 12 criapl583-2014-group record regarding test identification parade was proved before the Court.There was no earlier crime committed by the accused persons in organised manner.Even in some of the crimes, the respective appellants were already acquitted at the time of invoking the provisions of MCOC Act or during pendency of the present appeals.::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:45 :::As regards accused no.4 - Dumnya, learned counsel submitted that as per the prosecution case, one goldsmith has produced the golden ornaments on the statement that this accused had handed over the said ornaments to him.The said goldsmith, however, could not be examined as he has died during pendency of the trial.In the alternative, it was submitted on behalf of the appellants that the sentences imposed by the learned Special Judge are harsh.The appellants are behind the bars for a period of more than 5-6 years and, therefore, it was submitted that the appellants be released upon sentencing them for the period of ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:45 ::: 13 criapl583-2014-group imprisonment already undergone by them.::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:45 :::On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. submitted that though the witnesses have admitted that there was darkness in the field and initially the dacoits were masked, it is to be noted that the injured inmates of the house as well as the villagers went in search for the dacoits.Even one of the dacoits was caught red-There was physical fight between the dacoits and the injured witnesses.In the circumstances, there could not have been any mask later-on and because of the physical contact between the witnesses and the accused, there was no difficulty in identifying them in the Court.It was further submitted by the learned A.P.P.that though the fact of holding test identification parade is not proved from the mouth of the Executive Magistrate, who has conducted the same or the panch witnesses, identification has been amply established as the witnesses have identified all the appellants in the witness box.They had no axe to grind against the appellants as they were not knowing the appellants earlier.Further there was a recovery of the valuables ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:45 ::: 14 criapl583-2014-group looted in the incident, either from the persons of some of the appellants or recovery of those articles on the basis of the statements made by the respective appellants.In the circumstances, it was submitted that all the appeals be dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:45 :::As regards the sentences, it was submitted that the evidence on record would show that as three persons were injured, not only the dacoity was committed at three places and two motorcycles were taken away but also three persons were also injured by the appellants in the incident and hence it was submitted that no leniency is required to be shown to the appellants by interfering in the sentences awarded by the learned Special Judge.On the basis of above material on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, the following points arise for my determination :-I. Whether the prosecution has proved that the present appellants along with the absconding accused had entered into criminal conspiracy to commit dacoity at ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:45 ::: 15 criapl583-2014-group villager Bhada and accordingly, committed dacoity at 3 places in the village in the night of 18th April, 2009 ?::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:45 :::Whether the prosecution has further proved that the appellants have committed the dacoity by using deadly weapons like Jambiya and caused grievous heart to injured Revannath and ig his family members ?Whether the prosecution has further proved that the present appellants have committed offence as a part of the organized crime by making preparation for commission of organized crime being the members of organized crime syndicate ?My findings to the above points are in the affirmative.The appeals are therefore, dismissed for the reasons to follow.::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:45 :::PW 1 - Sojarabai, PW 2 - Revannath and PW 8 -PW 1 - Sojarabai is the complainant.She gave the details of the occurrence.During her cross-examination, she admitted that there was darkness in the field and the dacoits had masked their faces.It is, however, to be noted that the said witness has not identified any of the accused and has identified gold rings which were seized from the goldsmith, who has unfortunately died before the trial could begin.PW 2 - Revannath who was injured while catching the dacoits, has identified accused no.1 - Kiran and accused No. 2 - Suresh.It was argued that there was delay in holding the test identification parade.However, since we have no evidence regarding holding of the test identification parade, but only this witness stating that test identification parade was held, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of this witness since he was injured in the incident.::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:45 :::PW 12 - Chandrashekhar Ramshette, the Medical Officer of Primary Health Centre, Bhada, has deposed about the injuries to PW 8 - Vishnu and PW 2 - Revannath as well as his brothers - Nagnath and Shivdas.All the injury certificates were proved by him at Exhibit 117 toThere was no serious challenge to his testimony ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:45 ::: 18 criapl583-2014-group before the trial Court.::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:45 :::PW 7 - Jalindar Rathane was the panch witness to the memorandum-cum-seizure panchnama of the articles, as regards accused no.6 Kishor.According to him, on 10th May, 2009, while the said accused was in custody made a statement before him that he was ready to point out the place where the mobile involved in the offence was hidden by him.He thereafter led the police and the panch witness to his house at village Tirth.There, from one tin box, he recovered a mobile of NOKIA make and two pieces of broken SIM card.The said articles were identified by this witness in the Court.The property was identified by PW 1 - Sojarabai as belonging to her.PW 9 - Nandu Agalave was the panch witness to the fact of seizure of recovery of Hero Honda motorcycle from accused no.4 - Dumya.PW 10 - Kishore Joshi deposed that he along with another panch - Kaka Bansode were called at the police station.Accused no.4 - Dumya, in his presence, ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:45 ::: 19 criapl583-2014-group made a statement that he would produce the dagger (Jambiya) used in the offence and accordingly, led the police party to his house and therefrom, recovered the said Jambiya.The said Jambiya was identified by the witness in the Court.::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:45 :::PW 11 - Suresh Kunjir has deposed that from the shop of one Tapase goldsmith, in their presence three gold rings, two gold marriage strings and one small ear-ring of child were seized.The said goldsmith Tapase, however, died during the pendency of trial.PW 13 - API Nanasaheb Ubale has deposed about the investigation carried by him and the seizure of the property etc. According to him, during interrogation with accused no.4 - Dumya, he got the information that he had sold the ornaments looted during the dacoity to goldsmith Tapase and therefore, he seized the ornaments from goldsmith and recorded his statement.He further deposed that on 7th September, 2009 the test identification parade of accused Kishor Bhosale and accused Dumya Bhosale was conducted by Tahsildar-cum-::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:45 :::20 criapl583-2014-group Executive Magistrate.PW 14 - Sanjay Lathkar, the then Superintendent of Police, Latur has deposed about recording of confessional statements of the relevant accused, as detailed above, after taking all necessary precautions as provided by law, at Exhibit 196 and Exhibit 201, respectively.There is nothing on record to disbelieve the version of this Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police that the respective appellants have voluntarily made the confessional statements.It is true that the learned APP in the trial Court failed to place the evidence regarding holding of the test identification parade, however, besides the said test identification parade there was volumenous evidence, though goldsmith Tapase has died before his ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:45 ::: 21 criapl583-2014-group deposition could be recorded.We have the additional substantive evidence as detailed supra against said Dumya.::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:45 :::As regards the conviction of the respective appellants for the offences punishable under the provisions of MCOC Act, the learned counsel for accused No.1 Kiran, accused No. 4 Dumya and accused No. 7 Appa placed before me charts showing the status of pending cases against the respective appellants.The learned counsel for the appellants relied on the ratio laid down in the cases of "Altaf Ismail ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:45 ::: 22 criapl583-2014-group Sheikh Vs.The State of Maharashtra and others", reported in 2005 CRI.L.J. 3584 and "Sherbahadur Akram Khan and others Vs.::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:45 :::In the case of "Altaf Ismail Sheikh Vs.The State of Maharashtra and others" (cited supra), the prosecution has alleged that the petitioner Altaf Ismail was involved in the organized crimes.The approval for recording of FIR was in relation to malpractices comprised of replacement of answer-sheets and forgery of signatures of invigilators and no other activities.However, the original complaint was not in relation to malpractices in selection process.::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:45 :::In the circumstances, the following order.All the present five criminal appeals are hereby dismissed.[M.T. JOSHI] JUDGE npj/criapl583-2014-group ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:45 :::::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:45 :::
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
65,359,706 |
Heard on I.A. No.8382/2017, which is an application u/S.389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of the custodial sentence passed against appellant Raju Gir.This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 19.04.2017 passed by First Session Judge, Sehore (M.P) in Special S.T.No.62/2016 whereby learned Judge found appellant guilty for the offences punishable under Section 363, 366 (A) of IPC and Section 5 (L) read with section 6 of Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 read with Section 376 (2) (n) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo 4 years of RI with fine of Rs. 2,000/-, 7 years of RI with fine of Rs.5,000/- and 10 years RI with fine of Rs.15,000/- respectively with default stipulation.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is clearly proved from the statements of prosecution witnesses that the prosecutrix was major at the time of the incident and went with appellant on her own will.The trial Court without appreciating the evidence properly wrongly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences.Appellant is in jail, Hearing of appeal will take time.So jail sentence of appellant awarded by the trial court be suspended and appellant be released on bail since the hearing of this appeal would likely to take long time.On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that from the prosecution evidence it is clearly proved that the prosecutrix was minor at the time of incident and appellant abducted her and raped with her.Learned Trial Court did not commit any mistake on finding the appellant guilty of the aforesaid offences and prayed for rejection of the application.This court has gone through the record and arguments put forth by the counsels of both the parties.But Gulab Gir (PW-4) who proved the entry of scholar register Exhibit-P/2 has admitted in his cross- examination that at the time of admission of prosecutrix her father had not produced any document regarding her date of birth.It also appears from his statement that in the scholar register the date of birth of prosecutrix was entered only on assumption.The father of the prosecutrix also admitted in his cross-examination that he did he remember the the exact date of birth of the prosecutrix and his other children.So looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on merits the I.A. No. 8382/2017 is allowed and it is directed that the execution of the jail sentence alone passed against the appellant shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal and he be released on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 09.10.2017 and on such further dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry during the pendency of this appeal.List the matter for final hearing in due course.C.C. as per rules.(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE VS
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
653,624 |
JUDGMENT S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.In this appeal by special leave, the appellants have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life for having committed the murder of deceased Sharnappa.The prosecution case has been detailed in the judgments of the Sessions Court and that of the High Court.Briefly put, the occurrence appeared to have arisen out of some differences between the deceased and the appellants, who are his first cousins.A few years ago the deceased is said to have eloped with the wife of the accused Revappa and was trying to induce the wife of the other appellant also.This is suggested to be the immediate motive for the murder.According to the prosecution, on the date of occurrence, when the deceased went to his cattle-shed with some chanted threads, he asked P.W. 3 Shiv Shankar to put the threads around bullocks.While he was returning to the field he was accosted by the two appellants who jointly attacked him with axes causing very serious injuries on his head and neck, as a result of which the deceased died.A report was immediately lodged at the Police Station before Police Patil and after due investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants.The defence was that the appellants were innocent and falsely implicated due to enmity.The central evidence against the appellants consists of the testimony of P.W. 3 Shiv Shankar, who is the main eyewitness in the case.His evidence is corroborated by P.W. 8 Dharmanna Basvant and P.W. 9 Sangappa Gursidappa and P.W. 11 Dharmanna Birajdar, who saw the accused running away immediately after the occurrence.We have gone through the medical report, which fully corroborates the joint assault made by the appellants on the deceased.Courts below have carefully appreciated the evidence on record and have come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.The Sessions Judge, however, thought that the case made out by the prosecution was one under Section 325, I.P.C. and he accordingly convicted the accused under that section.Lastly, it was argued that there was some discrepancy in the evidence in that some of the witnesses have said that the occurrence took place while the complainant was returning from his field to his home.These are very minor discrepancies which have been considered by the courts below.As both the appellants made a joint attack on the deceased causing his death, Sections 302/34, I.P.C. clearly apply to this lease.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
65,364,813 |
The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is running a business in the name and style of M/s.Dolphin Technologies at Ambattur.On 08.05.2020, due to Corona Lockdown, the defacto complainant and his wife were staying in their house.On that date, at about 11.00 p.m., the petitioner (A2) and the other accused Devkumar (A1) came and knocked the door of the defacto complaint's house.Further, they assaulted the defacto complainant at knife point took the mobile phone and the Two Wheeler bearing Registration No.TN 12 S 6203 pertaining to him.The defacto complainant gave a complaint on 09.05.2020 at 12.00 noon.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one Devkumar(A1) is friend of the petitioner.A1 has lent a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the defacto complainant.When A1 demanded the defacto complainant to return the said amount, he refused to pay the loan amount.It is the motive of the defacto complainant to avoid repayment of the loan amount.http://www.judis.nic.in 2/6 CRL.O.P.No.7902 of 2020 Hence, a false complaint has been lodged by the defacto complainant against the petitioner and the other accused after 13 hours of the occurrence.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that A1 is the main accused and the the petitioner (A2) has no previous case.(a) the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the Cancer Institute (WIA), (Regional Cancer Centre), Adyar, Chennai – 600 020 Andhra Bank, Madhya Kailash Branch (SB A/C.No.149710011005477) and on such deposit, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on executing his own bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) before the Superintendent of the concerned prison, in which the petitioner has been confined on his release;12.06.2020 Vsi2 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/Nohttp://www.judis.nic.in 4/6 CRL.O.P.No.7902 of 2020 To:The Inspector of Police, Thiruninravur Police Station, Chennai.vsi2 CRL.O.P.No.7902 of 2020 12.06.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 6/6The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 09.05.2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 397 and 506 (ii) of IPC on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.(b) the petitioner shall execute two sureties for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each, before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 3/6 CRL.O.P.No.7902 of 2020 date of lifting of lock down and commencement of regular functioning of Court below, failing which the bail granted by this Court shall stand dismissed automatically;(c) the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the learned Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar Card or Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity;(d) the petitioner shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation;(e) the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature;(f) the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;(g) the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;(h) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560].(i) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is ordered.The Judicial Magistrate No.2, Tiruvallur.The Superintendent, Central Prizon, Puzhal, Chennai.http://www.judis.nic.in 5/6 CRL.O.P.No.7902 of 2020 M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
|
['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
49,561,298 |
This is the third bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed for grant of bail to the applicant who has been arrested on 06/06/2017 in connection with Crime No.111/2010 for offences registered under Sections 366, 376, 506B of IPC, police station Lakhnadon, District Seoni.Apart from it, the applicant had remained absconded for 6 years, therefore, merely on the ground that material witnesses have been examined and looking to the statement of the prosecutrix and her father, there is reasonable possibility of acquittal of the applicant, he can't be released on bail.Hence this application is also rejected.However, looking to the period of custody of the applicant, learned trial court is directed to make all efforts to conclude the trial as early as possible preferably within three months.A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial court concerned for information and compliance.Certified copy as per rules.(J. P. GUPTA) JUDGE TARUN Digitally signed by TARUN tarun KUMAR SALUNKE DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MP, KUMAR ou=GOVERNMENT, postalCode=482002, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=19a265290eb7f6307d4a SALUN 64122959af56e05e3d1d609e0fd 1051d7f6331251f99, serialNumber=0e7afab970b523f c5e1fd370da00347dabfa96b26c bffd08773a847c03d3115c, KE cn=TARUN KUMAR SALUNKE Date: 2020.02.24 13:51:59 +05'30'
|
['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.
|
495,653 |
A. The incident giving rise to the present case has its genesis inmid-1996 when Melavalavu Village Panchayat, previously a ' GeneralConstituency', was declared to be Reserved for the Scheduled Caste people.Prior to that, Melavalavu village-Panchayat was in 'General Category' and onlyin the year 1996, the Government of Tamil Nadu notified it as a 'ReservedCategory' exclusively for the Scheduled Caste people.This change of categoryresulted in strained feelings between the members of the Scheduled Castes onthe one hand and Ambalakarar community on the other hand in Melavalavuvillage.During the Panchayat Elections in the year 1996, there was someprotest from Ambalakara community that SC (Scheduled Caste) people should not contest the elections.In the following incidents, some of the housesbelonging to the members of the Scheduled Caste were burnt down.Afterconciliation, election was conducted on 31.12.1996 and a SC candidate by name Murugesan (Deceased-1) was elected as President of Melavalavu Panchayat.However, he was not able to perform his duty freely and without fear.On30.6.1997, P.W.1 went to the Collector Office, Madurai.There, he met 1stdeceased Murugesan (President), 2nd deceased Mookan (Vice President), 5th deceased Chelladurai, 3rd deceased Sevagamoorthi, P.W.12 and others.P.W.1 was informed that they came there to claim compensation for the damages caused to the houses of 3 persons by fire.Since the Collector was not available,they left P.W.12 in the office to meet the Collector and rest of themincluding PW-1 were returning from Madurai to their village in K.N.R. Bus.En route, in Melur, P.Ws.2 and 3 got into the bus.At that time, A1, A2, A4,A5 and A6 also boarded the same bus.When the bus reached MelavalavuAgraharam Kallukadai at about 2.45 P.M., A-2 shouted at the driver PW.14 tostop the bus, hence, he stopped the bus.At that time, all the accused, ledby A.40, surrounded the bus with weapons.B. A1 cut 1st deceased Murugesan with Veecharuval on his right shouldersaying "what for you the presidentship and the compensation".The passengers,out of fear, ran away from the bus for safety.A-1 severed the head of 1stdeceased Murugesan and ran away towards west with the severed head.A-40 cut the 6th deceased Raja.A-5 cut the 5th deceased Chelladurai on his leftshoulder.A-6 cut the 3rd deceased Sevagamoorthy on his right side neck andleft ear.While the 2 nd deceased Mookan got down from the bus and rantowards east, A-4 cut him on the backside of his neck with a Pattaknife.Whenthe fourth deceased got down from the bus and ran towards west, A-3 cut him onhis neck and hand with Pattaknife.While P.Ws.1 to 3 attempted to run awayfrom the bus, A-16 cut PW-3 on his right cheek with Pattaknife.A-2 cut P.W.1on his right shoulder.The headless body of the 1stdeceased and bodies of the other deceased persons were lying on the road.P.Ws.1 to 3, the injured witnesses, ran away from the scene to Melavalavucolony.P.Ws.4 to 11 are also said to have witnessed the occurrence.P.W.1informed the villagers about the occurrence.Thereafter, P.Ws.1 to 3 went toMelur Government Hospital by Cycle.After taking first aid at Melur Hospital,all the 3 were sent to Madurai Rajaji Government Hospital for furthertreatment.C. P.W.47, Inspector of Police, Melur Police Station, on coming to know aboutthe occurrence at 5.30 P.M. on 30.6.1997, and also about admission of theinjured witnesses P.Ws.1 to 3 in Madurai Rajaji Government Hospital, proceededto the Hospital.He sentExpress F. I.R. to the Judicial Magistrate Court, Melur, went to place ofoccurrence at 8.20 P.M. and handed over copy of the F.I.R to P.W.50, DeputySuperintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Madurai.D. On instruction from the Special Cell, P.W.50-Deputy Superintendent ofPolice, District Crime Branch, took up investigation of the case by leadingthe Special Team.Observation mahazar-Ex.P-4 was prepared between 20.30 hours and 21-30 hours.Rough Sketch was prepared under Ex.M.Os.2 to 15 were recovered from the place of occurrence at 21.30 hours under mahazar-Ex.P-5.P.W.16 is the mahazar witness.Inquest over the body of D-1 was conducted byP.W.50 and Ex. P.92 is the inquest report.Inquest on D-2 was conducted by P.W.48 and thereport is Ex.Inquest on D-4 was conducted by P.W.48 and the inquestreport is Ex.Inquest on D-6 was conducted by P.W.45 and the inquestreport is Ex.Inquest on D-3 was conducted by P.W.48 and the inquestreport is Ex.During inquest, P.W.50 examined P. Ws.4, 5, 8, 9, 10 andObservation mahazar regarding the bus is Ex.M.O.30-bloodstainedstone was recovered from the Bus under mahazar Ex.E. P.W.21-Dr.Meyyalagan, attached to the Government Hospital, Madurai,conducted post-mortem on the dead bodies of D-6, D-1, D-4 and D-5 on 01-7-97.Exs.P-35, 37, 39 and 41 are the post-mortem certificates issued by him inrespect of the above deceased.P-43 and P-45 are the respective post-mortemcertificates.F. On 01.07.1997, at 2-30 P.M., P.W.50 arrested A-20, A-22, A-2 3, A-25,A-26, A-27 and A-39 and, in pursuance of their statements, M.Os.1, 31, 32, 33and 34 were recovered from the accused.He arrested A-28 on 3.7.97 at 00.30hours and recovered Aruval-M.O.35 and M.O.36 from him.A-13 was arrested on 13-7-97 at Anna Bus Stand, Madurai.On 21-7-97, A-1 and A-10 surrendered before Judicial Magistrate,Kulithalai.On 4-8-1997, A-11 and A-12 surrender ed before theJudicial Magistrate, Sivagangai, and M.Os.P.W.50 arrested A-8, A-14,A-35 and one Vadivelu on 25-8-1997 and recovered weapons-M.Os.49, 50 and 51 in pursuance of their statements.P.W.50 recovered Aruval (M.O.52) from him.A-33 wasarrested on 28-8-1997 at 1 8-30 hours and M.O.53 knife was recovered from him.A-36 was arrested on 01-9-1997 at 14.00 hours and M.O.54 aruval was recoveredfrom him.A-2 surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul on 26-8-9P.W.50 recovered M.O.55 pattaknife from A-2 on 3-9-97 at 15.20 hours.The prosecution party belongs to Adi-Dravidacommunity and the accused party belongs to Ambalakarar community.Often, there used to be skirmish and disputes between these two communities even fortrivial matters.On 30-6-1997, Murugesan (D1), accompanied by Mookan, Chelladurai,Sevagamoorthi, Nithyanandam, Pandiammal and Kanchivannan, went to the Collector's office at Madurai.When Murugesan (D-1) saw P.W.1, he told himthat he had come there to ask compensation for the three persons, who sufferedloss as their houses were burnt down at the time of the elections.When allof them went inside the Collector's office, the Collector was not available,hence, they left behind PW-12 Kanchivannan at the Collector's office andothers decided to return to the village.When they were about to return,Manoharan (A8) saw them and asked one Nithyanandam as to when they would return to the village, for which, the said Nithyanandam told that they aregoing in K.N.R bus.Immediately A-8 went towards the telephone booth.Murugesan (D-1) and other persons boarded the K.N.R bus.When the bus reached Melur, two other persons, namely, Kumar, P.W.2 and Chinnaiah, P.W.3, belonging to the Adi-Dravida community, boarded the bus.At that time, A-1(Alagarsamy), A-2 (Durai Pandi), A-5 (Manikandan), A-4 (Jothi) and A-6(Manivasagam) also boarded the same bus.P.W.1 identified all the above named 5 accused in the Court.At about 2.45 P.M., when the bus reached AgraharamKallukadai, A-2 threatened the driver to stop the bus and the bus was stopped.A-40, along with other accused, all belonging to Ambalakarar community,surrounded the bus.A-1 cut Murugesan (D1) telling him as to why they wantcompensation and further cut him on the right shoulder.The passengers in thebus, out of fear, ran helter-skelter for their lives.A-1 severed the head ofdeceased Murugesan and took it away. A-40 (Ramar) cut deceased Raja.A-5 Manikandan cut deceased Chelladurai. A-6 ( Manivasagam) cut deceasedSevagamoorthy on the right side of the neck and left ear.When theVice-President Mookan tried to escape, A-4 (Jothi) cut him on the back side ofhis neck with a pattaknife.This gruesome incident was seen by P.W.1 while hewas standing in the bus.When deceased Bhoopathy tried to escape, A-3(Ponnaiah) cut him on his legs and hands and when P.W.1 also tried to escape,he too was cut.A-16 ( Karanthamalai) cut Chinnaiah on the left cheek.A-2(Durai Pandi) cut P.W.1 on the right shoulder.A-19 (Tamilan) and A-29(Ashokan) cut P.W.2 Kumar.The headless body of Murugesan was found lying on the road along with the bodies of other deceased.P.W.1, on seeing thisscene, ran away from the occurrence place to his colony out of fear.In thecolony, he found P.Ws.3 and 2, Chinnaiah and Kumar.They explained theincident to the other residents of the colony and as per the advice of thevillagers, they went to the Melur Government Hospital by cycle through ashort-cut route.In the Melur hospital, they were given first aid andthereafter, sent to the Government Rajaji Hospital at Madurai by car.Theywere admitted in the Hospital for about one week as in-patients.The statement was read over andexplained to P.W.1, who accepted its correctness and signed the same.He further stated that one Karuppan, Kalayani, Mayavar andPeriyavar also witnessed the occurrence.Since all of them were threatened bythe accused they did not come out immediately to speak about the incident.As far as the overtacts are concerned, A-40 surrounded the bus with other accused.He furtherrepeated that A-1 asked Murugesan (deceased-1) as "why are you after posts"and so saying cut the head, severed it and ran away towards west, followed byother accused.P.W.23 is Dr. Venkatachalam.On 30-6-1997, while he was on duty asAssistant Duty Officer, Casualty Ward, P.W.3 came to him at about 4.50 p.m.for treatment.Originally, Melavalavu village Panchayat was ageneral constituency.In 1996, the Panchayat was declared to be reserved forthe SCs.They did not want amember of the Scheduled Caste community to become the President of theirvillage Panchayat and made efforts to prevent Scheduled Caste candidates frombecoming the Panchayat President and tried to make it a general constituencyagain.P.Ws.1, 47 and 49 depose about the events that followed in Melavalavusubsequent to the change in the nature of constituency, culminating in thegruesome and brutal beheading of D-1-Murugesan and murder of 5 other Scheduled Caste people.Their evidence would further show that when elections to theMelavalavu Panchayat were announced to be conducted, initially calling fornominations to be filed by Scheduled Caste candidates for Panchayat Presidentpost, due to the unilateral decision of the Ambalakarar community that noDalit should stand for election and threat, the Dalits refrained fromcontesting the elections.Thereafter, some Dalits including D-1, Murugesan, D-2 Bhoopathyand one Vaiyamkaruppan filed nominations.After the Dalits decided to contestthe elections, houses of D3 Sevagamurthy, P.W.12 Kancheevanam and one Pandiammal were burnt down.Due to fear, the Dalit candidates withdrew theirnominations, which led to postponement of the elections.On 10-12-1996, theelection dates were announced for the panchayat after it was made a reserveconstituency.D1, D3 and one Karuppan withdrew their nominations.9069 of 2005 in Crl.The Director General of Police,Mylapore, Chennai.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,District CrimeBranch, Madurai.All the above Criminal Appeals and the Criminal Revision Case ariseagainst the Common Judgment passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Salem, in Sessions Case No. 10 of 2001, convicting 17 out of 40 accused and acquitting23 accused.Criminal Appeal Nos. 803, 863 and 871 of 2001 are by A-1, A-3, A-4, A-5,A-7, A-8, A-9, A-11, A-12, A-13, A-14, A-15, A-18, A-20, A-21, A-22 and A-40,challenging their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 andSec.148 IPC, and the sentence of life imprisonment.R.C.No. 285 of 2001has been filed by one Kumar, an injured eye witness, examined as P.W.2, andtwo other eye witnesses, ie., P.Ws.5 and 9, as against the acquittal of 23accused, namely, A2, A6, A10, A16, A17, A19, A23, A24, A25, A26, A27, A28, A29, A30, A3 1, A32, A33, A34, A35, A36, A37, A38 and A39, from the charges levelled against each of them.M.P.No.9069 of 2005 in Crl.46945 of 2005 is a petition filed by P.W.2 and two others, seeking condonationof delay in filing the Revision, challenging the acquittal of A1, A3, A4, A5,A7, A8, A9, A11, A12, A13, A14, A15, A18, A20, A21, A22 and A40 from thecharges levelled against them.Hearrested A-6 on 4-10-97 at Naithampativilakku.The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 50, marked Exs.On the side of the defence, 2 witnesses were examinedas D.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs. D-1 to D-19 were marked.When questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accuseddenied having any complicity in the commission of the crime and also pleadedinnocence.The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Salem, onappreciation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, convicted 17 out of40 accused under Section 302 read with Sec.34 IPC and Section 148 IPC andsentenced them to undergo life imprisonment, and acquitted the remaining 23accused of all the charges.Questioning the conviction and sentence, theCriminal Appeals have been filed; and aggrieved by the acquittal of 23accused, the injured witnesses filed the Criminal Revision Case.However, theState has not preferred appeal against the acquittal of some of the accused.Heard Mr. B. Sriramulu, learned Senior Counsel for appellants inCriminal Appeal No. 803/2001; Mr. S. Ashok Kumar, learned Senior Counselfor appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 863/2001, for appellant in CriminalAppeal No. 871/2001; Mr. M. Balasubramanian for appellant in CriminalAppeal No. 871/2001; Mr. V. Gopinath, learned senior counsel for petitionerin Crl.R.C. No.46495/2005; and Mr.N.R.Chandran, learned Advocate General for Respondent/State.The points for consideration in the Criminal Appeals are:i) Whether the prosecution has proved the charges framed against Accused 1, 3,4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 20, 21, 22 and 40?.The following points have been urged by the learned Senior Counselappearing for the appellants:i) The origin and genesis of the occurrence was not brought out in the F.I.Rand the original F.I.R, which came into existence at the earliest point oftime, was suppressed by the prosecution to suit their convenience.For thatpurpose, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon Ex. D-19, the Report of theCollector to the Chief Minister, wherein, it is stated that as per thecomplaint of P.W.1, a case was registered in Crime No. 508/1997, on the fileof Melur Police Station, under Sections 147, 148, 324, 307 and 302 I.P.C.read with Section 3 (1) and (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against Duraipandi, Ambalam and 14 knownpersons.They also relied on Ex.D.13,Report of the Tahsildar to the District Collector as well as Ex. D-1, anaffidavit filed by P.W.1 before the High Court in a Writ Petition.In thesaid affidavit, at paragraph No.4, P.W.1 stated about the role of A-2 andothers in the crime.In para 5, it is stated that one Kannan chopped the headof Murugesan.Pointing out the above aspects, the learned Senior Counselwould argue that the original F.I.R., which contains the truthful events, wassuppressed and that, for the reasons best known to the police, all theappellants herein were roped in.ii) Secondly, by relying upon the evidence of P.W.47, it is contended that thecase was not immediately registered and that even though the court and thepolice station are in the same area, there was a delay of three hours inforwarding the F.I.R. to the Magistrate, which is fatal to the prosecutioncase.They also referred to the serial numbers in the F.I.R book andcontended that, in the absence of a particular order in which the relatedevents should follow each other in the F.I.R., it leads to a presumption thatthe original F.I.R. had been suppressed.Even though they ask ed for theF.I.R book, the same was not produced before the Court.iv) Fourthly, it is argued that since the witnesses to the recoveryturned hostile, the recovery made by the police could not be believed.v) Fifthly, it is pointed out that for some of the accused, only one witnessspeaks to about the overt act.In a case of this kind, the evidence of asingle witness will not be enough to base the conviction.Mr. N.R.Chandran, learned Advocate General, appearing for the State metall the contentions by placing relevant materials.Thereupon,elections were announced for the third time.This time also, the deceasedfiled his nomination.He was also given sufficient protection.Initially,the elections went on smoothly, but later, there was an ugly turn when peoplebelonging to Ambalakarar and Kallar communities seized the ballot boxes,because of which, the counting of votes could not be done and the electionswere cancelled.Thereafter, elections were announced for the fourth time inthis caste-dominated village.This time too, the deceased (D1) filed hisnomination and he won the election.Even though he took oath, he could notoccupy the post of Panchayat President in view of the stiff opposition fromcommunities other than those belong to Adi-Dravida community.They were alsoangry, because, in the ballot box seizure case, two persons, viz., A-3 & A-21,were convicted.The finding of the trial Court that there was no prior motive orintention to commit the offence is controverted by the evidence let in by theprosecution.It is the evidence of P.W.1 that A-8 Manoharan was in theCollector Office, Madurai, when Murugesan (D1) and others came to meet theCollector.A-1, A-2, A-4, A-5 and A-6 got into the bus at Melur in which thedeceased and P.Ws.1 to 3 were travelling.When the Bus reached MelavalavuAgraharam Kallukadai, A-2 shouted at the driver to stop the bus.When the buswas stopped, all the accused under the leadership of A-40 armed with weapons,surrounded the bus.They attacked D-1, the President; D-2, the VicePresident; other deceased persons and the injured witnesses, all belong to theScheduled Caste.The above sequence of events unequivocally establish that itis a premeditated and pre-planned attack on the unarmed victims.P.W.50, theInvestigating Officer, clearly stated that of the 40 accused, A-5, A-6, A-19,A-25, A-26, A-28, A-30 and A-40 were from surrounding villages and they belongto Ambalakarar community.All of them were armed with weapons as the otheraccused were.Thus, it is very clear that the incident arose as a sequel tothe reservation of the Panchayat exclusively for members of the ScheduledCaste and that the hostility of the other communities towards the SCcandidates contesting in the elections was not confined to Melavalavu alone.The fact that so many accused from other surrounding villages had come armedwith weapons, targeting the S.C President and other elders, clearly shows thatthe entire attack was pre-planned, premeditated and targeted at SCs.It is tobe noted that the bus was plying over the route, covering a long distance.However, the bus was stopped at the instance of A-2 at an unscheduled placeand it was surrounded immediately by the armed accused.From this, it isapparent that A-2 was clear and successful in executing a part of their plan,that is, to stop the bus.These clear sequence of events unerringly pointstowards the pre-planned nature of the attack.Added to this, P.Ws.14 and 1 3,the bus driver and conductor respectively, though turned hostile, have clearlytestified that the stopping was indeed unscheduled and that the occurrence hadtaken place at the time, date and place as put forward by the prosecution,thus, supporting the prosecution version on this aspect.In Ex.D-19, which isa report of the District Collector, Madurai, sent to the Chief Minister, FortSt.George, Chennai-9, it is stated that the election dispute was the motivefor the occurrence.He has to see the criticalityof the situation and act suitably.He also stated that A-19 (Tamilan) and A-27 (Sevagaperumal),cut his (P.W.2's) left middle finger, right hand and on the back side of theneck.Somehow, he and P.W.3 escaped and ran towards their col ony.P.W.1 Krishnan also came there and all the 3 of them went to the hospital by cycleand they were later taken to Rajaji Government Hospital at Madurai, where theyunderwent treatment for about one week as in-patients.Hecorroborates the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 as far as the occurrence isconcerned.Regarding the overt acts, according to him, A-1 (Alagsrsamy) cutMurugesan indiscriminately.When P.W.3 Chinnaiah tried to escape, A-16(Karanthamalai) cut on his right cheek.A-19 and A-27 cut P.W.2 Kumar andA-24 and A-6 cut deceased Sevagamoorthy.When P.W.3 went to his colony, he saw P.W.2 there with injuries and, at that time, P.W.1 Krishnan also camethere.All the three went to Melur Government Hospital by cycle and afterfirst aid, they were sent to the Government Hospital at Madurai, where, theywere admitted as in-patient for about a week.On the same day, P.W.47,Inspector of Police, Melur Police Station, came there and examined P.W.1,P.W.3 and others.He examined him.P.W.3 has stated that he was attacked by oneknown person on 30-6-1997 at about 3.15 p.m. He found two injuries on him andissued Ex.P-46-wound certificate.On the same day, at about 5 p.m., P.W.2 came to P.W.23 for treatment.As rightly pointed out, the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be rejected in toto.In the chief examination, P.W.1 has narrated the entire sequenceof the occurrence right from its inception.The original idea of committingthe murder could be seen from the evidence of P.W.1 which started on 30.6.1997at the Collector' s Office, Madurai, where A-8 asked Nithyanandam as to whenthe deceased and others would return to their village and after collecting thedetails, he rushed towards the telephone booth.It is not in dispute that on2-4-2001, P.W.1 was cross-examined by 3 defence counsel.The same was recorded and it runs to about 15 pages.During that time, nothing was broughtout by the defence to dispute the evidence of P.W.1 .On the contrary, he wasrecalled on 26-6-2001, i.e., after 2 = months, and only at that time, he wastreated as hostile witness.There is every likelihood of his being won overby the defence during this period of 2 = months and to answer this, thedefence is relying upon Ex. D-1, which is an affidavit filed by P.W.1 in awrit petition filed before this Court, wherein, he had stated that he has fearof the prosecution party.It cannot be accepted, because, theaffidavit/Ex.D-1 came to be filed only on 6.1.1999, whereas, the occurrencehad taken place on 30.6.1997, that is, about 1 = years after the occurrence.Hence, it is apparent that only at the behest of the defence, PW-1 had madesuch statement in the affidavit.It clearly shows that the accused party hadthreatened P.W.1 and obtained this affidavit.At the time ofcross-examination of P.W.1 by the defence on 2-4-2001, he stated that he wastaken forcibly and his signature was obtained under threat.He denied the suggestion put forward by the defencecounsel on behalf of A-7 and others that due to fear of Viduthalai Cheerithai,he is deposing against the accused.If the personal defence is correct thathe filed the affidavit on his own, he would have come forward to depose bothin the chief as well as cross examination about the details of the prosecutioncase in favour of the prosecution.Examining the evidence on record, the Supreme Court further held:"It is true that the first information report is not substantive evidence butthe fact remains that immediately after the incident and before there was anyextraneous intervention, P.W.4 went to the police station and narrated theincident.The first information report is a detailed document and it is notpossible to believe that the investigating officer imagined those details andprepared the document Ex.Even if their evidence isignored, there is other credible and reliable evidence to prove the caseagainst the accused persons.The accounts which were written on 30-6-1997 were not sent on the same day.His name is also mentioned in Ex. P-1 which hadcome into existence at the earliest point of time and reached the Magistrateon the same night.In the present case there is overwhelming evidence of several witnessesto establish the presence of A-27 at the occurrence site.Therefore,the elections were cancelled.On 28-12-1996, dates for the elections wereannounced for the second time.D-1 along with seven others filed theirnominations for the post of President.On the same day, there was rioting andbooth capturing in four places by the persons belonging to Ambalakarar andKallar community and the perpetrators (A3 and A21) were found guilty andpunished.On that date, elections were held as scheduled and the samewas contested by D1 and seven others.The deceased Murugesan won the election and D2Mookan was elected as Vice President.Deceased Murugesan was restrained from entering the panchayat office after the swearing in ceremony and themembers of the Ambalakarar community did not allow deceased Murugesan to function as the President of the Panchayat and fulfil his official duties.Itis in the background of violence-soaked history, filled with caste bitternessand hostility, the occurrence leading to the beheading of D1 Murugesan andmurder of 5 others took place.The evidence is clear that it was in order to terrorise the Dalitcommunity and prevent them from contesting elections, they were attacked bythe accused party and it occurred solely because they belong to a particularcommunity.What needs to be stressed is that both the Panchayat President and the Vice-President were specifically targeted and killed.Additionally, theother deceased also belong to the SC community.That apart, the injuredwitnesses are also from the same community.They are all members of theScheduled Caste and because they happened to be Dalits, they were targeted.Hence, the only reason for theattack on the victims is that they belong to the Scheduled Caste and no otherreason has even been suggested by the defence.The judgement of thetrial court suffers from non-application of mind and the trial court failed totake into consideration the reliable testimony and the material evidence onrecord.Again, as rightly pointed out, the act of the accused was not merelyto murder the deceased but also to terrorise the entire Scheduled Castecommunity from daring to stand for Panchayat elections.Further, P.Ws.5, 8, 9 and 10 also corroborate the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3and the reasons given by them for being at that time at the place ofoccurrence are convincing, hence, they cannot be said to be stock witnesses.Further, the reasons for being present at the place of occurrence have beenclearly deposed by them and nothing has been done by the defence to prove thatthey could not have been present at the time of occurrence by confronting thewitnesses with suggestions, questions etc. in the manner known to them.Forthe reasons adduced by them, they cannot be faulted for not informing thePolice immediately, because the situation was tense, panic, and volatile andthey were threatened by the accused.They have been throughout consistent intheir evidence.The normal trend of any human being in such a situation is torun away from the place.In view of the reality of the situation anduniformity of the statement of the witnesses, their evidence cannot be thrownout or brushed aside.Theremaining accused were acquitted.They not only refer to one accused but alsovividly narrated the overt acts committed by the other accused.The involvement and overt acts of all the accused were clearly spokento by the injured and other eye witnesses.Though the learned trial Judge hasrejected the evidence of the eye witnesses on the ground that they are closerelatives of the deceased and that they all belong to Scheduled Caste, law isclear that merely because they are relatives of the deceased, their evidencecannot be ignored or rejected.Accordingly, Crl.R.C. No.285 of 2002 and Crl.M.P. No. 9069 of 2005, filed for condonation of the delay in preferring the Crl.R.C.,are liable to be dismissed.In these circumstances, we confirm the conviction and sentenceimposed on the appellants by the trial Court under Section 302 read withSec.34 IPC and Sec.148 IPC.Criminal Appeal Nos.803, 863 and 871 of 2001,filed by the convicted accused, as well as Crl.R.C.No.285 of 2002 and Crl.R.C. SR No. 46945 of 2005, filed by P.Ws.2, 5 & 9,are dismissed.Appeal Nos.803, 863& 871/2001, Crl.R.C. No.285 of 2002 and Crl.Criminal Appeal Nos.803, 863 & 871 of 2001 and Crl.R.C.No.285/2002 P. SATHASIVAM, J.Appeal Nos.803, 863
|
['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
49,577,324 |
CRL.M.C. 5524/2014 and Crl.Compromise deed dated 28th November, 2014 is annexed to the petition.It is stated that, as agreed, complainant has received entire payment of Rs.2,50,000/- towards full and final settlement of all her claims.Further, the parties are also stated to have divorced each other according to customary laws.% 05.12.2014 Crl.M.A. 18886/2014 (for exemption) Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.The application stands disposed off.M.A. 18887/2014 (for stay)This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 159/2012 registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC at Police Station Vivek Vihar on 31st May, 2012 on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties.Issue notice.3. Petitioners as well as complainant/respondent No.2-Zeenat Khan are CRL.M.C. 5524/2014 Page 1 of 8 present in person and are identified by the Investigating Officer/ SI Shankar Lal, Police Station Vivek Vihar.CRL.M.C. 5524/2014 Page 1 of 8At the same time, complainant had also instituted proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the petitioners.Ultimately, on 28th November, 2014 the complainant and petitioner No.1 entered into a compromise by settling the matter on terms.It is trite to state that the power under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection only when the Court is convinced, on the basis of material on record, that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed...."I am of the opinion that this matter deserves to be given a quietus at this stage itself, since the parties have resolved their differences and have obtained divorce; and since the complainant is no longer interested in supporting the prosecution, because of which, its chances of success in the matter are in any case greatly diminished.Consequently, FIR No. 159/2012 registered under Sections CRL.M.C. 5524/2014 Page 7 of 8 498A/406/34 IPC at Police Station Vivek Vihar on 31st May, 2012 and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.CRL.M.C. 5524/2014 Page 7 of 8The petition stands disposed off.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
4,958,215 |
Shri R.K. Vyas, counsel for the objector.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicants are in custody since 15.7.2014 relating to Crime No.221/14 registered at Police Station Padmakar Nagar, Sagar for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 148, 149, 147, 294 and 506 of the IPC.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are reputed citizens of the locality.They do not have any criminal past alleged against them.Except the offence under Section 307 of the IPC, remaining offences are bailable.It is alleged against the applicants that they assaulted the victim Satyavrat by sharp cutting weapon.The victim Satyavrat sustained 11 injuries but no injuries was found to be fatal or grave.Under such circumstances, no offence under Section 307 or 326 of the IPC is made out against the applicants.At the most, the offence under Section 324 of the IPC may constitute, which is not so grave.The applicants are unnecessarily kept in the custody.Consequently, they pray for bail.Learned P.L. for the State opposes the application.Learned counsel for the objector also opposes the application.He submits that the applicants assaulted the victim Satyavrat in a brutal manner.Four injuries were found on the vital part of the body.It is directed that the applicants namely Pooran Chand Andhopiya, Neeraj Andhopiya and Vinay Andhopiya be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) each with a surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the concerned CJM, Sagar to appear before committal Court and the the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Courts.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE pnkj
|
['Section 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 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.
|
495,914 |
On the same day, in the afternoon, one Sukhchaindass, brother of the appellant, Prandas, stopped the water flowing from Sadhram's field, alleging that Prandas had asked him not to allow the water to pass through that field, as he had purchased it from Sadhram.Next day, while Hariram and his father, Gayaram, were sitting in the verandah of one Thandaram, the latter proposed to Prandas, who was in his own verandah (opposite to that of Thandaram) that the dispute between him and Gayaram Should be settled amicably by panchayat.While this proposal was being discussed, an altercation ensued, and Prandas proceeded with a lathi to the place where Gayaram was standing and inflicted on him several blows.The first blow was warded off by Gayaram with his right hand, but the next two blows fell on his head and he fell down.Thereafter, some of the relations of Prandas beat Hariram and Hiraram, sons of Gayaram, and Tiharu, cousin of Gayaram and Prandas struck Bahartin, wife of Gayaram.Hiraram then retaliated by striking Prandas on the head.The same evening, between 9 and 9-45 P. M., several reports were recorded by the police officer in charge of police station, Jangir, which is at a distance of three miles from the place of occurrence, including the report of Hariram, which has been treated as the first information report in the present case, and that of Prandas and his relations who were also injured in the course of the occurrence and who gave their own versions thereof.JUDGMENT Fazl Ali, J.This is an appeal by special leave from the decision of the High Court at Nagpur, allowing the appeal of the Government of the Central Provinces and Berar under Section 417, Criminal P. C., against the acquittal of the appellant by the Sessions Judge of Bilaspur, and convicting him for committing murder of one Gayaram and causing hurt to his wife, Bahartin, and sentencing him to transportation for life and three months' rigorous imprisonment under Sections 302 and 323 respectively of the Indian Penal Code.Prandas's version which forms the ground work of the defence story put forward at the trial, was practically the same as the prosecution version as to the events which led to the clash.But it gives a different picture of the actual occurrence since, according to him, it was Hiraram who opened the assault by attacking him and Gayaram and his men were the aggressors.The police immediately registered a case and, as a result of the investigation which followed, five persons including the appellant were committed to the Court of Session and were variously charged under Sections 302, 148, 325 and 323, Penal Code.The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the account given by four principal witnesses who were examined by the prosecution to prove its version of the occurrence was wholly unreliable as "they were interested persons, being Gayaram's relations, and had suppressed material parts of the occurrence." He however based his judgment mainly upon the evidence of Thandaram and a boy of 16 named Agardas, who had witnessed only a part of the occurrence."It is common ground that Thandaram was present at the time of the occurrence and in the first information report of Hariram, he was named as a witness along with three other persons, Ganesh, Bihari and Makkan.The prosecution however did not examine either Thandaram or any of the other three persons.Thandaram was also cited as a witness by the accused, but they ultimately decided not to examine any defence witness.In the circumstances, the Sessions Judge examined Thandaram as a court-witness and the account that he gave of the occurrence was substantially different from that given by the prosecution witnesses.This witness, after relating how the altercation ensued, consequent upon his proposal that the parties should settle their dispute by panchayat, proceeded to narrate what followed in these words :"As Pran was coming, Hiraram towards him to beat him.Hira began to strike Pran with a gedi pole which he had picked from the land.There were many such gedis lying there.Pran also struck back Hira with a similarly picked up pole.Then, Gaya, Hari Nanki and Tiharu also went over and attacked Pran on one side, and to help Pran, came Panch Ram, Videshi and Ghurbin and the parties began to strike one another.I could not notice who was striking whom.It was like a Rout dance, one hitting the other.All had picked the nearby lying gedi poles and had begun to strike one another."Agardas stated that having heard a noise from a distance, he came near Thandaram's verandah, and saw Prandas striking Gayaram with a lathi on the head, but, being frightened, he immediately ran back.Relying on the evidence of Agardas and certain other circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved that the appellant was responsible for the fatal injury of Gayaram and believing Thandaram, he held that "Gayaram and his sons and Tiharu are shown to be the aggressors on Pran, and Pran helped by other accused as defenders, against an unjustified assault, had thus a private right to defend his and their persons against it."He referred to the fact that four of the accused persons, Prandas, Thandaram, Bidesi and Ghurbin, had suffered as many as "10 injuries between them including 5 on the head and a fracture of an armbone" and the fact that there were more injuries on members of Gayaram's family did not alter the position so far as the law of private defence was concerned.In this view, he held, in agreement with the assessors, that none of the charges framed against the accused had been proved and acquitted them.The Provincial Government, being dissatisfied with the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge, preferred an appeal to the High Court.This appeal was allowed by an order dated 14-9-1949, as a result of which the appellant has, as has been already stated, been convicted under Sections 302, and 323, Penal Code and sentenced to transportation for life and three months' rigorous imprisonment respectively, the two sentences having been made to run concurrently.The acquittal of the other accused persons was also set aside and they were sentenced either to short terms of imprisonment or fine, but we are not concerned with them as they have not appealed to this Court.
|
['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
194,467,641 |
This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents for arresting the accused persons and filing the charge sheet in Crime No.160/2020 registered at Police Station Gohad, District Bhind for offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 149, 294, 323 of IPC.It is also needless to state that if any account is available with the accused persons, or any amount is in their possession and any account is maintained in a nationalised bank, it is obligatory on the part of the respondent police to take all necessary steps to safeguard the interest of the aggrieved persons in this case".The Court accordingly directed the police to expedite and complete the investigation within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.The said order of the High Court is impugned in these appeals.Leave granted.The appeals 6 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC No.27926/2020 (Jawan Singh Gurjar vs. State of M.P. & Anr.) are accordingly allowed and the impugned order is set aside. '' Thus this Court cannot supervise the investigation and giving a direction to arrest the accused and file the charge sheet would certainly amount to supervising the investigation.
|
['Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
194,467,834 |
She also deposed that thereafter this appellant undressed her and committed rape on her twice and drove her out in the morning.In the FIR PW-3 wrote that after such rape on that night the appellant took the victim to different places and thereafter left the victim at no.114 Kanak Gate Basti at about 11 a.m. This is in sharp contradiction to the statement of the victim that she was driven out from the house of the appellant in the next morning.There will be no cost.The victim, a deaf and dumb girl since birth, was about 17 years of age as per medical opinion, at the time when she was allegedly raped by the accused appellant.It is the case of the prosecution that the mother of the victim lodged a written complaint at New Alipore police station on 31st August, 2004 at about 1:00 A.M stating that the victim who had left the house for purchasing food, the previous evening, had gone missing.On making enquiries she had come to learn that the victim had last been seen with the accused appellant, who had been coming to the locality for about 2 years and had been residing at 113, Lockgate Basti (slum) for about 10-15 days.On 31st August at about 11 a.m. the victim came back home and informed her mother that the accused appellant had taken her to an abandoned shanty at 113, Lockgate Basti, with the promise to marry her and had raped her.Thereafter, he had left her near 114, Lockgate Basti.Pursuant to the complaint lodged by the mother of the victim, investigation was started.The victim was taken to the SSKM Hospital for examination and her wearing apparel were also seized.On receiving information that the accused appellant had returned to 113, Lockgate Basti, the Investigating Officer went there along with the victim, apprehended the accused and seized his wearing apparel.The prosecution examined eleven witnesses.The accused appellant, however chose to remain silent.The accused appellant did not adduce any oral evidence.He chose to remain silent.He did not take the plea of having had sex with the consent of the victim, by way of defence.The accused appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code.was started.The matter was investigated by PW-11 i.e. SI Biplab Chakraborty and during the course of investigation he arrested the present accused from his house on that very date i.e. on 31.08.2004 at 9 p.m., got both the victim and the accused medically examined, collected the medical reports, forwarded the vaginal swab of the victim to the FSL (report not received) and got the victim to be tested radiologically to ascertain her age.He also seized the wearing apparels (not produced at the time of trial) of the victim as per seizure list and after completion of investigation he submitted charge sheet against the appellant/convict for the offence punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of the said code.The prosecution to prove the case examined before the trial court as many as 11 (eleven) witnesses and of these witnesses PW-1 that is the victim, PW-3 that is the mother of the victim, PW-6 Dr. Nibedita Chattopadhyay, PW-8 Dr. T.K. Roy, PW-10 Dr. Arindam Bhattacharya and PW-11 that is the Investigating Officer of the case are important for my consideration.Regarding documentary evidence I will concentrate on the medical reports including the ossification test report of the victim.It was further contended by the defence counsel that when the FIR was lodged by the mother of the victim with the police officer of New Alipore Police Station the said police officer did not take the help of the interpreter even though admittedly the victim was deaf and dumb.He took the Court to the evidence of PW-1 to show that the victim herself admitted that this accused/convict was known to her and the said accused/convict used to visit their house even before the date of occurrence and she went to the house of the accused as called by him.He also took this Court to the evidence of PW-1 to show that this PW-1 candidly admitted that the accused did not use any force on her to go to his house and that it was true that there was a talk of marriage in between the victim and the accused and she also expressed her readiness to marry the appellant identifying him on dock.The Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that this PW-1 admitted that it was true that as the convict refused to marry her so the present case was filed against him.The Learned Counsel also submitted that even though the evidence of this PW-1 was recorded by the Learned Trial Court with the help of the interpreter but the doctors who examined the victim did not get the special services of such interpreter and as such any statement made to the doctor allegedly by the victim may not be believed by this Court.He further submitted by taking the Court to the FIR that PW-3 who lodged the FIR candidly admitted in the FIR that this PW-1 was allured by the present appellant and they went to various places and ultimately this accused/appellant raped her.I get support of my views regarding the age of the victim from the oral evidence as well as the expert evidence.The evidence of PW-3 i.e. the mother of the victim goes to show that her marriage took place when she was thirteen or fourteen years and that the victim was born after three or four years of her marriage, who is her eldest daughter and by that analogy, the age of this witness was thirty five in the year 2004 when this incident took place.She deposed that this appellant was known to her prior to the incident (which was concealed in the FIR).She also deposed that the accused used to reside in their Basti (Slum) and his house was at a little distance from her house.She also admitted that she used to visit the house of the accused even before the occurrence.It is also clear from her evidence that she went to the house of the appellant as called by him and the appellant did not use any force on her to go there.This witness further deposed that there was a talk of marriage in between her and the accused/appellant.She also admitted that the appellant did not assault her on that night and further that she was ready to marry the appellant.In her cross examination, she further admitted that as the appellant refused to marry her so this case was filed against him falsely.This Court is not unmindful of the fact that this victim is deaf and dumb but the services of the interpreter were used by the Trial Court when her evidence was recorded.There is no reason to by-pass these vital answers which went in favour of the appellant.After completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused appellant under Section 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code.It is true that in the First Information Report, the de facto complainant, being the mother of the victim, has alleged that the accused appellant and the victim went to various places after which the accused appellant took the victim to an abandoned shack and raped the victim.Thereafter the accused appellant and the victim went to different places and the accused appellant left the victim in front of No. 114, Lockgate Basti.The victim has, however, herself given evidence in the Sessions Court as the First Prosecution witness, with the help of Shri Rameshwar Bandhopadhyay, the Head-in-Charge of the Boys' Section of the Kolkata Deaf and Dumb School, who acted as interpreter.The victim identified the accused appellant in Court.In her evidence the victim stated that the accused appellant had called her, taken her to his house, undressed her, raped her twice and thereafter driven her out, in the morning, after which she returned home.The victim did not say anything about going anywhere else before or after the incident.There is no reason to give greater credence to the FIR lodged by the victim's mother, on the basis of what she heard from the victim and others, to what the victim herself stated in Court.The evidence of the prosecutrix in a rape case, is more reliable than that of an injured witness, as held by the Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh Vs.Asha Ram reported in 2006 Cri.In cross-examination, this witness (the victim) deposed that the accused appellant was known to her, and she used to visit the accused appellant before the incident.On the day of the incident, she went to accused appellant's place, on being called by him.The victim further deposed that the accused appellant did not take her to his place, forcibly.She however categorically denied the suggestion that she had not been undressed or raped by the accused appellant.She maintained that she had been driven out in the morning, after being raped.She agreed with the suggestion that there was talk of marriage between herself and the accused appellant.She also confirmed that she had not been assaulted by the accused.She stated that she was willing to marry the accused person.As noted by my learned brother, she also stated that she had filed the case because the accused appellant refused to marry her.From the evidence on record, discussed in details by my Learned brother, it is absolutely clear that the victim had not been kidnapped or abducted.No force had been applied on her.The accused appellant was known to the victim.The accused appellant called the victim and the victim went with him on her own.As per Medical opinion, the victim was slightly over 17 years of age when she was raped.Medical opinion with regard to age can never be exact and there may be variation of about 1 year on either side.The accused appellant will have to be given the benefit of variation of one year on the upper side, more so, since the illiterate parents of the victim could not give her exact date of birth.The de facto complainant claimed that her daughter was 16 years of age on a rough approximate calculation and there is every possibility of difference of a year or two.The charge under Section 366 is not substantiated by the evidence on record.I fully agree with my learned brother that the conviction under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code is liable to be set aside.The question is whether the conviction of the accused appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is also liable to be set aside.In my view, the aforesaid question has to be answered in the negative.In this case, the FIR was lodged without any delay, immediately after the incident.It is reiterated at the cost of repetition that the victim clearly deposed that the accused appellant lay beside her, undressed her, raped her twice and then drove her out.The victim remained unshaken in cross-examination.The Prosecution Witness Nos. 3 and 5 being the mother and father respectively of the victim also confirmed that the victim returned home weeping, and told them that the accused appellant had taken her to a shanty near the railway line, undressed her and raped her twice.The Prosecution Witness No. 3 (victim's mother) stated in Court that the victim had told her that the accused appellant told the victim that he would marry her.The Prosecution Witness No. 5 (victim's father) stated that the victim took him to the shanty where she had been raped and identified the shanty.The victim subjected herself to medical examination at the P.G. Hospital, a premier government hospital in Kolkata, and her wearing apparel were seized by the police.The Prosecution Witness No. 6, Dr. Nibedita Chatttopadhyay, Assistant Professor of the Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics of the PG Hospital, who had examined the victim, deposed that she had found the hymen of the victim ruptured.In cross-examination, this witness deposed that she did not find any injury on the person of the victim.She also did not find injury on the 'labia majora' and 'symphosis pubis' of the victim.It is well known that sexual intercourse causes rupture of the hymen.Ofcourse, rupture of hymen may also be caused due to other reasons and is not conclusive evidence of sexual intercourse.However the fact that the hymen of the victim was ruptured supports the case of the prosecution that the victim was sexually assaulted.The evidence of the victim requires no corroboration.Moreover, it appears to me that the victim was a truthful witness.The victim did not resort to any exaggeration to falsely implicate the victim.She truthfully stated that she was not forcibly taken to the shanty, by the accused appellant.She went to his place on her own, on being called by him.She also stated that the accused appellant did not assault her and she candidly admitted that she was willing to marry the accused appellant.The victim had apparently reposed trust in the accused appellant, but the accused appellant deceived her, taking advantage of her drawback of being deaf and dumb.Yet, the victim did not retaliate with vindictiveness.The accused appellant may not have tried to run away.However that, in itself does not suggest his innocence.The accused appellant possibly thought that he would be able to get away, because of the usual reluctance of victims of sexual violence to complain of the humiliation and insult to which they have been subjected, to avoid embarrassment, further humiliation and further insult in a socially insensitive set up, where the victim of a crime is looked upon as an accomplice to the crime.The unfortunate disability of the deaf and dumb victim, probably emboldened the accused appellant.The evidence of the victim read with the evidence of her parents being the Prosecution Witness Nos. 3 and 5, the Prosecution Witness No. 6, Dr. Nibedita Chattopadhyay, Prosecution Witness No. 8, Dr. T.K. Ray and Prosecution Witness No. 11, Sri Biplab Chakravarty, who was the Investigating Officer establish beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused appellant had sexual intercourse with the victim, on the night before the FIR was lodged.The accused appellant was charged inter alia with the offence of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.The victim clearly stated that she had been raped.
|
['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.
|
194,469,814 |
1356 of 2018, dated 20.09.2018 in the case of Jeevanandham and others Vs.State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Karur District, and this Court held in Paragraph-25, as follows :-a) A Police Officer cannot register an FIR for any of the offences falling under Section 172 to 188 of IPC.This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in S.T.C. No.20 of 2018 pending on the file of the Learned District Judicial Magistrate Court, Yanam and thereby taken cognizance for the offence under Section 143, 294(b), 188 of IPC, r/w 149 I.P.C.However, the respondent police registered the complaint and filed a charge sheet against the petitioner and others for the offences under Sections 294(b), 188 of IPC r/w Section 34 of IPC in Cr.No.26 of 2016 3/14http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P.No.8462 of 2020 and after conducting investigation the respondent police was pleased to file a final report in S.T.C.No.20 of 2018 pending on the file the learned Judicial Magistrate, Yanam for the offences under Section 143, 294(b), 188 of IPCr/w 149 IPC.Therefore, he sought for quashing the proceeding.Therefore, he vehemently opposed the quash petition and prayed for dismissal of the same.4/14http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P.No.8462 of 2020
|
['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,944,757 |
"that on 18.2.94, S.I. Surinder Kumar was posted as in charge of PP-Usmanpur.He went to the spot with regard to the enquiry in DD No. 12 where he met ASI Narpat Singh who was also present in respect of the same enquiry where he came to know that the injured had already been removed to the hospital.He left the ASI Narpat Singh at the spot and went to the G.T.B. Hospital.He collected the MLC of the deceased, Chand Min, where he was declared brought dead by the doctor.He again came back to the spot and recorded the statement of Sunit Kumar who met him there which is Ex. PW-1/A. In the statement Sunil Kumar stated before him that on 18.2.94 at about 4 p.m. he along with Chand Mian and one more boy were playing a match of gulli-danda near MCD quarters, 1st Pusta, Usmanur in which there was a stake of Rs. 20/- and the match was being played between the two parties and both the parties have deposited the stake money with Chand Mian.In the other party, the players were Dharambir @ Lala besides two more boys whose names and addresses he does not know were playing the match.The match was played for about 30 minutes and his party lost the match and Chand Mian on the pretext of smoking biri left the quarters at which Dharamvir @ Lala became angry and his companions caught hold of Chand Mian.One more boy aged about 18/19 yers who was associate of Lala but he was not playing the match also joined the quarrel.Thereupon Chand Mian called him and also called Sunny and asked them to inform his brother Hassan Mian.In the meantime Lala and his associates stabbed Chand Mian.Thereafter, he Along with Sunny went to the house of Chand Mian and told about that incident to his brother Hassan Mian.Hassan Mian rushed to the spot and found his brother lying unconscious.He had received injuries on his chest and his abdomen and on his left arm and on his chin.He was removed to the hospital by his brother in a three wheeler scooter.After recording his statement, SI Surinder Kumar made his endorsement on the same and sent the same for registration of the case through Const.Ramesh to the PS and the FIR was registered which is Ex. PW-4/B. He was given the aforesaid documents at the spot.He summoned the crime team and got the spot photographed.He inspected the spot and made site plan Ex. PW-21/A on his own observations.He seized blood and blood control earth etc. from the spot after putting in a parcel and sealed with the seal of SI vide memo Ex. PW-19/A. He then went to the GTB Hospital.He seized the clothes of the deceased in a sealed parcel with sample seal given to him by Duty Const.Ramesh vide memo Ex. PW-9/E. He again returned to the spot and recorded the statement of Pws including marked portions as per their versions.He started making search for the accused persons.On 19.2.94, he conducted the inquest proceedings on the dead body.He made his request for post mortem Ex. PW-21/B. He wrote brief facts Ex. PW-21/C. He sent the dead body for post mortem.He had also recorded the inquest statement Ex. PW-2/A and Ex. PW-3/A. He had filled the death report form Ex. PW-21/D. The dead body was given to legal claimants after post mortem vide receipt Ex. PW-21/E. On 20.3.94 he arrested the three accused persons namely Dharamvir, Shyam Lal and Shailender present in court and affected their personal search vide Memo Ex. PW-9/B to D. The above accused persons made disclosure statements during interrogation.The accused Dharamvir had disclosed to point out the place in the 1st pusta in the fields of Yamuna and got recovered the knife used in the above occurrence vide disclosure statement Ex. PW-2/D. He led them to the above place and got recovered the knife.He measured the same and made its sketch Ex. PW-2/C and put the same in parcel and sealed with the seal stated above and seized vide memo Ex. PW-2/B. PW Hassan Mian etc. were with him.He is 28 years of age and is a TSR driver and resident of Jagjit Nagar, Delhi.He states that he knew the deceased and that on 8.2.1994 at about 5.00 p.m., after parking his TSR at the MCD quarter, Usmanpur, he joined the game of gulli-danda and deposited rupees five with the deceased.JUDGMENT R.S. Sodhi, J.This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal Nos. 87 of 1997 and 95 of 1997 preferred against a common judgment and order dated 28.1.1997 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara, in Sessions Case No. 127 of 1996, arising out of FIR No. 87/94, Police Station, Seelampur, Delhi, acquitting Shailendra and Shyam Lal of all charges while holding Dharambir Singh and Raj Pal, appellants herein, guilty of offence under Section 302 IPC.The above accused Dharamvir had also got recovered a newspaper dt. 25.11.93 being 'Nav Bharat Times' having blood stains from the above place.He had seized the above newspaper also in the above manner.He recorded the statement of Pws as per their versions including the marked portions.He deposited the exhibits with the MHC(M) and later sent them to CFSL by the other I.O. As he had been transferred.After hearing both the parties, charge u/s 302/34 IPC was framed against all the four accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial."The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined 22 witnesses.PW-1, Sunil Kumar, aged 17 years, is a student.He deposes that the deceased was his friend.On 18.2.1994, this witness was coming from school at about 3.45 p.m. When he reached near Khetwara, he saw people throwing bricks and stones.On inquiry, he was told that the deceased had quarrel with someone.Thereupon, this witness went to the house of the deceased to inform the deceased's elder brother, Hassan Mian.He states that he did not see any occurrence and does not know how the deceased sustained injuries.He denies having made a statement, Ex. PW-1/A. The witness was cross-examined by the Additional Public Prosecutor upon which he states that he did not tell the police of the occurrence on 18.2.1994 and refuses to support Ex.PW-1/A. Consequently, this witness is of no use to the prosecution.4. PW-2, Hassan Mian, states that on 18.2.1994 at about 5.00 p.m. he was present in his house when Sunil and Sunny informed him that a quarrel had taken place at the DDA flats Usmanpur, Delhi, in which Chand Mian, his younger brother, was involved.The witness went there and found Chand Mian lying in a pool of blood.He found all the four accused persons there.The witness ran towards his injured brother upon which the accused persons ran away.He noticed Dharambir holding a blood stained knife in his right hand.This witness removed the injured to the hospital in a PCR van.He identified the dead body.He is witness to the arrest of the accused at ISBT bus stand.He says, he does not know the names of the accused persons that were arrested.The police did not interrogate any of the accused persons in his presence nor did they disclose anything to the police in his presence.Yet, in the same breath, this witness says that accused, Dharambir, led the police party to the pusta and got recovered a knife which was taken into possession vide Memo Ex.PW-2/B, sketch of the knife is Ex. PW-2/C. He further states that he does not know how the Investigating Officer had seized the above knife.He goes on to state that he was told by the police that accused, Dharambir, had made a disclosure statement and confessed his guilt but it was not made in his presence.This witness was also sought to be cross-examined by the Additional Public Prosecutor.He does not change his version from that stated in his examination-in-chief.This witness was further cross-examined by counsel for the accused wherein he denies the suggestion that he had not seen the accused persons at the spot nor the suggestion that Dharambir was not having a knife in his right hand but goes on to say that the police did not interrogate anyone in his presence.On further examination, he says that he went to the police station on the third day of occurrence and saw all the accused persons, except Raj Pal, present there.He states that many persons in the locality witnessed the occurrence, but were not willing to join investigation.From an analysis of the evidence of this witness, it appears that he came to the spot and saw Dharambir holding a blood-stained knife in his right hand, but he did not know the names of the assailants at that time.Yet this witness was instrumental in the arrest of the accused persons and has flatly denied the recovery of any knife in his presence or any statement made by the accused in his presence leading to such recovery.It appears that he was informed by the police that Dharambir had made a disclosure statement and confessed his guilt.He also deposes that he saw the accused persons except Raj Pal three days after the incident at the police station.6. PW-5, Sunny, 18 years of age, states that he had known the deceased, who was a friend of his brother, for about a year-and-half.This witness states that while in school he was unwell and returned home early at about 4.45 p.m. At that time he saw a crowed in the park.People were saying that the deceased had been stabbed with knife.The witness goes on to say that he does not know anything as regards the occurrence resulting in the murder of the deceased.He was cross-examined by the Additional Public Prosecutor and denied having made any statement, Ex. PW-5/AThe next witness is PW-6, Jahid Khan, who is stated to be an eye-witness.A total sum of rupees thirty was lying deposited with the deceased and the winning side was to be given this deposit.The side of the deceased lost the match but instead of paying the money to the winning side, the deceased went out of the field.Accused, Dharambir, had an altercation with the deceased and they started exchanging abuses.The quarrel was concerning the money.The deceased and Dharambir grappled with each other upon which Dharambir took out a knife from his dub and gave a blow on the ride side of the abdomen of the deceased resulting in a bleeding injury.Thereafter, accused, Raj Pal, took the knife from Dharambir and caused an injury on the front side of the body of the deceased where after the deceased fell on the ground and all the accused persons ran away from the spot.This witness had identified the accused persons in the police station.Dharambir led the police party and got a knife recovered.This witness, when cross-examined, states that PW-2 is not related to him but is known to him.He states that while Sunil and Sunny had gone to call PW-2, he remained on the spot.He further deposes that PW-2, Sunil, had come to his house with the police on the day of occurrence when he had narrated the facts to the police.He was not interrogated by the police thereafter.On further cross-examination, he states that Dharambir and Raj Pal gave one blow each in his presence with knife.The knife remained in the hands of accused, Raj Pal, thereafter.The police never came to him.The aforesaid witnesses are material witnesses relied upon by the prosecution to prove their case.While analysing the statements made by the aforesaid witnesses, it would emerge that PW-5 and PW-1 are worthless.Coming to the evidence of PW-2, he states that he saw all the four accused persons present when he arrived at the spot of occurrence after being informed by Sunny and Sunil.Dharamvir was holding a blood stained knife.PW-6, on the other hand, states that he saw the occurrence in which Dharamavir inflicted the first blow, thereafter the knife was taken by Raj Pal who inflicted another blow.These were the only two blows inflicted by the accused who ran away from the spot after the occurrence.PW-2 does not say that PW-6 was present when PW-2 arrived at the spot.In other words, PW-6 had left the spot after the accused had run away and, therefore, PW-2 could not have seen the accused as PW-2 came much later to the spot of occurrence.PW-6 states that the knife remained in the hands of accused, Raj Pal, thereafter.Obviously if this were true, then PW-2 could not have seen the blood stained knife in the hands of Dharamvir.In any way, it is highly unlikely that the accused would continue to be present at the spot to enable PW-2 to come there on information being supplied to him by Sunil and Sunny.While further analysing the statement of PW-6, Jahid Khan, it may be observed that none of the witnesses, namely, PW-1, PW-2 or PW-5 stated that Jahid Khan was a member of the gulli-danda team.Even when these witnesses were cross-examined by the Additional Public Prosecutor, it was not put to them that PW-6 was present at the spot.The name of PW-6 does not figure in the FIR nor does the medical evidence corroborate the version of PW-6 as regards inflicting of wounds.Jahid Khan is 28 years of age while the accused persons and the deceased are in their teens.Their playing together does not appear normal.Jahid Khan does not live close to Usmanpur and there is nothing on record to show that the so-called gulli-danda match was pre-arranged.It is unlikely that Jahid Khan would have joined in the gulli-danda game by chance.The presence of Jahid Khan at the spot is not free from doubt.Even in the site plan, Ex. PW-21/A, there is no mention of the presence of witnesses cited by the prosecution.Further, Jahid Khan says that his statement was recorded by the police on the day of occurrence and not thereafter.The record shows otherwise.The statement of this witness was recorded by the police two days after the incident.Reference in this regard may be had to Vijaybhai Bhanabhai Patel v. Navnitbhai Patel and ors., 2004(2) Crimes 386 (SC) and Ganesh Bhavan Patel and Anr.v. State of Maharashtra, 1979 CAR 26 (SC) where the Supreme Court has dealt with witnesses in this category.On going through the material we also find that the Investigating Officer has not taken into possession the gulli nor the danda nor the stake money from the deceased.There is no gainsaying that the prosecution has not been able to establish the genesis of the occurrence.There is no cogent evidence to bring home the guilt of the accused.The trial court, with great respect, has laid emphasis on the evidence of PW-6 in order to convict the accused.The statement of PW-6, as already discussed, does not inspire confidence.In this view of the mater, on a reappraisal of the material placed before us and adverted to by counsel for the parties, we find it difficult to go along with the reasoning and finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge.Consequently, we allow the appeals, set aside the judgment and order under challenge and acquit the appellants of all charges.The appellants are on bail.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
194,476,307 |
When the victim was being taken away by Jaspal and Seema, they were seen by Chhatar Singh and Meghraj, who stopped the jeep and asked them as to where they are going.At which, they stated that the victim was ill and they are going to drop her at house.On 20.04.2000, the wife of Ravindra, the nephew of the informant, left the victim at the house of the informant.Since that day the victim remained in the house of the informant.She was always lost and depressed.When her mother asked her the reason, she narrated the whole incident to her and the informant.Dr. Surendra Singh PW-8 conducted the postmortem report on the body of the deceased.She was of average built.Rigor mortis passed of from the upper limbs and was present on the lower limbs.The lips and nails were cynosed.There was no mark of injury on the external part of the body.Her pubic hairs were shaved.The membranes of the brain, lungs, pleura and larynx were congested.The articles given in custody by Dr. Gyan Singh to the police were perused by this witness and recovery memo was prepared by HCP, Vishram Singh.Further the suicide note was copied in the case diary.The statements of the witnesses of inquest were copied in the case diary by this witness.On the same day, the statement of Seema was recorded.How the deceased reached the hotel is not clear.Why she went to the hotel is not clear.Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 28.11.2013 passed by Shri Raj Singh Verma, Additional Sessions Judge, Jyotiba Phule Nagar (Amroha) in Sessions Trial No. 405 of 2001 (State vs Jaspal) arising out of Case Crime No. 213 of 2000, under sections 363, 366, 376, 306 IPC, police station Amroha Nagar, district J.P. Nagar (Amroha), whereby the accused Jaspal was convicted under section 366 IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/-.Further he was convicted under section 376 IPC and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/-.He was also convicted under section 306 IPC and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/- with default stipulation.However, the accused was acquitted under section 363 IPC.Filtering out the unnecessary details, the prosecution case is that the daughter of the informant was appearing as private candidate in the intermediate examinations.The nephew of the informant, namely, Ravindra Singh, was residing at Avas Vikas Colony, Amroha with whom the victim had stayed while she was appearing in her examinations.On 19.04.2000 when the victim was returning after appearing in the examination, the appellant Jaspal, who is also related to the informant met the victim on the way, he was having a jeep with him.He was accompanied by his sister-in-law Seema, who is also the wife of his younger brother.They took the victim to Akkha Nangla, where the victim was raped by Jaspal.After raping the victim, she was left at the house of Ravindra Singh at 8.00 p.m. The whole incident was narrated by the victim to Radha, wife of Ravindra.Radha told the victim not to disclose this fact to anybody otherwise she would be defamed.The informant and his wife thought that the girl being spinster had to be married soon.Due to defamation in the society, they did not take recourse to any legal proceedings.On 01.05.2000, the victim came to Amroha to appear in her examination and consumed Sulphas tablets and committed suicide.She left a hand written note before committing suicide that action be taken against Jaspal and Seema.On the basis of this written note, chik report was scribed by PW-5 Vishram Singh.The membrane of the intestines were congested.Liver, spleen, kidneys were congested.Hymen was torn, but there was no injury.Since the cause of death could not be ascertained, hence viscera was preserved.PW-9 C.O., Bhupendra Pal Singh has investigated the matter.On 03.05.2000, the copy of postmortem report was scribed in the case diary.The accused Jaspal was arrested and his statement recorded.On 10.07.2000, the admitted handwriting of the deceased was sent for comparison to the hand writing expert.5. PW-10 Markandey Gupta, has received the docket in the forensic laboratory.He received three pages of the letter alleged to have been written by the deceased.The home science notebook of the deceased related to class-12 and practical note-book consisting of two pages were also received, which have been mentioned in the report, which was proved by this witness as Exts.The prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses in support of its case.PW-1 is Smt. Radha, who is said to be the witness to whom the victim/deceased narrated the incident soon after the incident.PW-3 is Chhatar Singh in whose presence the body of the deceased was said to have been sealed in the hotel.PW-4 Maharaj Singh is said to be the witness, who saw the accused taking away the deceased.PW-5 is S.I. Vishram Singh, who took the articles of the deceased into possession.He further proved the handkerchief, lipstick, ball pen, wrist watch, safety pin etc. as material Exts.He also proved the clothes of the deceased, which were taken into possession as material Exts.PW-6 is Sumitra Devi, the mother of the victim/deceased.PW-7 is Dr. Gyan Singh, who examined the victim, who was brought to the hospital in semi conscious condition, after consuming Sulphas tablets.PW-8 is Dr. Surendra Singh.The evidence of PWs-8, 9 and 10 have been discussed earlier.After closing of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., in which the complete occurrence was denied and they stated that they had been implicated due to enmity.The accused have examined DW-1 Bhagwan Singh, who proved the factum of enmity between the family of the deceased and the accused.After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned lower court passed the sentence as stated in para 1 of the judgment.Feeling aggrieved, the accused has come up in appeal.Heard Shri P.C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-respondent and perused the trial court record.Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the charges levelled against the appellant have not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt.There is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR.The conviction is based on inadmissible evidence and the appeal is liable to be allowed.Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that in this case the reputation of the family was at stake and the father of the victim/deceased was hesitant in lodging the FIR as regards the factum of rape initially, but later on when the victim ended her life, he lodged the FIR.Since Radha has denied of anything having been told to her.The statement of Mahipal Singh, PW-2, father of the victim/deceased is relevant.In this respect, he has stated that Radha had told him that the victim was kidnapped and raped by the appellant.This would be a hearsay evidence and even otherwise inadmissible because Radha herself had denied about this fact.Further, the father of the deceased PW-2 Mahipal Singh has admitted that since 19.04.200 to 01.05.2000, the deceased visited her village once or twice.The deceased had told him that on 19.04.2000 the accused had raped her.The evidence of this witness before the court six years after the occurrence would definitely not be admissible under section 6 of the Evidence Act. Although this witness has stated that on 19.04.2000 he was told about the occurrence, but he has clarified that he did not do anything in the matter because the girl was not married and the reputation of the family was at stake.PW-6 is Sumitra Devi, the mother of the deceased, who has stated that the deceased told her about the occurrence of rape, but no reason is coming forth from the side of the prosecution as to why the report of the matter was not lodged.Thus, this raises a doubt on the whole prosecution story.As far as section 366 IPC is concerned, it reads as follows:Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc.--Whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled, to marry any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, and whoever, by means of criminal intimidation as defined in this Code or of abuse of authority or any other method of compulsion, induces any woman to go from any place with intent that she may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall be punishable as aforesaid."There is no evidence whatsoever about kidnapping, from the prosecution side.Although Radha at whose house, the victim had stayed came to know about the incident in the night.Her statement being admissible under section 6 of the Evidence Act, but Radha PW-1 has stated that neither the deceased was staying with her nor she told her anything.PW-3 Chhatar Singh, who is admittedly the relative of the informant, has stated that he did not see the deceased going with anybody and he does not know the appellant Jaspal.As per prosecution case, the deceased was living at the house of PW-1 Radha and appearing for her examinations, hence PW-1 would have been the best witness to give the evidence.The mother is only a person in the family, who is considered to be the best friend of her young daughter.The mother has stated that she did not see how the deceased died, but she has heard that the deceased consumed poison.As per prosecution case, on 19.04.2000, the victim had gone to appear for her examinations while returning she was picked up and raped by the appellant and left back at the house of PW-1 Radha, where she was staying.As regards the non-availability of original records, the trial court on 05.10.2012 passed the following order:"15-10-2012 iqdkj dh xbZ A vfHk;qDr mifLFkr A lk+{kh ekjds.Ms xqIrk ih0MCyw&10 Hkh U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr gSa] ijUrq vfHk;kstu i{k dh vksj ls e`rdk ds gLrys[k esa fy[kk lkslkbM uksV rFkk mlds gLrys[k esa fy[ks nks dkfi;kWa vfHk;kstu i{l dh vksj ls izLrqr ugha dh xbZ bl dkj.k gLrys[k fo'ks"kK ekjds.She had consumed Sulphas tablets.There was Sulphas tablets in a bottle in her purse and a suicide note was also received.The Inspector police station Amroha was informed.Let us see what has to be done in the matter by the Investigating Officer.The Investigating Officer PW-9 C.O., Bhupendra Pal Singh has stated that suicide note was not sealed, but the reason for not sealing it on the spot can only be told by PW-5 Vishram Singh.
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,944,913 |
(7) The dates are important.To begin with, the case was registered against G. D. Iyer under section 165-A of the Indian Penal Code.During the course of investigation on November Ii, 1973, G. D. lyer disclosed in his interrogation that C. V. Krishnamurthy and V. K. Vardharajan were also parties to the criminal conspiracy.In the course of investigation the investigating officer came to the conclusion that it was necessary to obtain the consent of the State Government for initiation of court proceedings as required by section 196(2) of the Code.He, therefore, on November 7, 1974, requested the Director, Special Police Establishment to refer the matter to the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms as consent under section 196(2) was to be obtained from Delhi Administration through them.The Delhi Special Pcl'ce Establishment themselves could not approach the Delhi Administration directly.The administrative head of the organisation is the Director, Special Police Establishment (CBI) who is an Inspector General of Police.JUDGMENT Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) For the first time in India the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 introduced the law of limitation in criminal cases.These sections prescribe periods of limitation for launching a criminal prosecution in, certain cases.Under the repealed Code of 1898, no period of limitation was prescribed or launching a criminal prosecution and the court could not throw out a private complaint or a police report solely on the ground of delay, though delay might be a good ground for doubting the prosecution story.This was consistent with the original theory of criminal justice.(3) In the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and sections 401 and 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (the Code) the accused, persons have raised an objection that the criminal case against them is barred by limitation.This objection was raised in the first instance before the special judge trying the criminal case.The special judge rejected the plea of limitation.(4) The prosecution case is that in 1971 G. D. lyer, C. V. Krishnamoorthy and Vardharajan entered into a criminal conspiracy to obtain illegal gratification from M/s. Modern Sixteen Cine Laboratory Private Limited, Bombay for inducing by exercise of personal influence the officers concerned working in the Office of Chief Controller of Imports and Exports.According to the charge-sheet submitted on December 30, 1974, these three persons were charged with the offences under section 120-B read with section 163 of the Indian Penal Code.(6) Before the special judge the three accused raised a preliminary objection as to limitation.They said that the prosecution as regards the offence punishable under section 120-B. Indian Penal Code was barred by time.The special judge found that there was a delay of A 7 days.He condoned the delay in filing the charge-sheet and rejected the preliminary objection.The Department of Personnel, Cabinet Secretariat in turn moved the Delhi Administration by writing a letter on November 19, 1974 asking for consent.December 29, 1974 was a Sunday.(11) The investigating officer came to know that C. V. Krishnamoorthy and V. K. Vardharajan were parties to the criminal conspiracy along with G. D. lyer on November Ii, 1973 during the course of investigation.
|
['Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
194,501,761 |
19.09.13 Item No. 23 Court No.17 A.B.Item No. 23And In the matter of: Anil Kumar Samanta Petitioner- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Milon Mukherjee Mr. Arunava Ganguly For the Petitioner Mr. Arijit Ganguly For the State The Petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Asansol (North) Police Station Case No. 178 of 2013 dated 19.06.2013 under Section 420/468/120B of the Indian Penal Code, has applied for anticipatory bail.The allegation against the Petitioner is that he had mutated government land in favour of a private person.We have heard the learned Advocates for the Petitioner and the learned Advocate for the State.We have seen the case diary and other relevant material on record.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
194,513,282 |
The prosecution case briefly stated is as under :(i) That Mahendra Mehta, then aged about 30 years, was residing with his parents, wife Surabhi and a year old son Amit in Flat No.309, Ravi Kiran Building, Carter Road No.3, Borivali (E), Mumbai.He was one of the partners in Riddhi Jewellers situated at 285/305, Krishna Niwas, Office No.22/A, URS 4 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:39 ::: 5 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc Zaveri Bazar.PW 3 Rakesh Jain, his brother Manojkumar Jain and Vimal Mehta, brother of Mahendra Mehta, were the other partners of Riddhi Jewellers.PW 1 Mukesh Mehta, brother of Mahendra Mehta, was residing intervening 6-7 buildings from Ravi Kiran building, Borivali (E), Mumbai where Mahendra Mehta was residing with his family and parents.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:39 :::(ii) On 21/03/2007 morning, Mahendra Mehta was to travel to Gujarat.At about 4.30 a.m., PW 3 Rakesh Jain returned to Bombay from Baroda.He went to the house of Mahendra Mehta in Ravi Kiran building.PW 3 Rakesh delivered two samples of gold to Mahendra.Those samples were to be taken to Gujarat by Mahendra.That time, Rakesh also handed over a mobile phone to Mahendra which was being used by them in Gujarat.At 5.30 a.m., PW 3 Rakesh went to Ganesh temple which was situated in the compound of the same building.Rakesh was one of the partners of Riddhi Jewellers.According to him on 21/03/2007 at around 4.30 a.m., he returned to Bombay from Baroda and straight way went to the house of Mahendra Mehta as Mahendra was to go to Gujarat at around 6.30 a.m. on the same day.Rakesh URS 16 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:39 ::: 17 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc handed over two samples of gold to Mahendra and a cell phone which was being used for transaction in Gujarat.After handing over gold samples, Rakesh left the house of Mahendra at around 5.30 a.m. and went to Ganesh temple situated in the compound of Ravi Kiran building.On his way to temple, PW 3 Rakesh saw a lady and a man at the gate of the building.He proceeded ahead.He then saw two motorbikes near Saibaba temple.Two persons were sitting on each motor bike.Thereafter PW 3 Rakesh reached his residence.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:39 :::At 6.30 a.m., Rakesh received phone call from Vimal Mehta informing him that some persons attempted to snatch away the bag and assaulted Mahendra.He was also informed that Mahendra was being carried to Bhagwati Hospital by PW 1 Mukesh and his father Devichand.On receiving information, PW 3 Rakesh went to Bhagwati Hospital.Medical Officer declared Mahendra as dead.SEO Ismail Khan conducted the identification parade.During identification parade, PW 3 Rakesh identified accused no.1 James and accused no.5 Rakesh Bachchawat.ig PW 3 Rakesh misidentified accused no.4 Shabbir who was not in the TIP.(iii) It is further stated by PW 3 Rakesh that on the same day i.e. on 08/05/2007, he was taken to Byculla prison.During TIP conducted in Byculla prison, he identified accused no.6 Swapnali as the same lady to whom he saw at the gate of Ravi Kiran building.Thereafter on 05/06/2007, TIP was held at Arthur Road jail.In that TIP, PW 3 Rakesh identified accused no.7 Vishal as the person sitting on motorbike.He stated that victim did not leave the bag.Thus, we do not find any reason to disbelieve their evidence on incident.(xi) So far as TIP is concerned, it is a matter of record that the eye witnesses have mis-identified some of the accused as discussed above.PW 4 Mahesh identified accused no.3 Raju @ Dheknya on 05/06/2007 during the TIP.(xii) The star witness on TIP is PW 17 SEO Ismail Khan.He stated that PI Darekar called him at Crime Branch office, Dahisar, and requested to hold identification parade in Crime No.11/2007 of Crime Branch.Accordingly letter was issued to him.It is stated by PW 17 SEO Khan that in the TIP held on 08/05/2007, Sukhdeo Shinde and Nagesh Jangam were the two panch witnesses.ASI Deshmane introduced PW 17 SEO Khan to Jailor.The identifying witnesses i.e. PW 3 Rakesh Jain, PW 4 Mahesh Vyas and PW 6 Mitesh Shah were made to sit in a separate room.This TIP was in respect to accused no.1 John, accused no.2 Vishal and accused no.5 Rakesh Bachchawat.PW 17 SEO Khan selected 18 dummies.Out of 18, he asked 12 dummies to stand in a line.He took care to see that place of identification parade was not visible to outsiders and particularly to the identifying witnesses.Initially accused no.1 James and accused no.2 Vishal were called.They were given idea of conducting identification parade.Accused were given a choice to select their own place, change the clothes if they desired and take the position in the line as per their wish.Accused declined to URS 23 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:39 ::: 24 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc change the clothes.Thereafter panch witness Sukhdeo was sent to bring identifying witness PW 3 Rakesh Jain.PW 3 Rakesh identified accused James and Vishal by touching them with finger.(xiii) Another panch was sent to call PW 6 Mitesh Shah.He was asked to identify the culprits.PW 6 Mitesh identified accused James and Vishal by touching their bodies.The proceedings were accordingly recorded by PW 17 SEO Khan.The same procedure was followed in respect to the third identifying witness PW 4 Mahesh Vyas.He too identified accused James and Vishal.Memorandum of TIP was drawn.(xiv) In the process of identification, PW 17 SEO Khan selected six dummies.Accused no.5 Rakesh Bachchawat was then called.He was identified by PW 3 Rakesh Jain during TIP.Memorandum of identification was drawn by SEO URS 24 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:39 ::: 25 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc Khan.Witness identified article 9 - Jeans Pant, article 10 - Banyan and article 11 - Mobile hand set.He could not identify accused Jambo before the URS 34 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:40 ::: 35 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc Court.PW-23 - P.I. Darekar identified him in the dock.It is pertinent to note that accused No.1 Jambo was acquainted with accused No.6 Swapnali.PW-14 - Radheshyam Amrutlal Bind was running a Mechanic Shop of repairing motor bikes.He stated that motor bike bearing No. MH-02/HA-1715 was sold by him to accused No.2 Vishal Chauhan for Rs. 20,000/-.He identified accused No. 2 - Vishal Chauhan in the dock.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:39 :::JUDGMENT (PER SMT.I. K. JAIN, J,) :-By the said Judgment and Order, the trial Court convicted the Appellants/original accused nos.1 to 7 under Section 396 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only); in default R.I. for two years.For the sake of convenience, we shall refer the Respondents as accused as they were referred before the trial Court.(iii) At around 6.00 a.m., Mahendra left the house and walked down to catch train for Surat which was scheduled at URS 5 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:39 ::: 6 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc 6.30 a.m. On the way, at some distance from his house in front of Jain Milk Dairy, four persons came on two motorcycles and snatched the bag which was being carried by Mahendra.Mahendra resisted the same, so those persons assaulted Mahendra by means of choppers over the head and wrist.That time, one male and one female were loitering at the gate of Ravi Kiran building.After assault, assailants ran away on the motorcycles.Mahendra was severely injured and lying in a pool of blood.PW 3 Mukesh, elder brother of Mahendra, was informed about the incident.He rushed to the spot.Devichand, father of Mahendra, also came to know and he too came to the spot.They shifted Mahendra to Bhagwati Hospital.Medical Officer at Bhagwati Hospital declared Mahendra dead at around 7.45 a.m. Matter was reported to Kasturba Marg Police Station.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:39 :::He received a telephonic message at around 7.05 a.m. on 21/03/2007 that Mahendra was admitted to hospital as MLC URS 6 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:39 ::: 7 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc case.He communicated information to PI Dalvi and proceeded to hospital.Mahendra was admitted in ICU.He was not in a condition to give statement.On the death of Mahendra at 7.45 a.m., PSI Mandavkar recorded report of Mukesh.He returned to police station and registered C.R.No.55 of 2007 under Sections 393, 397 and 302 of IPC.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:39 :::It appears that ADR entry no.22/2007 was also registered on the basis of report lodged by Mukesh.Investigation was set into motion.During investigation, it was revealed that accused no.7 Vishal Jain was serving in Sejal Jewellers.He was knowing Mahendra Mehta.This information was passed on by accused no.7 Vishal to accused no.5 Rakesh who, with the help of accused nos.1 to 4 and 6, executed the plan to rob Mahendra.It was also revealed that on 21/03/2007 when Mahendra was on the way, accused nos.1 to 4 snatched away the bag which was being carried by Mahendra and URS 7 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:39 ::: 8 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc when Mahendra resisted, they assaulted him and caused his death.Then accused were arrested.On completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:39 :::In due course, case was committed to the Court of Sessions.The Appellants/accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.Their defence was of total denial and false implication.On going through the evidence of 26 witnesses examined in the case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the Appellants as stated in para 1 above.Hence these Appeals.We have heard the learned Advocates for the Appellants and the learned APP for State.After giving our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by the learned Advocates for the parties, the Judgment delivered by the learned Additional URS 8 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:39 ::: 9 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc Sessions Judge and the evidence on record, for the reasons stated below, we are of the opinion that on facts prosecution succeeded but for want of proper compliance of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, trial vitiates and judgment and order of conviction and sentence needs to be quashed and set aside.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:39 :::The fact of homicidal death is seriously in dispute.As such, exclusive burden lies on the prosecution to not only overrule the possibility of natural, accidental or suicidal death but also to prove homicidal death beyond reasonable doubt by reliable and convincing evidence.To establish the factum of homicidal death, prosecution has relied upon -(i) Inquest panchanama,(ii) Medical evidence and(iii) Circumstantial evidence.(i) Inquest panchanama -Accused have not disputed genuineness of inquest URS 9 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:39 ::: 10 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc panchanama (Exh.52).It was drawn on 21/03/2007 between 8.40 to 9.30 hours at Bhagwati Hospital dead house, Borivali (West).It can be seen from the panchanama that several injuries were noticed on the head, forehead, right hand, right wrist and right arm.These injuries clearly indicate that the death in question was unnatural.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:39 :::(ii) Medical evidence -After inquest panchanama was drawn, dead body was sent for post-mortem examination.PW 13 Dr.On 21/03/2007, Dr.Sanap received the dead body of Mahendra Devichand Mehta through Kasturba Marg Police Station for post-mortem.On the same day he conducted post-mortem between 1.30 p.m. and 2.30 p.m. He noticed the following external injuries on the dead body -i) Incised wounds over left hand, index finger 1 st phalgnx posteriorly, size 4cm X 2 cm X bone URS 10 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:39 ::: 11 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc deep, over ring finger, size 2cm X 2cm X 1cm, over wrist, size 4cm X 3cm X bone deep and over thumb, size 3cm X 1cm X bone deep.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:39 :::ii) Incised wound over left arm size 7cm X 6cm X muscle deep.iii) Incised wound over scalp, forehead 3cm X 1cm X 1cm and 5.3cm X 1cm X bone deep and over occipital area 3cm X 1cm X bone deep.iv) Incised wound over right shoulder 3cm X 1cm X muscle deep, over right arm 6cm X 2cm X muscle deep, over right wrist 7cm X 3cm X muscle deep and 6cm X 3cm X bone deep, over right dorsam of hand, thumb cut completely of SBC, size 6.3cm X 5cm X bone deep.On internal examination, Dr.Sanap noticed the following injuries -::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:39 :::According to PW 13 Dr.Sanap, all the injuries were ante-mortem and caused by sharp and hard cutting object like chopper, sword, etc. The probable cause of death opined by PW 13 Dr.Sanap was haemorrhage and shock due to multiple injuries.PW 13 Dr.Sanap opined that it was an unnatural death.Post-mortem report was proved at Exh.59A.Sanap stated that such injuries could be possible by assault with weapon like chopper and spear (Arts.1 and 2).In this connection, it was vehemently contended by Mr. Chitnis, learned Senior Advocate for Appellants, that deceased met with an accidental death.Referring to the nature of injuries stated by PW 13 Dr.Mr. Chitnis pointed that ADR entry was deliberately suppressed as the death was due to accident.He submitted that had ADR entry been produced, the truth would have come to the light.In view of the submissions advanced on behalf of the Appellants, relevant ADR entry No.22/2007 was called by URS 12 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:39 ::: 13 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc us and verified.The learned APP has produced its true copy on record which shows the history of homicidal death and not an accidental death, as submitted by the learned Senior Advocate for Appellants.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:39 :::On ADR, evidence of PW 19 PSI Chandrakant Mandavkar is important.On 21/03/2007, he received a telephonic message at around 7.05 a.m. that Mahendra was admitted to the hospital for treatment and it was a MLC case.He communicated the information to PW 22 PI Dalvi and proceeded to the hospital.He found Mahendra in ICU undergoing treatment.He stated that Mahendra was not in a condition to make statement and expired at 7.45 a.m. His brother PW 1 Mukesh was in the hospital.PSI Mandavkar inquired from Mukesh.On inquiry, he recorded the report (Exh.47) as per the say of Mukesh.In view of the evidence of PW 19 PSI Mandavkar and true copy of ADR entry No.22/2007 which came to be URS 13 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:39 ::: 14 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc verified from the original register, we do not find merit in the contention raised by the learned Senior Advocate for the Appellants that the death in question was an accidental death.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:39 :::Further it is significant to note that before the trial Court, factum of homicidal death was not seriously in dispute.The defence set up in cross-examination of PW-13 Dr.Sanap was that injuries which were found during post-mortem could be caused by fall from any height on hard and blunt object.It indicates that there is no consistency in the defence raised by the accused.On the other hand, we find overwhelming evidence in the form of inquest panchanama, post-mortem report supported by testimony of PW 13 Dr.Sanap which exclusively tilts in favour of homicidal death overruling the complete possibility of natural, accidental or suicidal death.We, therefore, do not find any reason to take a view different then taken by the trial Court on the mode and cause of death of Mahendra Mehta.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:39 :::(iii) Circumstantial evidence -In addition to uncontroverted inquest panchanama (Exh.52), post-mortem report (Exh.59A) and Cause of Death Certificate (Exh.83), prosecution has placed strong reliance on the following circumstances -Oral dying declaration to PW 1 Mukesh.(D) Discovery of the incriminating articles.circumstances would be necessary at an appropriate stage.Suffice it to state that prosecution could establish the above circumstances through the evidence of PW1 Mukesh Mehta, PW3 Rakesh Jain, PW4 Mahesh Vyas, PW6 Mitesh Shah, PW8, Kishor Nikam, PW11 Manoj Shah, PW-14 Radheshyam Bind, PW15 Sultan Siddhiqui, PW16 Sandeep Jain, PW17 Ismail Khan, PW18 Sanjay Jain, PW20 Ankush Chavan, PW22 PI URS 15 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:39 ::: 16 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc Raghunath Dalvi, PW23 PI Sunil Darekar and PW26 PI Ramakant Pimple.These circumstances too indicate that the death in question was a homicidal death.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:39 :::To prove the authorship of the accused and to attribute the specific role to each of them in commission of act also prosecution relied upon the aforesaid circumstances.After two days, PW 3 Rakesh had been to Dahisar Police Station and informed police that he saw a lady and a man at the gate of Ravi Kiran building and also two persons each on two URS 17 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:39 ::: 18 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc motor bikes.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:39 :::(ii) On 08/05/2007, PW 3 Rakesh was called at Thane prison for identification parade.(iv) On 25/06/2007, TIP was held in Arthur Road prison in respect to accused no.4 Shabbir.PW 3 Rakesh could not URS 18 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:39 ::: 19 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc identify accused no.4 Shabbir in TIP and mis-identified accused no.3 Raju @ Dheknya during the parade.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:39 :::(v) From the entire evidence of PW 3 Rakesh, it is apparent that he had seen accused nos.5 and 6 at the gate of Ravi Kiran building and accused no.1 sitting on the motorbike.(vi) The next eye witness examined by the prosecution is PW 4 Mahesh Vyas.He used to go to Jain Milk Dairy early in the morning for bringing milk.He stated that on 21/03/2007 at about 6.00 a.m., he was returning home after purchasing milk.Near Maru General Store, he heard shouts.He looked to the direction of shouts and saw four persons snatching away a bag from the hands of one person.He stated that the person holding the bag was resisting.According to PW 4 Mahesh, out of four persons, two assaulted the person with sharp edged weapons and remaining two caught hold the victim.He saw two motorbikes parked to the left side of place of incident.He URS 19 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:39 ::: 20 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc stated that after assault, assailants ran away with their motorbikes in the Southern direction.However in the Court, he identified accused no.5 Rakesh Bachchawat holding the victim and accused no.2 Vishal assaulting the victim.So far as accused no.3 Raju @ Dheknya is concerned, PW 4 Mahesh identified him in the TIP as well as in Court.However in the TIP conducted on 25/06/2007, PW 4 Mahesh identified accused no.4 Shabbir, he could not name the accused in Court.In respect to accused no.2 Vishal and accused no.3 Raju @ Dheknya, his evidence is consistent.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:39 :::(vii) Another eye witness is PW6 Mitesh Shah, who was going to National Park for morning walk.When he reached the main road, he heard shouts "Bachao, Bachao".PW 6 Mitesh turned back and saw two persons holding the victim and two snatching bag from the victim.The assailants assaulted the URS 20 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:39 ::: 21 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc victim with sharp edged weapons.After assault, all four went away on two motorbikes parked near the place of incident.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:39 :::Thereafter PW 6 Mitesh went near the victim lying in pool of blood.After two days, he informed Dahisar police about the incident.(viii) In the TIP held on 08/05/2007, PW 6 Mitesh identified accused no.1 James, on 25/06/2007 he identified accused no.4 Shabbir during TIP.(ix) The evidence of PW 3 Rakesh, PW 4 Mahesh and PW 6 Mitesh is assailed by the defence on several grounds.Those are -(i) Vimal Mehta who informed PW 3 Rakesh, not examined.(ii) PW 4 Mahesh Vyas introduced a new story that injured person went to Jain Milk Dairy and made phone call to his house.(iii) Delay in recording statements of these witnesses not explained.In support, reliance is placed on Lahu Kamlakar Patil and Another V/s.State of Maharashtra1(iv) Their evidence on identification of the accused is confusing, concocted and forged.1 (2013) 6 Supreme Court Cases 417 URS 21 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:39 ::: 22 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:39 :::(v) The testimonies of PW 3 Rakesh, PW 4 Mahesh and PW 6 Mitesh are not consistent and cannot be relied.(x) On going through the entire evidence of PW 3 Rakesh, PW 4 Mahesh and PW 6 Mitesh, it can be seen that their evidence in respect to manner of occurrence of incident is cogent and consistent.Except a minor contradiction in the evidence of PW 6 Mitesh, nothing substantial could be elicited in the piercing cross-examination of the eye witnesses.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:39 :::The proceedings were noted by PW 17 SEO Khan.Then PW 3 Rakesh was sent to different room.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:39 :::Then dummies, accused and panchanama of TIP were handed over to the Investigating Officer.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:39 :::(xv) On the same day, PW 17 SEO Khan conducted identification parade in Arthur Road prison.In the parade, PW 3 Rakesh Jain identified accused no.6 Swapnali as the lady standing at the gate of Ravi Kiran building.Its separate memorandum was drawn by PW 17 SEO Khan.(xvi) At the time of second parade held on 05/06/2007, accused Raju @ Dheknya Thakre was subjected to identification parade.Shaku Qureshi and Ramsagar were the panch witnesses.PW 17 SEO Khan stated that 3 identifying witnesses Rakesh Jain, Mahesh Vyas and Mitesh Shah were called at Arthur Road prison.He selected six dummies.Accused no.3 Raju stood in between dummy nos.3 and 4 as per his wish.Then identifying witnesses were called one by one.They identified accused no.3 Raju in the identification parade.Memorandum of identification parade (Exh.90) was accordingly drawn.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:39 :::same procedure as followed in the earlier parades, this identification parade was held.Identifying witnesses PW 3 Rakesh Jain, PW 4 Mahesh Vyas and PW 6 Mitesh Shah identified accused no.4 Shabbir @ Khadda in the TIP.There is no reason to disbelieve the same.There was no animosity between identifying witnesses, SEO who conducted TIPs on one hand and the accused on the other.In our view, the evidence of eye witnesses and PW 17 SEO Khan inspires confidence and clearly establishes the manner of incident of assault on Mahendra and the role played by each of the accused in occurrence of incident.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:39 :::(C) Oral dying declaration to PW 1 Mukesh -To prove oral dying declaration, prosecution examined PW-1 Mukesh Mehta.He is the real brother of deceased Mahendra.It is stated by Mukesh that on 21.3.2007, in the morning at around 6.30 a.m. when he was sleeping in the house, his wife Mamta received a phone call of Veena Mehta, wife of his real brother Vimal Mehta asking her to send Mukesh immediately as Mahendra met with an accident.Therefore, his wife woke him up and informed the message of Veena.Immediately, Mukesh rushed to the house of Mahendra.On the way,he saw Mahendra lying in URS 27 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:39 ::: 28 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc injured condition on the road near his house.At the same time, his father arrived there.Mukesh inquired from Mahendra what had happened.On that, Mahendra told him that four persons arrived on two motor bikes.They were snatching his bag and he resisted the same.Those persons then assaulted him.When Mukesh asked him about identity of those four persons Mahendra told that they were unknown to him.Thereafter, Mahendra fell semi-unconscious and he was taken to Bhagwati Hospital in a rickshaw.He was declared as dead by Medical Officer.Mukesh proved Exh. 47 report lodged by him after Mahendra was declared dead.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:39 :::On going through the evidence of Mukesh, it is apparent that Mahendra did not name accused persons.From the evidence of Mukesh, at the most it can be said that Mahendra met with homicidal death.So far as authorship of the accused to cause death of Mahendra is concerned, evidence of Mukesh is not helpful to the prosecution as deceased had not implicated the appellants/accused in the commission of alleged act.(D) Discovery of incriminating articles -::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:40 :::On discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act the learned Senior Counsel for accused Nos. 1,3 and 4 relied upon Prabhoo V/s.State of Uttar Pradesh2 in which it has been held that -The main difficulty in the case is that the evidence regarding the recovery of blood stained axe and blood stained shirt and dhoti is not very satisfactory and the courts below were wrong in admitting certain statements alleged to have been made by the appellant in connection with that recovery.According to the recovery memo the two witnesses who were present when the aforesaid articles were produced by the appellant were Lal Bahadur Singh and Wali Mohammad.He did give evidence about the production of blood stained articles from his house by the appellant.The witness said that the appellant produced the articles from a tub on the eastern side of the house.The witness did not, however, say that the appellant made any statements relating to the recovery.Wali Mohammad was not examined at all.This witness said that a little before the recovery the Sub- Inspector of Police took the appellant into custody and interrogated him; then the appellant gave out that the axe with which the murder had been committed and his blood stained shirt and dhoti were in the house and the appellant was prepared to produce them.These statements to which Dobi Baksh (PW 3) deposed were not admissible in evidence.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:40 :::Section 27 provides that when any fact is deposed to and discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovery may be URS 30 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:40 ::: 31 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc proved.In Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Emperor the Privy Council considered the true interpretation of Section 27 and said :::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:40 :::::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:40 :::On going through the evidence of PW-8 Kishor Nikam, it can be seen that he was called by Police Officer Darekar to act as a Panch.Accused No.4 Shabbir was in police custody that time.It is stated by PW-8 Kishor that accused Shabbir made a statement to discover chopper and pant, which was thrown by him near Naigaon.The statement of Shabbir was accordingly recorded.It is further stated by PW-8 Kishor that after memorandum was drawn, Shabbir led them to Naigaon.He discovered a pant and chopper which were lying between the trees.He proved memorandum and recovery panchanama accordingly.Nothing substantial could be elicited in the cross-23, Investigating Officer - Sunil Darekar.On 12.6.2007, he voluntarily gave a memorandum URS 32 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:40 ::: 33 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc in the presence of Panch witnesses to discover chopper and pant.He stated that chopper and pant were recovered at the instance of Shabbir near a field at Naigaon.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:40 :::Memorandum and Panchanama exhibits 69 and 70 are duly proved by the Investigating Officer and Panch Witnesses.There is no reason to disbelieve their testimonies.Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on discovery and there is no reason for us to interfere with the same.So far as accused No.3 Raju @ Dheknya is concerned, evidence of PW-18 will have to be looked into.One Police Officer requested him to act as Panch.So he accompanied the Officer to Police Station.Accused Raju gave memorandum in his presence to discover a chopper and a pant.It is stated by PW-18 Sanjay that after memorandum, accused Raju discovered chopper and clothes in their presence.None of the accused persons except accused No.3 cross-examined this witness.Nothing otherwise could be brought by accused No.3 in the cross-examination to discard the URS 33 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:40 ::: 34 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc testimony of Panch Witness Sanjay.His evidence is fully corroborated by PW-23 PI Darekar.We are, therefore, not inclined to take a view different than one taken by the trial court in this regard.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:40 :::(E) Recovery of clothes at the instance of accused no.1 from the flat of accused no.6 -On 28.4.2007, he was called at Unit No XII of DCB, CID.Accordingly, he went there.He stated that one person in custody of police gave his name as Jambo.He made a statement to discover his Shirt, Banyan, Pant and a Mobile.According to PW-11 Manoj, after memorandum, Jambo led them in a jeep to a flat in Udisha Apartment, Room No. 501, owned by accused No.6 - Swapnali.A person by name Sharad Mahadik was present there.Jambo made discovery of Jeans Pant, Banyan and a Mobile Phone of Nokia Company.These articles were seized and Seizure Panchanama Exhibit 78 was drawn.No plausible explanation was given by accused No.1 Jambo and accused No.6 Swapnali in respect of recovery of clothes from the house of accused No.6 - Swapnali.This is the most clinching circumstance against accused No.1 Jambo and accused No.6 Swapnali.We find no reason to disbelieve the same.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:40 :::(F) Recovery of motor bikes -This motor bike was recovered at the instance of accused No.2 Vishal Chauhan.In this connection, PW-20 ASI Ankush Chavan stated that on 24.4.2007, the abovesaid motor bike was recovered at the instance of accused Vishal Chauhan.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:40 :::Another motor bike bearing No. MH-01/HA-802 was sold by PW-15 Sultan Siddiqui, who runs a Shop "City Motors".PW-15 deals in sales and purchases of old motor bikes.He identified accused No.1 Jambo in the dock.This motor bike was recovered at the instance of accused by PW-22 P.I.Raghunath Dalvi.Memorandum Exhibit 108 given by accused No.1 to discover the said motor bike and discovery panchanama of the motor bike Exhibit 109 are proved by PW-22 - P.I. Raghunath Dalvi.Accused No.1 Jambo and accused No.2 Vishal Chauhan could not elicit anything adverse in the cross-examination of these witnesses.According to prosecution, deceased Mahendra Mehta was known to accused No. 7 - Vishal Jain.On 19.3.2007, PW-16 - Sandip Jain alongwith Mahendra Mehta had been to Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai for purchasing gold chain.At around 4.00 p.m. when they were proceeding to Zaveri URS 36 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:40 ::: 37 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc Bazar, accused No.7 Vishal Jain met them near the shop where he was working.It is alleged that accused No.7 - Vishal Jain passed on this information to accused No.5 Rakesh Bacchawat, who then, with the help of other accused planned to rob Mahendra and accordingly, the plan was executed on 21.3.2007 when Mahendra was proceeding towards railway-station to catch the train.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:40 :::The trial court has relied upon the confessional statement of Vishal Jain recorded by learned Magistrate Mr. Agrawal.It is apparent from confessional statement Exhibit 106 that the same is exculpatory.Accused Vishal Jain does not implicate him in the entire confession made before URS 37 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:40 ::: 38 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc PW-21 Mr. Agrawal.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:40 :::There is no evidence to show that he passed on the information to accused No.5 Rakesh Bacchawat.In the absence of such link, we find that evidence against accused No.7 is not sufficient to convict him.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:40 :::Even so, there must be material to show that the overt act or acts of one or more of the accused was or were done in furtherance of the common intention of all the accused or in prosecution of the common object of the members of the unlawful assembly.In this case, such evidence is lacking and hence the appellants cannot be held liable for the individual act of A-16."4 (1989) 3 Supreme Court Cases 605 URS 39 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:40 ::: 40 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:40 :::In the light of the above, on facts, in fact, URS 45 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:40 ::: 46 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc conviction of accused Nos. 1 to 6 was required to be maintained.We could notice that 66 identical questions were put to each of the accused by the learned Additional Sessions Judge though entirely different incriminating circumstances against each of them were brought on record.It is pertinent to note that role played by accused Nos. 5,6 and 7 even according to prosecution was limited, as accused Nos. 5 and 6 were guarding at the gate of the building and accused No.7 passed on the information to accused No.5, who, executed the plan.The statements under Section 313 of the Code URS 58 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:40 ::: 59 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc were recorded just by cut-copy-paste.Most of the questions put to each of the accused were irrelevant and misleading.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:40 :::The accused have demonstrated from the questions put to them that serious prejudice has occasioned to them as statements were recorded in the total disregard of the provisions of Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. In this premise we are not inclined to order retrial from the stage at which provisions of Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. were not complied with.In the result, appeals succeed.Accordingly, we pass the following order :-[a] The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence in Sessions Case No. 642 of 2007, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, is hereby quashed and set aside ;[b] The accused are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 396 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.[c] Accused Nos.1 to 5 and 7 who are in jail shall be released forthwith, if not otherwise required in any URS 59 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:40 ::: 60 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc other case.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:40 :::[d] Bail bonds of accused No.6 shall stand cancelled and she is set at liberty forthwith.[e] Registry to communicate this order to the accused in jail through the concerned jail authorities.[f] We quantify fees to be paid by the High Court Legal Services Committee to the appointed Advocate Mr. A.V. Bedekar at Rs. 5000/-.[SMT.I.K. JAIN, J] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J] grt/-::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:40 :::
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
194,516,083 |
Hence he prayed to quash the same.3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.OP.No.15236 of 2020 Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) appearing for the first respondent.5.It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific allegations as against the petitioner to attract the offences, which has to be investigated in depth.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 in the case of Sau.Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of Maharashtra & ors., as follows:-Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
|
['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
194,530,155 |
Haematoma on the left eye.2. Evidence of bruise whole of the vault of the skull.3. 7" bone crack over right frontal, parietal, occipital skull region.4. 6" crack over coronal suture both sides of the skull.Evidence of sub dural haemorrhage both the hemisphere of brain with collection of blood and fluid under surface.6. 2" X 2" area inter cerebral haemorrhage inside the left occipital lobe of brain.The witness identified his hand writing and signature on the post- mortem report which was marked as Exbt.15 and also deposed that the injuries noted in the post-mortem report are sufficient to cause death of a person.PW23 is the Constable who identified the dead body of Kajal Mondal before the doctors of Mominpur Morgue.PW24 is A.S.I. of Police attached to Suri P.S., who signed the seizure list as a witness in respect of some medical papers which were seized by the Investigating Officer.PW25 is the A.S.I. of Police attached to Suri Police Station at the relevant point of time.The said witness also is a seizure list witness to the medical papers which were seized by the Investigating Officer of the case.PW26 is the Upper Division Clerk posted at the Officer of B.L.L.R.O., Suri-II, Birbhum.The witness produced the CLR record of rights in respect of plot no. 664 comprising area of 0.9 acre under Mouja Palsita, JL no. 65 under Bolck Suri-II.The witness identified the discharge certificate which was issued by Burdwan Medical College & Hospital on 29.12.2008, however the discharge certificate could not be admitted into evidence.PW28 is the Investigating officer of the case.Mr. Basu, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants contended that there are glaring contradictions in the deposition of the prosecution's witnesses regarding the mode and manner in which the alleged assault took place and resulted in the death of the deceased Kajal Mondal.Additionally the appellants contended that the prosecution witness no.1 being the complainant has deviated from the narration of facts made in the complaint to the deposition made before the Court.According to him the story of rescue has been improved at the instance of the prosecution through this witness.Learned advocate also drew attention of the Court to the deposition of PW2 and the Medical evidence of PW17 and emphasized 14 that the oral version of the witnesses are contradicted by the medical evidence on record.It is further submission of the appellant that also PW1 and PW13 accompanied the injured/deceased Kajal Mondal to different hospitals, yet at the initial stage at hospital they did not divulge the name of any of the appellants and as such the subsequent incorporation of the name of appellants are improved version which cannot be relied to arrive at a conclusion of guilt.The learned advocate for the appellant stressed on the deposition of the witnesses and submitted that the majority of the witnesses tried to express themselves as eye-witnesses, although, they arrived at the spot later being post-occurrence witnesses.To sum up his argument the learned senior advocate submitted that prosecution did not spell out the exact place of occurrence in its evidence, in fact according to him the written complaint is also silent regarding the place of occurrence while the charges framed by the trial Court is vague stating Palsita to be the place of occurrence; two witnesses namely, PW1 and PW2 describes the place of occurrence in a very vague manner and the same assumes importance in view of the fact that the Investigating officer of the case seized the blood stained earth but did not rely upon the same in course of examination of the prosecution witnesses.Having regard to such conduct of the prosecution the learned advocate for the appellants relied upon the Lakshmi Singh and Ors.The issue of counter case although had been addressed at the initial stage by the learned Trial Court yet an earlier judgment was relied upon that is Nathilal -Vs.- State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 1990 SCC (Cri) 638 instead of Sudhir and Ors.Mr. Ranabir Roychowdhury, learned advocate appearing for the State submitted that there is no denial of the fact that Kajal Mondal succumbed pursuant to the assault inflicted by the appellants.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
194,574,355 |
They came to know that both the deceased had not reached the temple.When search was being conducted in the jungle near Golar Hill, the abandoned motor cycle of the deceased was found and some distance away the dismembered body of deceased- Pradeep was discovered.Information in that regard was given to Arone Police Station.During investigation on 06.12.2007 3 CRA.423/2009 (Jail Appeal) Pratap Singh Parihar PW-13 informed Police on telephone that he has come to know from appellant that the appellants have murdered both the deceased.Thereafter, the dead body of Satish was also recovered in a dismembered state after a month of discovery of dead body of Pradeep.The dead body was recognized by the clothes left on the dead body.The dead body had been bitten and eaten up by animals.Blood was also found on the spot.(Delivered on the 29th of June, 2018) Sheel Nagu, J.This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.04.2009 rendered by Special Judge under Madhya Pradesh Dacoity Vyapharan Prabhabit 2 CRA.423/2009 (Jail Appeal) Kshetra Adhiniyam (in short "MPDVPK Act"), Gwalior (M.P.) in Special Case No.19/2008 whereby all the three appellants have been convicted u/Ss.302/34 of IPC read with Section 13 of MPDVPK Act sentencing them to life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulations for the murder of Satish and Pradeep.Pertinently, all the appellants are in custody since their arrest on 23.02.2008 except for a short period of few days on temporary bail during pendency of this appeal.The facts giving rise to instant case are that on 07.12.2007 information was received at the Police Station that on 13.10.2007 Satish and his counsin (chachera bhai) Pradeep (Constable in SAF) had gone on motor cycle to village Rampura, Police Station Arone to gift a bell to the goddess of a temple there.When the whereabouts of both Satish and Pradeep became unknown, their parents and relatives started searching for them.Crime No.110/2007 was registered after registration of dehati-nalsi for offences punishable u/Ss.302/34 read with 11/13 MPDP Act. The statement of various witnesses was recorded during investigation.After completing the necessary formalities chargesheet was filed.On committal of case to the Court of Sessions, appellants abjured guilt and sought trial.The appellants raised the defence of false implication.The prosecution produced 14 PWs namely Rambharosi as PW-1, Rajendra Singh as PW-2, Laxman as PW-3, Munna as PW- 4, Gajendra Singh as PW-5, Ramprasad as PW-6, Rajkumar as PW-7, Kamal Singh as PW-8, Mahesh Sharma as PW-9, Dr. J.N. Soni as PW-10, Jagdish Silawat as PW-11, K.L. Magraiya as PW- 12, Pratap Singh as PW-13 & Ramswaroop as PW-14 while the appellants did not produce any material in support of defence.PW-13 further testifies that when he asked the appellant about the whereabouts of both the deceased, the appellants inform that they have put both the deceased to death and extended threat to PW-13 of dire consequences if he disclosed this fact to anyone.PW-13 thereafter states that he confidentially revealed to the SHO of Police Station Arone-Shri Katare about this extra judicial confession made by the appellants.8.1 It is interesting to note about the extra judicial confession that PW-13 on receiving the information of appellants having murdered the deceased did not disclose this information to anyone for nearly 6 CRA.423/2009 (Jail Appeal) 45 days till the statement of PW-13 was recorded u/S 161 of Cr.P.C. There is no plausible explanation by PW-13 or by the police about the delayed revelation of this extra judicial confession.
|
['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
194,574,379 |
This petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.225 of 2016 on the file of the first respondent police as against the petitioner.1/4http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20959 of 2018The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner did not commit any offences as alleged in the impugned FIR.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case as against the petitioner in Crime No. 225 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 147, 341, 294(b), 323 of IPC.The impugned FIR has been registered under the false allegations.Hence he prayed to quash the same.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit that the investigation is still pending and this petition is a premature stage and hence, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.Perused the materials available on record.It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific allegation as against the petitioner, which has to be investigated.Further the FIR is not an encyclopedia and it need not contain all facts.Further, it cannot be quashed in the threshold.This Court finds that the FIR discloses prima facie commission of cognizable offence and as such this Court cannot interfere with the investigation.The investigating machinery has to step in to investigate, grab and unearth the crime in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Code.2/4http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20959 of 2018Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.However, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation and file a final report within a period of Three Months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdictional Magistrate.However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a petition.19.12.2019 Internet:Yes/No Index :Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order ksa 3/4http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20959 of 2018 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA.J,.The Inspector of Police, Keelavalavu Police Station, Madurai District.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20959 of 2018 19.12.2019 4/4http://www.judis.nic.in
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
194,574,552 |
(Passed on the 9th day of April, 2013) The applicant has preferred the present revision against the order dated 3.11.2009 passed by the learned Second Additional Judge to 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara in S.T.No.231/2009, whereby the charges of offence punishable under sections 419, 420, 467 and 468 of IPC were framed against the applicant.The prosecution's case, in short, is that, the complainant Sumit Kumar Kabra has sent a complaint to the S.P., Chhindwara on 17.5.2006 that the applicant and the complainant entered into a partnership agreement dated 14.1.1996 and it was agreed that from 1997, the income obtained from Anupam Drilling Company shall be divided :2: Criminal Revision No.291 of 2010 between the applicant and the complainant.Wife of the complainant suffered illness and therefore, the complainant could not see the transactions of the company.In the year 1998, his wife died.Thereafter, the complainant found that no transaction took place in the partnership firm and therefore, no income was shown in the account of the firm kept in Allahabad Bank but, in January, 2006, the complainant was informed that the applicant was continuing his business in the name of Anupam Drilling Company and he converted that partnership firm into a proprietary concern and he is getting the profit in his personal accounts and he was dealing the work of Anupam Drilling Company in his own name.The complaint was referred to the concerned Police Station and SDOP was also directed for enquiry.Thereafter, a case was registered.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties framed the aforesaid charges thereafter.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.The complainant Sumit Kumar Kabra was also made a party in the present revision and he is duly represented by Shri P.C.Paliwal, Advocate.:3: Criminal Revision No.291 of 2010At the stage of framing of the charges, appreciation of evidence cannot be done but, it is to be seen that by the evidence collected by the prosecution, whether any conviction can be drawn against the accused or not and if the answer is affirmative then, charges of such offences shall be framed against the accused.In this connection, if the evidence collected by the prosecution is perused then, it would be apparent that the complainant could not show any document, which was forged by the applicant.A specific allegation of forgery is required.It appears that the complainant alleged the forgery of documents, in which the Anupam Drilling Company was shown to be a proprietary concern.If the FIR and agreement of partnership is perused then, it was clearly mentioned in the agreement that it shall commence from the year 1997 and if the agreement is silent on any point then, the provisions of Indian Partnership Act shall be applicable.Secondly, the partnership was to be commenced in the year 1997, whereas, the complainant could not participate in the partnership since the year 1996 because of ailment of his :4: Criminal Revision No.291 of 2010 wife.Looking to the FIR lodged by the complainant, he did not take any interest in the activities of the partnership firm thereafter.After the death of his wife, in the year 1998, he did not take any interest in the activities of the alleged partnership firm.Under such circumstances, the complainant could not establish prima facie that the sole proprietary concerned which was being run by the applicant in the name of Anupam Drilling Company was converted into a partnership firm and therefore, if the applicant is continuing his business in the name of Anupam Drilling Company as a sole proprietary concern then, prima facie he has not done any forgery and therefore, no offence punishable under sections 467 and 468 of IPC is constituted against the applicant.The learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed an error of law in framing the charges of offence punishable under sections 467 and 468 of IPC.So far as the cheating is concern, it was for the complainant to establish prima facie that he lost some amount in the transaction and the applicant had done some cheating in the transaction.According to the partnership deed, the complainant was entitled to get 50% share in the profit, if he had participated by giving his full time to the partnership firm and its activities but, it is apparent from :5: Criminal Revision No.291 of 2010 the FIR that the complainant did not participate in the activities of the partnership firm since the year 1996 and thereafter, no partnership was commenced due to his overt- act.If he would have given some amount to the Anupam Drilling Company then, after the death of his wife in the year 1998, he must have sought the accounts of the concerned firm from the applicant and he could have proceeded with the fact that why his entitlement to get the profit was not given by the applicant.On the contrary, the complainant kept silence for 8 years after the death of his wife.Under such circumstances, prima facie it appears that no partnership firm was constituted in the eye of law.The complainant did not participate in the activities of the partnership firm but, now the Anupam Drilling Company is doing its business in a proper manner then, he wanted to get the profit from that income.:6: Criminal Revision No.291 of 2010Prima facie the complainant could not establish any cheating done by the applicant.No loss could be shown by the complainant due to the activities of the applicant and therefore, no offence punishable under sections 419 or 420 of IPC is constituted against the applicant.The present case is nothing but, a case of civil nature and the complainant had lodged an FIR, after 8 years of his cause of action in an omnibus manner.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that it was a civil transaction between the parties and no offence punishable under sections 419, 420, 467 or 468 of IPC is made out against the applicant prima facie by the evidence collected by the prosecution.The learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed an error of law in framing such charges against the applicant.The impugned order appears to be perverse and therefore, it is fit case, in which an interference is required from the side of this Court, by way of a revision.The revision filed by the applicant is hereby allowed.The impugned order dated 3.11.2009 is hereby set aside.The applicant is discharged from the charges of offence punishable under sections 419, 420, 467 and 468 of IPC.:7: Criminal Revision No.291 of 2010(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE 9/4/2013 Pushpendra
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
194,575,753 |
Dated : September 11, 2018 ...PER COURT :-By way of this Criminal Writ Petition, the petitioner/original accused no.1 has challenged the order dated 4.2.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Osmanabad in RCC No.53/2013 thereby issuing the process against the present petitioner and three others for the offence punishable under sections 420, 467, 468 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, respondent no.2/original complainant has instituted a Special Civil Suit No.337/2010 for partition and separate possession to the extent of 1/5th share in aaa/-::: Uploaded on - 14/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2018 00:56:37 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2018 00:56:37 :::2 CRI WP 1616.2017.odt respect of the ancestral properties and also for a decree of perpetual injunction and declaration about certain sale deeds etc. During pendency of said suit, respondent no.2/original complainant has also filed an application Exh.5 for issuance of the order of Temporary Injunction.The learned Judge of the Trial Court has initially granted ex-parte ad-interim temporary injunction restraining defendant nos. 3, 6 and 7 (including the present petitioner) from causing obstruction to the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit properties mentioned in the application and, thereafter by order dated 3.3.2011 confirmed the said order till the disposal of the suit.Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred Misc.Civil Appeal No.30/2011 before the District Court, however, the District Judge-2 Osmanabad vide judgment and order dated 17.12.2011 dismissed the Misc.Civil Appeal and confirmed the order dated 3.3.2011 passed by 2nd Jt.Being aggrieved by the same, one another defendant Shridhar Vyankatesh Dhabekar has aaa/-::: Uploaded on - 14/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2018 00:56:37 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2018 00:56:37 :::3 CRI WP 1616.2017.odt filed writ petition No.1486/2012 and present petitioner has filed writ petition No.1821/2012 before this Court.Initially, this Court has passed the order on 9.5.2012 directing the parties to maintain status-quo, but subsequently, by order dated 19.7.2012 this Court has disposed off the writ petition by directing the Trial Court to decide the RCS No.337/2010 expeditiously and further directed the parties to maintain status-quo till the disposal of the aforesaid suit.Learned counsel submits that on 14.2.2012 the petitioner had executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant no.4 Vilas Dhabekar, who happened to be the son-in-law.Respondent no.2 has thus filed the complaint bearing RCC No.53/2013 against present petitioner and three others for the offence punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.It has been specifically alleged aaa/-::: Uploaded on - 14/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2018 00:56:37 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2018 00:56:37 :::Learned Magistrate, on perusal of the complaint and documents placed on record and, on verification of the complainant, issued process against the petitioner and other accused persons for the offence punishable under sections 467, 468, 420 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.Learned counsel submits that as on the date of execution of the said sale deed the order of status-quo was not in existence and before that the trial court's order which was confirmed by the District Court was only to the extent of restraining defendant nos. 3, 4 and 6-present petitioner from causing obstruction to the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land.Learned counsel submits that, there was no injunction in respect of the alienation of the suit land, however, both the courts below have not applied their mind and aaa/-::: Uploaded on - 14/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2018 00:56:37 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2018 00:56:37 :::State of U.P. and another in Criminal Appeal No.940/2009 arising out of SLP (Cri) No.4998/2008, wherein the Supreme Court has aaa/-::: Uploaded on - 14/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2018 00:56:37 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2018 00:56:37 :::6 CRI WP 1616.2017.odt discussed as to whether a pure civil dispute can be a subject matter of Criminal proceedings under section 420, 467, 468, and 469 of the Indian Penal Code.The Supreme Court in paragraph nos. 30 and 31 of the judgment has made following observations :-Furthermore, in a case of this nature where even, according to Mr. Das, no case has been made out for taking cognizance of an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, it was obligatory on the part of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to apply his mind to the contents of the charge sheet.Such application of mind on his part should have been reflected from the order.[See State of Karnataka and Anr.v. Pastor P. Raju (2006) 6 SCC 728 and Pawan Kumar Sharma v. State of Uttaranchal, Criminal Appeal No. 1692 of 2007 decided on 10th December, 2007].We, however, must place on record that we have not entered into the merit of the dispute as the civil suit is pending.The same has to be determined in accordance with law.We would request the court concerned to consider the desirability of the disposing of civil suit as expeditiously as possible.Learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits that, despite the order of injunction, petitioner has alienated the suit property under the registered sale deed for a valuable consideration and also there is specific recitals in the sale deed about delivery of possession.Learned counsel submits that, the petitioner, in that way flouted the order of the trial court protecting thereby the possession of the respondent no.2 over the suit land till aaa/-::: Uploaded on - 14/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2018 00:56:37 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2018 00:56:37 :::7 CRI WP 1616.2017.odt the disposal of the suit and, as such, Courts below have rightly issued the process against the petitioner.Even, the Hon'ble High Court has also directed the parties to maintain status-quo till the disposal of the suit.I have also heard the learned APP for the respondent State.On careful perusal of the copy of the plaint of Regular Civil Suit No.337/2010, it appears that son-in- law of the present petitioner namely Vilas is also impleaded as defendant no.4 in the suit.Respondent no.2 herein has claimed the partition and separate possession to the extent of his 1/5 th share in respect of the ancestral property against his brothers including said defendant no.4-Vilas.Respondent no.2 has also prayed in the said Regular Civil Suit for cancellation of the sale deed executed in favour of the various persons including the present petitioner by coparceners of joint Hindu Family property.I do not find any criminal intention on the part of the petitioner/original accused aaa/-::: Uploaded on - 14/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2018 00:56:37 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2018 00:56:37 :::8 CRI WP 1616.2017.odt no.1 herein for the reason that he has re-conveyed the said land in favour of his son-in-law against whom respondent no.2 has instituted the suit claiming the partition and separate possession to the extent of his 1/5th share.Furthermore, before this Court has passed the order of status-quo, the disputed sale transaction has been completed, however, the Courts below have not considered the same and mechanically issued the order of issue process.The dispute is purely of a civil nature and in the given set of aaa/-::: Uploaded on - 14/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2018 00:56:37 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2018 00:56:37 :::9 CRI WP 1616.2017.odt allegations such dispute cannot be a subject matter of criminal proceeding under section 420, 467, 468 of the Indian Penal Code.Thus, the orders impugned are liable to be quashed and set aside as against the present petitioner.Hence, following order.The order of 'issue of process' dated 4.2.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Osmanabad in RCC No.53/2013 to the extent of the present petitioner i.e. SANDIPAN S/O. RAMDAS KALE/original accused no.1 and confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad by order dated 3.10.2017 in Criminal Revision Petition No.33/2013 are hereby quashed and set aside.Criminal Writ Petition accordingly disposed off.( V.K. JADHAV, J. ) ...::: Uploaded on - 14/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2018 00:56:37 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2018 00:56:37 :::
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,945,794 |
Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:On 9.11.1994 at about 1800 hours, at Mallial whenThota Satish was playing by the side of the Road and whenGandla Buchaiah (PW-11) was also present there at thattime, the accused herein drove the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearingNo.Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learnedSingle Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing theCriminal Revision Petition filed by the appellant.The accused faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishableunder Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in shortthe `IPC').The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagtial,found the accused guilty and convicted him to sentence toundergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a sum ofRs.4,000/- was imposed as fine with default stipulation.Inappeal the first appellate Court reduced the sentence to sixmonths but maintained the fine and the default stipulation.The revision petition as noted above was dismissed.AP9Z-6991 with high speed in a rash and negligentmanner and dashed against Thota Satish, due to which, thesaid Satish received bleeding injuries and while undergoingtreatment, the said Satish died in Civil Hospital, Jagtial.On 2 the complaint given by Gandla Buchaiah, a case in Cr.No.82 of 1994 under Section 304-A I.P.C., was registered againstthe accused and copies of F.I.R. were sent to all concerned.Subsequently, the police investigated the case and charge-sheet was laid against the accused U/s 304-A I.P.C., andafter appearance of the accused before the Lower Court, hewas supplied with the documents and was also examined, forwhich he pleaded not guilty of the charge u/s 304-A I.P.C. Tosubstantiate the above charge, the prosecution examinedPWs.1 to 11 and Exs.P1 to P11 were marked.After closureof the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/s313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (In short`Cr.P.C.') regarding the incriminating circumstances that areappearing against the accused and he simply stated either"false" or "does not know" for all the questions put to him.Hedid not state anything about manner of accident at least forthe last question: Do you wish to say anything about thiscase." he simply stated that there is nothing to say and hedid not explain being the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus as tohow exactly, the accident took place.D1 and D2 are the 3 contradictory portions in Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement ofPW.5 and Ex. D3 is the contradictory portion in Section 161Cr.Except this, neither any defencewitness has been examined on behalf of the accused, nor theaccused himself came into the box to explain as to how theaccident took place.3. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the otherhand supported the judgment of the trial court and the HighCourt. PWs 4, 5 & 11 were stated to be eye witnesses.PWs 4& 11 stated that at the time of occurrence it was dark.Interestingly in the First Information Report the name of theaccused appellant and bus No. was indicated.PW 11, the 4 informant stated that PWs 4&5 told him the number of bus.Interestingly, PWs 4&5 did not state thatthey had either noted the number of bus or had told the PW11 about the number of bus.It was the accepted case of PWs4, 5 & 11 that the offending vehicle after the occurrence spedaway from the place.If that was so, it is improbable that PWs4&5 could have noted the long number of the bus.Theinvestigating officer has stated that he could know the detailsof the bus after about four days of the occurrence.Both PWs4 & 5 stated that the bus was being driven on the left side.But PW 11 stated that the bus was being driven on the rightside.The evidence on record shows that the bus hit the victimon the right side and the boy was on the middle of the road.Contrary to this PW 11 stated that the busNo.Evidence of PW 11 is alsoto the extent that he was with the victim boy at the spot ofoccurrence.Strangely he has not suffered any injury.Incontrast PWs.4&5 have stated that there was no body near 5 the child.In view of the aforesaid unsatisfactory nature ofevidence, the prosecution cannot be said to have establishedthe accusations.The conviction as recorded by Courts belowis set aside.
|
['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,945,840 |
Heard learned Counsel.There are six appellants in these appeals.All of them are convicted under Section 302/149, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.They were tried for the offence for causing death of the deceased Bhabhichan Yadav by being members of an unlawful assembly.At that time these appellants came there armed with Lathis and Gandasas and surrounded the house.The informant P.W. 9, the father of the deceased and P.W. 7 at that time were weeding out the grass by spade in the sugarcane field.The deceased ran away to a distance of 300 yards from the house to a place where P.W. 9 and P.W. 7 were carrying on weeding operation.It is alleged that all the six appellants chased the deceased and caught the deceased in the sugarcane field and they assaulted him with Lathis and Gandasa.The motive for commission of the injuries is said to be the litigation between the parties.The deceased, after receiving injuries, died on the spot.A report was given, investigation commenced and the dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem.P.W. 8, the doctor, conducted the post-mortem on 18-5-79 and he noticed nine injuries.Injury Nos. 1 to 7 were incised wounds and the injury on the head proved to be a fatal one.The other injuries, such as injury No. 8 was an abrasion 1" x 1 /10" on the neck and injury No. 9, described as multiple brain scattered all over the back.Out of the witnesses examined in the case by the prosecution, P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 7 and 9 claimed to be the eye-witnesses of the occurrence.The trial Court having examined the evidence of the eye-witnesses accepted the same and convicted all the appellants under Section 302/149, I.P.C. The appeal filed against the order of the trial Court was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court.In this appeal, the learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the witnesses are all interested parties and have given a fabricated version, and the overt acts attributed to by them to the accused do not fit in with the medical evidence, and there exists a conflict between the evidence of eye-witnesses and the medical evidence, and, therefore, the appellants are entitled to 'benefit of doubt'.We have perused the records, including the F.I.R. and the evidence of the eye-witnesses.In the earliest report it is also mentioned that all these six accused having found in an unlawful assembly chased the deceased.The description of the injuries given by P.W. 8, the doctor, would go to show that Lathis should have been used in the case.As already mentioned, seven out of nine injuries were incised, and as per doctor's view, could have been caused by sharp cutting weapon like, Gandasa.In coming to injury Nos. 8 and 9, the doctor, no doubt, stated that there may have been some blunt object also.But if the assailants used the weapons in the manner as described by the witnesses the same could have been resulted also in contusions.It is common knowledge that abrasions also could be caused by coming into contact with rough sickle or even by falling on the ground.Injury No. 8 is only a small abrasion with a width of l"x 1/10".The injury No. 9 was due to fall on the rough surface.Admittedly, the occurrence had taken place in the field.Therefore, participation of the accused Nos. 1 to 3 becomes doubtful.The ages of the accused Nos. 1 to 3 are above 18 years.A reasonable doubt has arisen whether these three accused-appellants could cause injuries in the manner alleged by the eye-witnesses.So far as part played by appellant Nos. 4 to 6, viz. accused Nos. 4 to 6, it is consistently supported by the eye-witnesses and the same also has amply been supported by medical evidence, and, hence, to that extent, the prosecution has fairly established its case.In the result, appellant/ accused Nos. 1 to 3 are given the benefit of doubt and they are acquitted, and their conviction under Section 302/149, I.P.C. and the sentence of imprisonment for life thereunder, are set aside.If they are on bail, their bail bond shall be cancelled.In so far as accused Nos. 4 to 6 are concerned, they were also convicted under Section 302/149, I.P.C. The evidence is clearly to the effect that all the three accused used Gandasa and inflicted injuries, and they were convicted under Section 302/34, I.P.C., also.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
19,458,427 |
Shri Rajesh Shukla, Advocate for applicant-Mohan Khare.Shri Lalan Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State.Arguments heard.This is first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.The applicant has been arrested on 10/11/2014 in connection with Crime No.156/14, registered by P.S. Panihar, district Gwalior (M.P) for commission of the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 336/34 and 302 of I.P.C.FIR was lodged by Padam Khare, brother of the deceased Salla @ Mahenda Khare to the effect that in the evening when his mother Saraswati and wife Manisha were going to answer the natural call, all of a sudden, Dilip Khare, Rajendra Khare and Seetaram Khare reached over the spot and his mother and wife were abused by them and stones were also pelted by them.Thereafter, Mohan Khare (present applicant) accompanied with Ramesh Khare and two more accused persons came over the spot.They instigated and not only this but also they pelted stones on account of which one injury was sustained on the head by Salla i@ Mahendra Khare (since deceased).Accordingly on the report crime was registered.Thereafter during the course of treatment, Salla @ Mahendra Khare died on 9/11/2014 in the hospital.Marg No. 31/2014 was then registered.Prayer for bail was made on the ground that in fact during the course of pelting stone, the present applicant has also sustained 2 Mcrc.1434/15 Mohan Khare Vs.State of M.P.six injuries out of which five were contusions and one was incised wound.It is submitted that one FIR was also lodged by the applicant which was registered at Crime No.157/14 by the same police station against the complainant-party including the deceased for offence under sections 294, 323, 324, 336, 506 part-II/34 of I.P.C. That apart, it is argued by the counsel that from the facts on record nowhere intention to kill Salla @ Mahenda Khare has been drawn against the applicant.The challan has already been filed.Trial and disposal of the case will take time.Hence, on the aforesaid premises, it is prayed that the present application may be considered and allowed.Prayer for bail was opposed by the learned Panel Lawyer for the State.After taking into consideration the facts mentioned in the cross-case registered at Crime No. 157/14 with further perusal of the medical report of the present applicant, without commenting on the merits, the application is hereby allowed.It is directed that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rs.
|
['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
19,458,498 |
Tek Chand, son of Mr.Udey Ram and brother of deceased Rajinder Singh.The contents of complaint Crl.A. No.218/1999 Page 1 of 10 Ex.PW5/A reveal that on 22.03.1991 at about 8.15 pm, he alongwith his mother and sister-in-law (Bhabhi) Mrs. Santosh was watching Chitrahar, his elder sister-in-law (Bhabhi) Ms.Veero (wife of the deceased) was busy in cooking.Deceased Rajinder Singh was sipping tea outside the house when the appellant Dalbir Singh abused him complaining that children of the deceased were indulging in abuses.While threatening to see Rajinder, the appellant forcibly took him to the place where buffaloes were tethered and started attacking him with a phawadi kept there for removing the cow dung.Deceased Rajinder suffered injuries on his head and other parts of the body and he alongwith his mother and Bhabhi Mrs.Veero removed him to the hospital.As the deceased was opined to be 'unfit for statement' his statement Ex.PW 5/A was recorded.A. No.218/1999 Page 1 of 10Initially FIR under Section 308 IPC was registered against the appellant.On 26.03.1991 Rajinder succumbed to the injuries and FIR was converted under Section 304 IPC.During investigation Mrs.Sohan Devi, mother of appellant Dalbir Singh was also found to be involved in the occurrence, she was also arrested in this case.After completion of investigation, they were sent to face trial.At this stage, we would like to observe that initially not only FIR was converted under Section 304 IPC but even the chargesheet reveal that the appellant and his mother were sent to face trial for committing the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC.Tek Chand, PW-6 Ms.Veero and PW-7 Mrs.Pushpa Devi are eye witnesses,Pw-8 Dr.George Paul conducted the postmortem and proved the report as Ex.PW8/A. PW-9 Dr. D.Chatterji prepared the MLC on admission of Rajinder in SDN Hospital.PW-10 Inspector R.S.Mehra took over the investigation after the death of Rajinder.He conducted inquest proceedings Crl.Tek Chand that the issue started over the abuses being given by the children and while complaining about that, appellant Dalbir Singh also abused his brother deceased Rajinder.It is also undisputed that when the appellant who is their immediate neighbourer living just in front of their house, came to complain to his Crl.A. No.218/1999 Page 6 of 10 brother, he was unarmed.The appellant Dalbir Singh has impugned the judgment dated 23.03.1999 convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and order on sentence dated 27.03.1999 vide which he was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of ` 2000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year with benefit under Section 428 Cr.P.C.Briefly stated appellant Dalbir Singh alongwith his mother Sohan Devi (acquitted by learned Trial Court) was sent to face trial on the basis of complaint Ex.PW5/A lodged by Mr.However, in Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. by overwriting in Column No.7 at the top, the Crl.A. No.218/1999 Page 2 of 10 offence mentioned as 304 IPC was changed to under Section 302/34 IPC.A. No.218/1999 Page 2 of 10After the committal of the case to the Sessions Court, appellant Dalbir Singh and his mother Sohan Devi (co- accused) were charged for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.Prosecution examined 13 witnesses in all to substantiate the charge and the incriminating evidence was put to the appellant Dalbir Singh and his co-accused Sohan Devi.After considering the testimony of material prosecution witnesses, while Sohan Devi was given benefit of doubt and acquitted, appellant Dalbir Singh was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced as stated herein above.While PW-1 Ct.PAwan Kumar took the pullandas to CFSL, PW-2 HC Jagdish was working as Duty Officer on the relevant date and proved the copy of DD No.56-B as Ex.PW2/A received from Duty Constable at SDN Hospital, Shahdara regarding admission of injured Rajinder.Thereafter he also recorded the FIR Ex.PW2/C. PW-3 Lady Ct.Kanta is a witness to the arrest of co-accused Sohan Devi.PW-4 Ct.Rajinder Singh remained associated with first Investigating Officer ASI Asha Ram.While PW-5 Mr.A. No.218/1999 Page 3 of 10 and got the postmortem conducted.PW-11 Ct.Rajinder was posted as Duty Constable at SDN Hospital and conveyed the information vide DD No.56-B Ex.PW2/A. PW-12 Mr.Om Prakash was posted as Record Clerk at JPN Hospital and was examined to prove the 'death summary' prepared by Dr.Kshitij who had left the hospital.PW-13 is ASI Asha RamA. No.218/1999 Page 3 of 10- the first investigating officer.8. PW-5 Mr.Tek Chand is the complainant and the material witness examined by the prosecution to prove the occurrence.He testified that on 22.03.1991 at about 8.15 pm, he alongwith his mother and sister-in-law (Bhabhi) Santosh was viewing Chitrahar on the upper floor of the house.His elder sister-in-law (Bhabhi) Veero was cooking on the ground floor and his brother Rajinder was having tea downstairs while standing the middle of the door.At that time, appellant Dalbir Singh abused his brother complaining "your children were hurling heap of abuses.Hearing noise, he also came down and saw Sohan Devi taking his brother to the room where buffaloes were tethered.He also reached there to save his brother and at that very time, appellant Dalbir Singh inflicted several blows on the head of his brother with phawadi (meant for removal of cow dung).He tried to save his brother and received injuries in the process.His Bhabhi Veero who reached there on hearing the noise, also intervened and received injuries.Appellant inflicted injuries on him and his Bhabhi Veero from the side of handle of phawadi.He reported the matter to the police and his Bhabhi Veero took the injured to the hospital in three wheeler scooter.She first came to the police station but police asked her to take the injured to the hospital.She Crl.A. No.218/1999 Page 4 of 10 got Rajinder admitted in SDN Hospital.ASI Asha Ram also reached (as Rajinder was declared 'unfit to make statement') and recorded his (PW5) statement Ex.PW5/A.A. No.218/1999 Page 4 of 10On behalf of appellant, Ms.On behalf of State, Mr. Harsh Prabhakar, Advocate submitted that though the dispute initially started on a petty issue about the abuses being given by children of the family of deceased but the subsequent conduct of the Crl.A. No.218/1999 Page 5 of 10 appellant and the threat given by him to see the appellant, taking him to the room where buffaloes were tethered, itself suggest that he had the intention to kill the deceased Rajinder.The weapon of offence i.e. phawadi being dangerous weapon was hit several times on the head of the deceased Rajinder.This in itself is sufficient to attribute the required intention.It has been submitted that the deceased remained 'unfit for statement' till his death and the postmortem report reveals that the death was due to extensive cerebral damage front blunt force impact to head and all the injuries were ante mortem.It has been submitted that on the basis of testimony of eye witnesses and postmortem report, learned Trial Court has rightly convicted him for committing the offence punishable under section 302 IPC and the appeal may be dismissed.A. No.218/1999 Page 5 of 10We have considered the rival contentions and carefully gone through the record.The appellant has not disputed the occurrence taking place in the room where buffaloes were tethered.Rather he has claimed the complainant party to be the aggressor and he being hit by them.Admission of the appellant about sustaining injuries in the occurrence not only proves his presence but also involvement.The weapon of offence i.e. phawadi was also not procured by him after the quarrel started but it was lying at the place of occurrence and used by the appellant to hit the deceased Rajinder Singh.The postmortem report Ex.PW8/A reveals that injury No.2 i.e. stitched scalped lacerated wound 3 cm with scab separating abrasions in 3 X 0.8 cms present obliquely vertical in the right side frontal region and injury No.3 i.e. stitched scabbed lacerated wound 1.8 cms with scabbed separating abrasions around in 1.8 X 0.8 cm present in the upper middle front of forehead just to left of mid line proved fatal and same were opined to be caused by blunt force.A. No.218/1999 Page 6 of 10To invoke exception IV to Section 300 of the Code, the accused has to show that "(i) it was a sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation; (iii) the act was done in a heat of passion; and (iv) the assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner."The cause of quarrel is not relevant nor is it relevant who offered the provocation or started the assault.In 2008 (11) SCC 695 Shaikh Azim v. State of Maharashtra, the deceased and his son were present at their house alongwith other family members.They noticed some filth thrown in the backyard of their house from the side of the house of the accused and expressed their Crl.The family members of the accused also abused them.One of the accused holding a stick, the other holding an iron rod and the third accused holding the stick, came out of their house and gave blows on the head of the deceased.When his son rushed to his rescue, the accused also gave injuries to him with iron rod and sticks.The deceased succumbed to the injuries caused to him.It was held that the appropriate conviction of the appellant/accused would be under Section 304 Part I of the IPC.A. No.218/1999 Page 7 of 10Tek Chand, PW-6 Ms.Veero and PW-7 Mrs.Pushpa, who are close family members of the deceased, it is proved that the quarrel has taken place all of a sudden without premeditation which started with some altercation on the issue of hurling abuses.It was at that moment that when the parties quarreling reached the room where buffaloes were tethered and seeing a phawadi used for removal cow dung lying, that the appellant picked up the same and hit on the head and other parts of the body of the deceased.The statement of PW-5 Mr.Tek Chand and PW-6 Ms.Veero that while attacking them, the appellant hit from the side of the Crl.A. No.218/1999 Page 8 of 10 handle is sufficient to prove that in the heat of passion, the appellant had hit on the head of the deceased with the phawadi but when his family members came to intervene and rescue him, without taking undue advantage of being armed with phawadi, just to manage his escape from the spot, he hit them from the side of the handle of that phawadi.As per nominal roll of the appellant, as on 09.02.2004, he had already remained in custody for 5 years and 21 days and when appellant was admitted to bail in the month of April, 2004, it is apparent that he had undergone imprisonment for 5 years and about 3 months.The incident took place on 22.03.1991 i.e. nearly 21 years ago and except for the instant incident where the appellant had a brush with criminal law, his antecedents are otherwise without blemish.Copy of the order be sent to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar for record.PRATIBHA RANI J.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,945,856 |
This incident took place in the house of her mother at Balaghat.The prosecution is that accused Ravi was demanding T.V. and fridge as dowry.He was also demanding an amount of Rs. 50,000/- for starting some business.The accused was subjecting his wife to cruelty.On 4.1.1992, deceased Anju and accused Ravi came to Balaghat.Deceased Anju was bitten by dog at Jabalpur.The accused left Anju in the house of her mother.He told that he was going to Bhopal.The accused told Anju that she should prevail upon her mother to give him Rs. 50,000/-, failing which he would divorce her.At that time she was beaten by the accused.She was pregnant in those days.She came to the house of her mother Kesharbai (PW 1) and narrated the whole incident to her.She told about this incident to her sister Rekha (PW 3) who was in the house of her mother at that time.She has further deposed that in January, 1992 Anju came to her house at Balaghat with her husband.At that time she was very much disturbed and used to weep.She was pregnant at that time.The accused left her there and told her that he was going to Bhopal.He did not go to Bhopal and was found staying with Basant Kumar (PW 2) who is also her son-in-law.Satish Kumar (PW 7) came to her house and told her that accused Ravi has called the key of the house at Sihora from Anju.Anju did not give the key to him.She went with him to the house of Basant Kumar (PW 2).After sometime she came back with him.JUDGMENT S.P. Khare, J.Appellant Ravi @ Ravindra has been convicted under Section 306, Indian Penal Code for abetting the commission of suicide by his wife and he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 5,000/-.Instead of going to Bhopal he stayed in the house of Basant Kumar (PW 2).He is husband of Anju's elder sister.The accused sent Satish Kumar (PW 7) to bring the key from his wife.This key was of the lock of the house at Sihora where the accused was serving and living with his wife Anju.She did not send the key through Satish Kumar (PW 7).He came back.Anju came to the house of Basant Kumar (PW 2) and there was a quarrel between the two.On the same day i.e. on 12.1.1992 Anju went in the bathroom of her house and sent herself ablaze.The accused pleaded not guilty.The Trial Court after appreciation of the evidence on record held the accused guilty as mentioned above.In this appeal it is argued that the evidence adduced by the prosecution does not establish that the appellant abetted the commission of suicide by his wife.It is pointed out that the statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded after two months of the incident and during this period the story of the prosecution was concocted.The evidence on record has been carefully scrutinised by this Court.Kesharbai (PW1) is mother of deceased Anju.She has deposed that she had given an amount of Rs. 22,000/-, a golden ring and other articles worth Rs. 8,000/- at the time of Tilak of her daughter Anju with accused Ravi.Again at the time of marriage, she gave eight tolas gold, cooler, bed, dressing table, sofa-set, utensils and other articles.After eight days, Anju came back and told her that her husband was complaining that the dowry given to him was insufficient.She told her that the accused was demanding a T.V., gas oven and an amount of Rs. 50,000/- so that he may start some business.At that time the accused was clerk in Education Depart- ment.She told her that accused Ravi has beaten her and demanded an amount of Rs. 50,000/-.She also told that he has threatened to divorce her if this amount is not given to him.In cross-examination she has stated that the accused came to her house after the death of her daughter Anju but seeing her dead body heleft that place.In cross-examination she has stated that she had given her statement to the police on the date of the incident.She has further stated that Basant Kumar (PW 2) had not come in the marriage of Anju as he was also having differences with his wife.Rekha (PW 3) has corroborated the testimony of her mother.She has also deposed that the accused had sent his friend Satish Kumar Dubey (PW 7) to bring the key from Anju.She refused to give the key and went to the house of Basant Kumar (PW 2) where her husband was staying.She came back at 12 noon and she was weeping.She told her that she has been beaten and abused by the accused.She also told that her husband is demanding an amount of Rs. 50,000/- and he has threatened to divorce her if he is not given this amount.Basant Kumar (PW 2) has deposed that on hearing that Anju has died on account of burn injuries, he went to her house, Then he informed the police.The information given by him was recorded as Marg Intimation as per Ex. PI.He also stated that accused Ravi had sent his friend Satish Kumar Dubey (PW 7) to bring the key from his wife.He came back after some time and told the accused that Anju has not given the key.After half an hour Anju came there and retorted that her husband should come to her house if he wants the key.The accused Ravi refused to go with her.There was some quarrel between the accused and his wife.The accused sent Satish Kumar Dubey (PW 7) with his wife to leave her at her mother's house.This witness has been declared hostile.He has admitted that he was not on talking terms with Kesharbai (PW 1).He does not give any reason for this conduct.He has further stated that accused Ravi stayed in his house.It appears that this witness has some grievance against his mother-in-law as the accused has towards her.It is found from his evidence that Kesharbai (PW 1) had sold her land for Rs. l,25,000/-and that was the reason that her two sons-in-law were demanding money from her.Satish Kumar Dubey (PW 7) has stated that accused Ravi is his friend.He had gone to the house of Anju to bring the key.He was sent by the accused for bringing the key.He has further stated that Anju told him that she would not give the key to him and asked him to send the accused there.After sometime, she came to the house of Basant Kumar (PW 2) and asked the accused to accompany her to her mother's house.He refused to go there.This witness has also been declared hostile.The evidence discussed above goes to show that the accused was behaving in an abnormal way with his wife.He was sending his friend to bring the key from his wife.He himself was not prepared to go to her house even after she came to the house of Basant Kumar (PW 2).She must have felt humiliated when her husband did not come with her from the house of Basant Kumar (PW 2).He had repeated his demand of Rs. 50,000/- and also beaten her.He had abused and threatened to divorce her.It was intolerable for her.
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
194,587,803 |
The case of prosecution against the appellants, in short, is as under :On 13th March, 2014, deceased Nilesh loaded zinc from L.G. Company in Truck No.MH-31/AP-7821 to unload it at Uttam Value Service, Bhugaon, Wardha.The said truck was owned by complainant Kola Shriniwas Rao (PW-1).After unloading Zinc at ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 09:57:53 ::: 4 apeal413.17.odt Uttam Value Service, the truck was further loaded with Zinc and Copper scrap for unloading at L.G. Company, Hingna, Nagpur.::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 09:57:53 :::Appellant Ramkrishna was knowing Nilesh.He was knowing that Nilesh was to unload truck at Hingna.He made a plan to sell the scrap material to appellant Jugnu.Deceased brought the said truck from Wardha.Appellant Ramkrishna talked with deceased.Appellant with a pre-plan went to Wardha at about 5.00 p.m. Thereafter, he went to Waigaon square.ORAL JUDGMENT (Per M.G.Giratkar, J) :Criminal Appeal No.413 of 2017 is filed by appellant Ramkrishna s/o.Sitaram Darwate challenging his conviction by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur vide Judgment and Order dt.19.7.2017 passed in Sessions Trial No.301 of 2014, by which he is ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 09:57:53 ::: 3 apeal413.17.odt convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year.Appellant Ramkrishna is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.Criminal Appeal No.366 of 2017 is filed by appellant Jugnu s/o.Sewalal Shahu challenging his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 09:57:53 :::He was waiting for the deceased.At about 8.30 p.m., deceased came with the truck.Appellant stopped the said truck.Deceased was driving the said truck and one Bharat Bansod was in the truck.Appellant Ramkrishna took the driver seat.He talked with the deceased saying that they would sell the scrap material and divide the sale price between them, but the deceased was not ready.On the Wardha border, truck was stopped.Deceased purchased liquor.They both consumed liquor.Near Borkhedi camp, appellant Ramkrishna stopped the truck by the side of bridge.He again asked the deceased to sell the said material and divide the sale price between them.But, ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 09:57:53 ::: 5 apeal413.17.odt again, he denied.Appellant Ramkrishna took out knives and stabbed the deceased.::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 09:57:53 :::The truck was not reached to the destination.Therefore, owner of the truck searched the said truck.The said truck was found near New Mangaldham Society, Bajrangnagar, Wadi, Nagpur.Appellant Ramkrishna was driving the said truck.Complainant Kola Shriniwas Rao inquired with appellant Ramkrishna.He gave evasive replies.Kola Shriniwas Rao lodged report (Exh.20).Appellant Ramkrishna was arrested.He confessed to show the place where he sold the scrap material.Accordingly, his confessional statement was recorded.As per his confessional statement, scrap material worth Rs.14 Lacs was recovered from the place belonging to appellant Jugnu.Thereafter, appellant Jugnu was arrested for the offence punishable under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code.7. API Pravin Madhukarrao Kale (PW-23) investigated the crime.After complete investigation, filed charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class for the offences punishable under ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 09:57:53 ::: 6 apeal413.17.odt Sections 302, 394, 411 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, who, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Nagpur.::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 09:57:53 :::Prosecution has examined in all 23 witnesses.After conclusion of trial, learned trial Court convicted both the appellants as mentioned above.Heard Mr.C.R.Thakur, learned Counsel for the appellants.He has submitted that the case of prosecution is based only on the circumstantial evidence i.e. 1) appellant Ramkrishna was last seen with the deceased, 2) recovery of scrap material as per confessional statement, 3) recovery of weapon and 4) CCTV footage at Toll Booth gate.Learned Counsel has submitted that one Bharat Bansod was sitting in the cabin of truck at the time of incident.As per evidence of Ajay Salunke (PW-19), Computer Engineer, four persons were visible in the cabin of truck in CCTV footage.Therefore, last seen theory is not applicable.Those persons were not examined by prosecution.There might be possibility of killing the deceased by those persons.Recovery of scrap material was not from appellant ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 09:57:53 ::: 7 apeal413.17.odt Jugnu.There is no evidence to show that appellant Jugnu purchased the said scrap material.Recovery of weapons was from the open space.Hence, prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt.Learned trial Court has wrongly convicted both the appellants.Therefore, prayed to allow the appeal.::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 09:57:53 :::Heard Mr.T.A.Mirza, learned A.P.P. for the Respondent/State.He has submitted that evidence of Dr.CCTV footage proved by Ajay Salunke (PW-19) shows that appellant was driving the said truck.Dead body was discovered at the instance of the appellant Ramkrishna.Weapons were recovered as per the confessional statement.All this evidence shows that appellant Ramkrishna killed the deceased.Appellant Jugnu purchased the theft material.Those were seized from his premises.Both the appellants were rightly convicted.Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.From the perusal of evidence, there is no dispute that death of deceased was homicidal.Nilesh Tumram (PW-15) has ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 09:57:53 ::: 8 apeal413.17.odt conducted post mortem.As per his opinion, death was due to stab injury.::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 09:57:53 :::In respect of involvement of appellant Ramkrishna, prosecution has led evidence of last seen together with the deceased.It is pertinent to note that one Bharat Bansod was sitting in the cabin when the truck started from Wardha.As per evidence of Ajay Salunke (PW-19), Computer Engineer, on examination of CCTV footage, he found that four persons were sitting in the cabin of truck at Toll booth gate.No evidence was adduced by the prosecution to show that accused was only person in the company of deceased.Possibility of other persons, who were sitting in the truck, committing murder of deceased cannot be ruled out.Recovery of weapons was from the open space and therefore, not useful to the prosecution.Recovery of theft material from the premises of appellant Jugnu itself do not show that he was purchaser of stolen property.No evidence to show that premises belongs to accused Jugna.No other evidence was led by prosecution to show that appellant Jugnu purchased the theft material from appellant Ramkrishna.The circumstances which are relied by the trial Court ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 09:57:53 ::: 9 apeal413.17.odt are not sufficient to convict both the appellants.Hence, we allow both the appeals and proceed to pass the following order.::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 09:57:53 :::// ORDER // Criminal Appeal Nos.413 of 2017 and 366 of 2017 are hereby allowed.Appellant Ramkrishna s/o.Sitaram Darwate is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code.Appellant Jugnu s/o.Bail bonds of appellant Jugnu s/o.Sewalal Shahu shall stand cancelled.::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 09:57:53 :::::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 09:57:53 :::
|
['Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
194,589,457 |
Following facts in this election petition are either admitted or are not specifically denied.The election petitioner was sponsored as a candidate by Bhartiya Janata Party, a registered national political party, to contest the election from Assembly Constituency No.58, Pawai, District-Panna.Indian National Congress, also a recognized political party, sponsored the respondent as its candidate to contest the election from aforesaid constituency.The election symbol of the petitioner was Lotus (Kamal) and that of the respondent was Hand (Panja).Apart from the petitioner and respondent, nine other candidates contested the election from aforesaid constituency either as candidates of other recognized parties or as independents.There were 276 polling stations in the constituency.Out of aforesaid number of votes, 1,71,738 were found to have been validly polled, at the time of counting.Out of aforesaid number of valid votes, the petitioner received 67,254 votes, whereas the respondent secured 78,949 votes.Thus, the respondent was declared elected by the Returning Officer by a margin of 11,695 votes.On the date of election, respondent was Chairman of Madhya Pradesh Branch of Indian Red Cross Society (hereinafter referred to in this judgment as the Society).Apart from aforesaid undisputed facts, the case of the petitioner may be summarized as hereunder: The election of the respondent is vitiated because he committed corrupt practice of bribery as defined under section 123 (1)(A)(b).Most of the electors in the Assembly Constituency No.58, Pawai are poor and illiterate villagers and can be swayed by means of bribery to vote for a particular candidate.At around 4.00 pm on 20.11.2013, at Village Takhauri, Tehsil-Raipura, District-Panna, the respondent paid Rs.5,000/- by way of bribe to one Narayan Adiwasi in the presence of witness Takhat Singh for voting along with his family members in favour of the respondent.At around 2.30 pm on 20.11.2013, respondent bribed Chetram Lodhi by paying a sum of Rs.3,000/- for voting, along with his family members, in favour of the respondent at Village-Aghrad in the presence of witness Hakam Singh.On 21.11.2013, at around 04.30 pm at Village-Kariya, respondent paid a bribe in the sum of Rs.2,000/- to Jeevan Lodhi, in the presence of witness Anand Lodhi for voting in favour of the respondent.All of aforesaid three recipients of bribe were voters of Pawai Assembly Constituency.The petitioner and his agent made complaints in this regard to the Election Commission of India, State Election Officer, Bhopal, and District Returning Officer, Panna.It has also been pleaded in the petition that the respondent also indulged in another corrupt practice as defined in Section 123 (4) by making statements of facts which were false and which he believed to be false in relation to personal character or conduct of the petitioner, which was calculated to prejudice the prospects of the petitioner in the election.Respondent received Rs.5,000/- as advance for his tour to Delhi, Rs.28,000/- towards Contingent expenditure, Rs.8,164/-, Rs.9,498/- and Rs.2,697/- as bills of telephone at residence and Rs.2,204/- towards mobile phone expenses.Thus, the respondent made pecuniary gains from his office of Chairman.Thus, aforesaid office is an office of profit.However, he refrained from resigning this time around.Thus, the election petitioner was disqualified from being a member of the State Legislative Assembly on the date of his election under section 100 (1) (a) of the Act. Respondent misused the office of Chairman by selectively extending medical benefit to the voters of his constituency, which is demonstrated by the fact that 104 out of 146 patients treated by the society were from Pawai Constituency.The petitioner has further contended in the election petition that the code of conduct evolved by the Election Commission is mandatory in nature.It has been provided therein that each and every vehicle hired/engaged for the purpose of election must be registered and enrolled with the District Election Officer.During the election campaign of Pawai Assembly Constituency, the police caught two vehicles, one under the jurisdiction of P.S.-Shahnagar and other under the jurisdiction of P.S.-Semaria.He never told any such story in any public meeting either at Mohindra or at Semaria.The transcript of the speech alleged to have been made by the respondent and which has been filed along with the election petition, contains no allegations against the petitioner.It has also pleaded in the written statement that though on the date of election, the respondent was holding the post of Chairman of the Madhya Pradesh Branch of the Society, this was an honorary post carrying no pecuniary benefits.It has further been contended that facilities provided to the Chairman for discharge of his official duties cannot be equated with pecuniary gains.No payments as alleged in the petition were made to the respondent.As such, office of the Chairman was not an office of profit.Merely, because prior to earlier election respondent had resigned from the post of Chairman, does not mean that the post is an office of profit.to corrupt practice by misusing his power of post of Chairman of State Red Cross Society by extending the medical help to patients who were the voters of(b) an elector to vote or refrain from voting at an election, or as a reward toAnand Kishore Lodhi (PW-3) has deposed that during Vidhan Sabha Elections in the year 2013, at around 4:30 p.m. on 21-11-2013 he had gone to village Kardiya to see respondent Mukesh Nayak.He saw respondent Mukesh Nayak gave Rs.2000/- to Dilan Lodhi.The respondent had asked Dhilan Lodhi to vote in his favour and also ask his relatives to vote in favour of the respondent.Thereafter, he went to village Mohindra and informed Brajendra Pratap Singh on telephone.When he met Brajendra Pratap Singh later, he also told the petitioner about the aforesaid incident in person.They simply informed the petitioner.The petitioner is an experienced politician who was a Minister in the State Government.He had participated in the three elections but he did not make any written report in this regard to any authority.The respondent helped the aforesaid women to the fullest extent.The petitioner further submitted that no such incident ever took place and aforesaid story was fabricated by the respondent in order to impress upon the voters that the petitioner was not empathic to the poor and was therefore, not a fit candidate.The petitioner further deposed that respondent Mukesh Nayak repeated aforesaid story in village Semaria as well and thereby he emotionally swayed the voters of Pawai Assembly Constituency in his favour.In paragraph No.3 of his deposition, he has categorically stated that at the time of election he was President of Indian Red Cross Society.Thus, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was Chairman of Madhya Pradesh Branch of Indian Red Cross Society on relevant dates.In view of aforesaid admission, the only question that survives for consideration with regard to issue No.3 is that whether it was an office of profit?Petitioner Brijendra Pratap Singh (PW/1) has stated in paragraph No.10 of his deposition that the post of Chairman of Madhya Pradesh Branch of Indian Red Cross Society is an office of profit; therefore, the respondent was disqualified from being elected as member of the Legislative Assembly.On that occasion, he had resigned from the Chairmanship of aforesaid society.Petitioner Brijendra Pratap Singh has further stated in paragraph No.11 of his deposition that by virtue of being Chairman of Madhya Pradesh Branch of Indian Red Cross Society, respondent Mukesh Nayak had received amount of expenses incurred by him for visiting Delhi from Bhopal from the contingent expenditure account of the society.Likewise, he had also received the amount of telephone bills.Thus, at the time of contesting present election, the respondent was holding an office of profit.Respondent Mukesh Nayak (RW/1) on the other hand, has stated that Indian Red Cross Society is an international level social service organization, which works in the field of disaster management and renders services.He never received any pecuniary benefits while holding the post of Chairman.However, after the year 2008, the rules were changed and the post of Chairman became an elective post.In the press note issued by the Principal Secretary to the Governor with regard to election to the post of Chairman it was explicitly mentioned that the office of the Chairman of the Society would not be an office of profit and no salary or allowance would be payable to the Chairman.The person elected to the post shall also not be entitled to any facilities like vehicle or servants.As per the press note, travelling allowance was also not payable.He had filed photocopy of aforesaid press note, which contains all of aforesaid conditions.He is custodian of the record of the Madhya Pradesh Branch.He further stated that the post of Chairman was an honorary post.Aforesaid witness further deposed that the Madhya Pradesh Branch only provided facility of a personal assistant and a telephone at the office to respondent Mukesh Nayak.Telephone has been installed in the office of the Chairman since beginning and whoever holds the post of Chairman, uses it.The bills (Ex.P.18 to Ex.P./13) were paid by the Society in this regard.The witness further stated that apart from aforesaid land-line telephone, the Branch did not provide any other land-line telephone or mobile telephone to the respondent.No payment was made towards bill of any other telephone to the respondent.Apart from the facilities of a personal assistant and aforesaid land line telephone at office, no other salary, allowance or facility was provided to the Chairman.Office did not entail any pecuniary gain or facilities such as rent free accommodation or chauffeur driven car.He was not even entitled to any land line-phone at his residence or a mobile phone.He was also not entitled to any domestic servant.The only facilities that were attached to the office were a land-line telephone installed at the office and a personal assistant for official work.Merely, F.I.R. (Ex.P./16) alleging that a procession was taken out and slogans were shouted at the procession at about 03.40 pm on 24.11.2013 has been proved.The F.I.R. is not substantive evidence; therefore, the fact cannot be said to have been proved merely by proving that F.I.R. has been lodged in that regard.As such, the petitioner has also failed to prove that the respondent indulged in canvassing any manner during the period prohibited by Section 126 of the Act.The second part of issue no.6 relates to use of vehicles registered for use by independent candidate Jeevan Prasad by the Returning Officer for the campaigning of Indian National Congress and the respondent in contravention of the Rules and directions of the Election Commission.Election Petitioner Brijendra Pratap Singh (PW/1) has stated in paragraph No.13 of his examination-in-chief that as per the Rules framed by the Election Commission, the vehicles used by any candidate for the purpose of campaigning must be registered with the District Election Officer.However, two of the vehicles, which were registered in the name of independent candidate Jeevan Prasad, were found to be carrying pamphlets, posters and other canvassing material, which belonged to the respondent Mukesh Nayak and the Congress Party.{Delivered on this 27th Day of January, 2016}This election petition under sections 80 read with 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (herein after referred to in the judgment as the Act) has been preferred by the loosing candidate challenging the election of the respondent as member of Legislative Assembly of the State of Madhya Pradesh from Assembly Constituency No.58, Pawai, District- Panna on the ground that on the date of election, respondent was disqualified for being elected as a member of the Legislative Assembly, on the ground of corrupt practices adopted during election campaign and on the ground of non- compliance with the provisions of the Act, Rules or Orders made under the Act.On 16.11.2013, in a public meeting at Village-Mohdra, respondent narrated false and fabricated story that an old lady visited the residence of the petitioner at Bhopal seeking his help for treatment but the petitioner refused to extent any help to her.However, when the lady met the respondent, he open heartedly help her.The respondent repeated the same concocted story at Village-Semaria as well.It has further been averred in the election petition that on the date of election, the respondent was holding the post of Chairman of Madhya Pradesh Branch of Indian Red Cross Society, which is an office of profit.Both the vehicles were registered in the name of independent candidate Jeevan Prasad; however, on search of vehicles, pamphlets, posters and other electoral material of Indian National Congress were found.In this regard, first information reports were registered by P.S.-Semaria and Shahnagar and offences under section 188 of the IPC read with section 126 of the Act were registered.It has also been pleaded that the respondent, in contravention of mandate of Section 126 (1) (a) of the Act held public meetings within the prohibited period of 48 hours next prior to the conclusion of polling in Pawai Assembly Constituency.Accordingly, a public meeting was held at 03.40 pm on 24.11.2013 at Gaisabad Road, P.S.-Semaria and another at 08.30 pm on 24.11.2013 at Jhanda Bazaar, Pawai.Police Stations Semaria and Pawai have already lodged first information reports under Section 188 of the IPC read with section 126 of the Act in this regard.Therefore, it has been prayed that the election of the respondent from Assembly Constituency No.58, Pawai be declared void.In his written statement, respondent has categorically denied that he ever bribed any one.It has been specifically denied that he paid bribes to Narayan Adiwasi, Chetram or Jeevan Lodhi as alleged in the election petition.It has been stated that aforesaid allegations indicate petitioners lack of trust and faith in democratic process and electorate's wisdom.It has also been denied that any complaint in this regard was made to any of the authorities related to the election.The respondent has also specifically denied that he narrated any story with a view to assassinate the character of the petitioner for undermining the prospectus of the petitioner in the election.Pawai Constituency?Election Relief and costs?Petition dismissed with costs.(i) *(ii) an elector for having voted or refrained from voting;On this issue, Takhat Singh (PW/4) has stated in paragraph No.1 of his examination-in-chief that at around 04.00 pm on 20.11.2013, respondent Mukesh Nayak paid Rs.5,000/- to Narayan Adiwasi by way of bribe in Village- Takhauri in his presence.Respondent Mukesh Nayak asked Narayan Adiwasi to vote in favour of congress.Next day i.e 21.11.2013, he went to petitioner Brijendra Pratap Singh (PW/1) and told him about the incident.Likewise, Hakam Singh Yadav (PW-2) has stated in his deposition that at around 2:30 p.m. on 20-11-2013, he saw respondent Mukesh Nayak giving Rs.3000/- to Chetram Lodhi.Respondent Mukesh Nayak had asked Chetram Lodhi to vote in his favour and also induce his relatives and neighbours to do the same.Respondent Mukesh Nayak had further told witness Hakam Singh that if he needed liquor at night, the same shall be provided by the respondent.Thereafter, this witness had informed petitioner Brajendra Pratap Singh, who was the candidate of his party, the same day, about the incident.Understandably, none of those allegedly bribed have come forward to depose in favour of the petitioner.However, none of aforesaid three witnesses i.e. Hakam Singh (PW-2), Anand Kishore Lodhi (PW-3) and Takhat Singh (PW-4) is resident of village in which the incident of bribery is alleged to have taken place.Hakam Singh (PW-2) is resident of village Jamundadhh and he is said to have witnessed the incident of bribery which allegedly took place in village Agrad, which is about 5 km from his village.Likewise, Anand Kishore Lodhi is resident of village Moharkala and he witnessed the incident of bribery which took place in village Kardiya which is about 3-4 kms away.Takhat Singh (PW-4) is resident of Mankori and he is said to have witnessed the alleged incident of bribery which took place in village Takhauri.None of the witnesses have stated in their examination-in-chief that alleged witnesses were voters of Pawai Assembly Constituency.Hakam Singh (PW-2) has admitted that he has been a worker of Bharatiya Janata Party, i.e. the party of election petitioner, for past 15 years.Anand Kishore Lodhi (PW-3) has admitted that he has been associated with Bharatiya Janata Party for past 5-6 years and he has an affection for Bharatiya Janata Party; therefore, he had informed about the alleged bribery to petitioner Brajendra Pratap Singh.He has further stated that he not only knows the mobile number of the petitioner from before the incident but also stated that he can tell mobile number of the petitioner from his memory.Thus, it is clear that aforesaid two witnesses are members of Bharatiya Janata Party and have been closely associated with that party.Anand Kishore Lodhi is personally close to the petitioner.Takhat Singh (PW-4) has denied that he is a worker of Bharatiya Janata Party but has admitted in his cross-examination that he travelled a distance of about 60 k.ms.from his village Mankori to the residence of petitioner to inform him about the alleged incident of bribery.In that case also, the respondent had denied his presence at the time, place and spot alleged.The petitioner has failed to prove the corrupt practices of bribery on the part of the respondent beyond reasonable doubt.Consequently, issue No.1 is decided against the petitioner.IssueNo.2: Whether the returned candidate/respondent has made false statements in relation to personal character or conduct of the petitioner in public meeting thereby prejudiced the prospects of petitioner's election?The burden of proving aforesaid issue was also upon the petitioner.Thereafter, that old woman sat on a culvert throughout the night and visited the respondent in the morning for the same purpose.Petitioner Brijendra Pratap Singh (PW/1) has admitted in paragraph No.22 of his cross-examination that his workers had informed him that respondent Mukesh Nayak had told aforesaid fabricated story in his speeches made in villages Mohindra and Semaria.Thus, it is clear that the petitioner Brijendra Pratap Singh is not an eye witness of alleged speeches made by the respondent in Mohindra and Semaria.None of the workers, who are said to have heard any of aforesaid two alleged speeches, has been examined by petitioner.Thus, there is no evidence on record at all to prove that the respondent made any speech regarding personal character or conduct of the petitioner in contravention of sub- section 4 of Section 123 of the Act.At about 03.40 pm on 24.11.2013 and thereafter at 08.30 pm the same day, he convened public meetings and addressed those meetings at Gaisabad Road, P.S.-Semaria and Jhanda Bazar, Pawai respectively.In this regard, first information report was lodged.On 24.11.2013, Shri K.S. Kori, Tehsildar and Office-in-Charge of Flying Squad lodged a first information report under Section 188 of the IPC and Section 126 of the Act. On the basis of aforesaid first information report, crime No.217/2013 was registered in P.S.-Semaria (Certified Copy Ex.P/16).Respondent Mukesh Nayak (PW/1) has stated in this regard that he did not indulge in any canvassing outside the prescribed time limit.He did not take out any procession in contravention of the model of code of conduct.He specifically denied the suggestion that he held any election meeting at 03.40 pm on 24.11.2013 at Gaisabaad Road, Semaria.He admitted that first information report (Ex.P./16) was lodged in this regard and on the basis of aforesaid first information report, a case under Sections 188 of the IPC and Section 126 of the Act, is pending in the Court of JMFC, Pawai.He also admitted that aforesaid FIR was not lodged by any private person but by an Administrative Officer, who at that point of time, was working under the Election Commission; however, he stated that the petitioner was a Cabinet Minister at that time and the officers of the Governments were under his influence.He also admitted that one more FIR was lodged against him by the Election Clerk of Tehsil office on the charge of holding election meeting at Jhanda Bazar on 24.11.2013 under Sections 188 of the IPC and 126 of the Act. He further admitted that a criminal case in this regard is also pending in the Court of JMFC, Pawai.On the other hand, petitioner in his cross-examination denied the suggestion that since he was a Cabinet Minister at that point of time, the police officers had registered a false FIR under his pressure.As such, the respondent had contravened the aforesaid Rules and directions.A report in this regard was lodged in P.S.-Semaria and Shahnagar.As a result of aforesaid contravention, the election result of Assembly Constituency No.58, Pawai was materially affected.Raghunath Khatarkar (PW/5), the Inspector posted in police station-Shahnagar on the date of incident, has stated that Nayab Tehsildar, D.D. Suman, who was the Officer-in-Charge of the Flying Squad, had lodged a first information report (Certified copy of Ex.P/15).On the basis of aforesaid FIR, he had registered crime No.180/2013 under Sections 188 and 171 (cha) of the IPC.It was averred in the FIR that a Mahindra Xylo vehicle bearing registration number M.P. 04 CD 3130 was allotted to the independent candidate Jeevan Prasad for the campaigning; however, it was found to contain the posters and stickers of the candidate of Indian National Congress Mukesh Nayak.At that time, vehicle was being driven by one Ramesh Rao.Aforesaid vehicle was seized by Nayab Tehsildar and produced in the police station.The witness further stated that a charge-sheet in this regard was filed in the Court of JMFC; whereon, crime No.39/2014 was registered.In this regard, respondent Mukesh Nayak (RW/1) has stated in paragraph Nos.10 and 11 of his cross-examination that he is not aware if his campaigning material being found in the vehicle of independent candidate Jeevan Prasad by Nayab Tehsildar.It may be noted here that the election petitioner has not examined the concerned Nayab Tehsildar, who is alleged to have discovered the election material belonging to respondent Mukesh Nayak in vehicle registered for use by independent candidate Jeevan Prasad.He has also not examined any of the witnesses of alleged seizure.Even, if we assume for the sake of arguments that such election material was indeed recovered from the vehicle for the use by aforesaid Jeevan Prasad, respondent Mukesh Nayak would not be liable for the acts of an independent candidate, unless it is proved that the material was being carried in such vehicle at the behest of or with the consent of the respondent or his election agent.No evidence is available on aforesaid point.Thus, the petitioner has also failed to prove the contravention of any Rules or any directions of the Election Commission, which can be said to have materially affected the result of the election.Issue No.5: Relief and Costs?On the basis of foregoing discussion, the Court is of the view that the petitioner has failed to prove that the respondent bribed any of the voters of his constituency or has made a false statements in relation to personal character or conduct of the respondent in a public meeting and has thereby prejudice the electoral prospects of the respondent and has thus committed a corrupt practice.The petitioner has also failed to prove that the post of Chairman of Madhya Pradesh Branch of Indian Red Cross Society is an office of profit and the respondent misused such office by selectively extending medical help/aid to the voters belonging to Pawai Assembly Constituency.The petitioner has also failed to prove that the respondent indulged in any canvassing during the period prohibited by Section 126 (1) of the Act or that any vehicle registered for use by independent candidate Jeevan Prasad, was used for carrying campaigning material of the respondent or the Congress Party.Thus, this election petition deserves to be dismissed.Consequently, this election petition preferred by the loosing candidate Brijendra Pratap Singh, challenging the election of the returned candidate Mukesh Nayak as a member of State Legislative Assembly from the Assembly Constituency No.59, Pawai, District Panna, is hereby dismissed.The advocates fee shall be payable as per schedule, if certified.The Office is directed to send forthwith a certified copy of this judgment to the Election Commission and the Speaker of the State Legislative Assembly as per Section 103 of the Act.(C V SIRPURKAR)
|
['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
194,602,211 |
Again the 1st petitioner on 19.01.2007 executed a sale deed for a land measuring about 23 = cents in favour of the 6th petitioner herein by receiving a sale consideration of Rs.1,25,505/-.Thereupon on 15.02.2007, the defacto complainant immediately cancelled the deed of power of attorney executed in favour of the 1st and 6th petitioners and the same was informed to them.The petitioners have filed the present Criminal original petition invoking the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.352 of 2010 for the offence under Sections 420, 506(ii) and 420 r/w 109 IPC on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Coimbatore.2.The petitioners herein are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 5 and 7 respectively in the above Criminal Case.It is their case that the above charge sheet is liable to be quashed on the ground that the same is abuse of process of law, since they have not involved in any of the offence as alleged in the charge sheet and in fact by giving a criminal colour to a civil dispute, the subject complaint was given by the defacto complainant, the 2nd respondent herein namely C.Vijayalakshmi to settle the civil dispute in her favour.3.The brief facts required for the disposal of the above criminal original petition is as follows; that the above charge sheet in C.C.No.352 of 2010 for the offence under Sections 420, 506(ii) and 420 r/w 109 IPC came to be laid by the 1st respondent in furtherance of the complaint of the 2nd respondent.The case of the 2nd respondent before the 1st respondent is that she owned a land measuring about 0.91 acres in Ka.No.352/1b situated at Veerakeralam village and she entered into a sale agreement with the 1st respondent herein with respect of the above property by receiving an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as advance.In pursuance of the above sale agreement and as per the demand of the 1st petitioner, the defacto complainant executed a deed of power of attorney dated 29.08.2005 in favour of the 1st petitioner and the 3rd petitioner.It was assured by the 1st petitioner that the entire sale consideration will be disbursed within a week.Subsequently, they paid a sum of Rs.75,000/- to the defacto complainant.However, the 1st petitioner failed to keep up his promise but had sold the portion of land measuring about 23= cents to the 2nd petitioner herein by virtue of the sale deed dated 22.12.2005 by utilizing the general power of attorney standing in his name.In the above said factual background, the 2nd petitioner by manipulating the date of sale as if it was executed on 24.04.2007 itself in favour of the 1st petitioner for a land measuring about 22 cents as if projecting the sale was made in the month of January, 2007 during the subsistence of the general power.Again the 1st petitioner knowing well about the cancellation of his power of attorney fraudulently executed a sale deed in favour of the 6th petitioner.Thus the above complaint was lodged by the 2nd respondent and the same was registered by the 1st respondent in Crime No.20 of 2009 and the same was culminated into C.C.No.352 of 2010 on the file of the aforesaid Court.4.Further the 1st petitioner was charge sheeted for the offence under section 420 of IPC, as against the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 6 charge sheet was laid for the offence under Section 420 r/w 109 of IPC and as against the 3rd and 4th petitioners charge sheet was laid for their intentional aid in the above said execution of sale deeds.That apart it was found that the 5th petitioner namely Mariappan and one Mr.Jeyakumar were also involved in the offence of intimidating the 2nd respondent with regard to the above transactions.The 1st respondent after conducting proper investigation found that there is a prima facie case made out against the petitioners and laid the above charge sheet and the same cannot be quashed at the threshold without conducting trial.10.The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent has argued that prima facie material evidences are available as against the petitioners for their involvement in the above criminal case.The other circumstances will be proved by the prosecution only after trial and therefore it is not a fit case to exercise the inherent powers of this Honble Court to quash the charge sheet.11.I heard Mr.S.V.Pravin Rathinam, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
194,604,089 |
2. Facts giving rise to this revision, in short, are that the prosecutrix was a minor girl.Applicant developed a relation with her and she was found in the room in a compromising position, the applicant was doing inter-course with the prosecutrix.The aforesaid act was seen by the brother of the prosecutrix, he objected and made a complaint to his mother.Thereafter, prosecutrix committed suicide.(Delivered on 26.04.2019)Applicant has filed this revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C., being aggrieved by the order dated 30.11.2018 passed in Special Sessions Case No.43/2018 by Additional Sessions Judge, Pawai District Panna whereby, learned trial Court framed the charge against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 376 (1) of IPC and Section 3 read with Section 4 of POSCO Act and under Section 306 of IPC.During the enquiry of merg, it was found that prosecutrix was below the age of 15 years and applicant was aged 20 years, he allured her and took the consent of the prosecutrix and committed sexual inter-course with her.When this matter was informed to the family members of the prosecutrix, she by pouring kerosene on her set ablaze.During investigation, slide of vaginal smear prepared by the concerning doctor send for examination to FSL Sagar as well as for DNA Test.Charge-sheet came to be filed before the Court of JMFC where from the case send for the Special Court constituted for the trial of the offence punishable under the POSCO Act. The Special Court vide impugned order framed the charge against the applicant under Section 376 (1) of IPC, under Section 3 read with Section 4 of POSCO Act and under Section 306 of IPC.3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that trial Court has not considered the material available along with the charge-sheet.There is no prima facie case made out against the applicant.The information was recorded in Roznamacha on 14.08.2018 and FIR was lodged on 09.09.2018 and on the same day, the statement of the witnesses were recorded by the Investigating Officer.No suicide note was recovered.He further submits that prosecutrix was at the time of alleged incident was 16 years and no offence under Section of POSCO Act is made out against the applicant and also no case for the offence under Section 376 3 (1) of IPC is made out.For the offence under Section 306 of IPC, it is mentioned in the statement that the applicant has not instigated or abated the prosecutrix for suicide.Brother of the prosecutrix scolded her and being annoyed of that act, she committed suicide.There is no ingredients of the offence under Section 306 of IPC is made out against the applicant and prayed to set aside the impugned order and discharge the applicant.Counsel for the State submits that there is sufficient material available on record to connect the applicant with the alleged offence.There is no need to discharge the applicant.The applicant can face the trial and having the opportunity to put a defence and cross-examine the witnesses and pray to dismiss the revision.Having heard of both the parties and perused the documents filed by the applicant.The applicant filed the copy of the charge-sheet.It is undisputed fact that on 14.7.2018, prosecutrix set her ablaze, she was shifted to District Hospital and the doctor on the same day informed the Police Chowki Katni situate in the premises of District Hospital.On the basis of information, Merg No.39/18 registered in the Police Station Shah Nagar.Prosecutrix was referred for better treatment at Jabalpur, but on the way, she succumbed.Merg intimation in the Police Chowki Katni is 0/192/18 registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C and the same was send to Police Station Shah Nagar where merg No.39/18 was registered.Dead body of the prosecutrix was send to the District Hospital Katni where doctor opined that prosecutrix she was 95% burnt.She prepared a slide of smear of the 4 prosecutrix and handed over to Investigating Officer and thereafter, IO through Superintendent of Police send the slide to FSL Sagar for examination and also for DNA test.Perused the statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation.When the aforesaid act was seen by the brother of the prosecutrix, he scolded her and after that prosecutrix committed suicide.There is prima facie material is available against the applicant in the investigation for prosecuting him for the offence under Section 376 of IPC and under Section 3 read with Section 4 of POCSO Act. Learned trial Court framed the charge against the applicant under Section 376 (1) of IPC and under Section 3 read with Section 4 of POCSO Act. There is no irregularity or perversity found in framing the charge against the applicant in abovementioned both offences.No doubt, there is no prima facie sufficient material found against the applicant for instigation or abatment for suicide.The brother of the prosecutrix found that the prosecutrix and applicant both were in compromising position and thereafter, he scolded the prosecutrix and reported the matter to his mother.The applicant has filed this revision for discharging the applicant from the charge levelled.
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
194,607,577 |
In this context it may be beneficial to quote the relevant orders dated 10/8/2010, 27/8/2010 and 30/9/2010 passed in C. Case No. 1874 of 2010 which are as follows : -"10/8/10 Seen the complaint filed by the complainant u/s. 325/446/427/379/120B I.P.C. against the accds persons.Let the case be transferred to the Ld. 2nd Court, Barasat for disposal.To 27.8.10 for app.27/8/10 Complainant is present.30/9/10 The complainant is present by filing hazira and is examined on S.A. u/s 200 of Cr.P.C.Hence issue process against the complaint named accused persons both ways.Requisite at once.Fixing 21.1.11 for S.R./AD and app."For the purpose of the present case reference may profitably be made to paragraphs 14 and 15 of the judgement in Vijay Dhanuka case (supra) which reads as follows :In view of our answer to the aforesaid question, the next question which falls for our determination is whether the learned Magistrate before issuing summons has held the inquiry as mandated under Section 202 of the Code.The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and transferred the case to the court of another Magistrate for inquiry and disposal.On the said date, the complainant and her witnesses were present.The complainant was examined on solemn affirmation and the two witnesses, namely Enamul Haque and Masud Ali were also examined.The order dated 31/10/2011 shows that they were examined under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code").The transferee Magistrate, thereafter, adjourned the case for orders and on the adjourned dated i.e. 15/11/2011, he directed for issuance of summons against the accused persons for offence under Sections 323, 380 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
24,826,589 |
M.C.No.826/2016 Page 2 of 9 petitioners and the respondent No.2 has no complaint whatsoever against petitioners.Both the parties have undertaken to remain bound by their statements.The affidavit of respondent No.2 is at Page No.11 of the petition.M.A.3467/2016 (for exemption) Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.Accordingly, the application is allowed.Vide the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.121/2013 registered at Police Station Gokalpuri, Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 308/34 IPC and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against them.M.C.No.826/2016 Page 1 of 9After investigation, police has filed the chargesheet, charges have been framed and the case is pending for prosecution evidence.Meanwhile, due to intervention of the relatives and common friends, the parties have resolved their disputes amicably vide settlement dated 14.01.2016 and agreed to get both the aforesaid matters quashed against each other.Learned counsel further submits that FIR No.120/2013 has already been quashed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court today itself vide Crl.Thus, the respondent No.2 does not wish to pursue this case further against the petitioners and has no objection if the present petition is allowed.In view of the law discussed above, considering the settlement arrived at between the parties and the statements of respondent No.2 and the learned APP for the State, I am of the considered opinion that this matter deserves to be given a quietus as continuance of Crl.M.C.No.826/2016 Page 8 of 9 proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility.M.C.No.826/2016 Page 8 of 9Proof thereof shall be furnished to the learned Trial Court under intimation to the Investigating Officer/SHO concerned.Accordingly, the present petition is allowed.A copy of this order be given dasti to the learned counsel for petitioner.M.C.No.826/2016 Page 9 of 9M.C.No.826/2016 Page 9 of 9
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
24,830,908 |
B/302 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of : Sahabul Ali Khan ... ... petitioner Ms. Devi Priya Mitra ... ... for the petitioner Mr. Saibal Bapuli, Mr. Arani Bhattacharyya ... ... for the State The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Shyampur P.S. Case No. 224 of 2018 dated 15.05.2018 under Sections 447/326/307/120B/302 of the Indian Penal Code.The State opposes the prayer on the ground that the petitioner may be the paramour of the victim's wife and the son of the victim has clearly indicated the present petitioner as the killer in such son's statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J.)
|
['Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
24,831,177 |
Learned counsel for the applicant has moved supplementary affidavit for the correction of Section 379 I.P.C. in place of 397 I.P.C. in the prayer clause of the bail application.Accordingly, learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to correct the Section 397 as 379 in the prayer clause of the bail application during the course of the day.Heard Sri Anil Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the records.The applicant is seeking bail in connection with Case Crime No.- 331 of 2019, under Sections 379 and 411 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali, District- Pilibhit.The allegation in the first information report is of theft by some unknown person, however, the applicant's name has come surfaced out in the present case on the basis of the recovery of Rs.300/-.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there is no recovery of alleged stolen article from the possession of the applicant and the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case.Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the applicant has explained the criminal history of 13 cases vide paragraph 11 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and in all those cases the applicant has already been enlarged on bail.The bail orders have been brought on record.Learned Additional Government Advocate has, however, opposed the prayer for grant of bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact.In view of the aforesaid, the bail application stands disposed of.Order Date :- 8.7.2020 Atmesh
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
24,836,430 |
The present bail petition has been filed for grant of bail u/S.439 of Cr.It is directed that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the trial Court and and when required.Certified copy as per rules.Learned government advocate has opposed the bail petition and prayed for dismissal of the application.However, this Court, in light of the aforesaid order and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties is of the opinion that the present application deserves to be allowed and is, accordingly, allowed.It is directed that in the event of arrest by the Police in the aforesaid case, the petitioner shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer for his regular appearance before the Police during the investigation or before the Court during trial.
|
['Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
24,838,837 |
Further it is submitted that the next hearing date is on 14.08.2020 and in all probability, on that day, no progress will be made since it would be lock down period.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.05.08.2020 AT Speaking Order/ Non Speaking Order Index: Yes/ No Internet: Yes/ No To1.The Inspector of Police, North Zone, Alandur, Chennai.2.The Superintendent of Police, Vellore District, Vellore.3.The Inspector of Police, Banavaram Police Station, Vellore District.O.P.No.21757 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.No.10075 of 2016 5/4http://www.judis.nic.inThis petition is filed seeking to transfer the investigation in Crime No.187 of 2016 dated 04.08.2016 pending on the file of the third respondent police to any other competent agency.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that in this case investigation completed and charge sheet filed in S.C.No.158 of 2018 which is pending trial before the Additional Sessions Court, Ranipet.It is further submitted that though in the FIR, three persons were named as accused while filing the charge sheet, two persons names in the charge sheet has been deleted pursuant to that 109 IPC has been deleted.To a specific query, the Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that from the year 2018, the case is at initial stage itself.After framing of charges on 02.11.2018, there has not been any progress in this case.2/4http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.21757 of 2016The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not aware of the pendency of the case and she was not even informed and no attempt was made by the respondent police to serve any summons or informed about dropping or deleting two persons names and consequently, the dropping of Section 109 IPC.Hence, she was not given opportunity to file protest petition.Hence, the learned Sessions Judge, is directed to send summons to the defacto complainant through the respondent police.On appearance of the defacto complainant, inform her about the rights available to her in filing protest petition with regard to deletion of two accused names and dropping of the Section and thereafter, to proceed according to law giving reasonable and fair opportunity to the defacto complainant.Further, the Additional Sessions Judge is reminded that the Sessions case is pending from the year 2018 without any progress, which is not proper.Hence, learned Sessions Judge to inform this Court about the progress made in this case in this regard after 3/4http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.21757 of 2016 lifting of the lock down.4/4http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.21757 of 2016 M.NIRMAL KUMAR,J.With the above direction, this petition is disposed of.
|
['Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
24,840,587 |
I.A.Nos.4538/2017 and 4539/2017 are dismissed as being rendered infructuous.Heard on the question of admission.Revision is admitted for final hearing.Heard on I.A.No.4262/2017 which is an application under Section 397(1) read with Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of applicant- Dhansingh S/o Mangiya.The applicant suffered conviction and sentence as under:-Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was on bail during trial.Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.After going through the impugned judgment, the application is allowed.It is directed that if the present applicant furnishes personal bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) and a solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, and on depositing the fine amount, the remaining portion of the jail sentence of the applicant shall be suspended and he be released on bail for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 25.10.2017 and thereafter on all subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf.C.C.as per rules.(ALOK VERMA)
|
['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
24,843,529 |
This is first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The applicant has been arrested in Crime No.145/2014 registered at Police Station, Myana, District Guna for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 324, 307 and 506-B/34 of IPC.As per prosecution case, the complainant lodged a report that on 6.6.2014 the complainant and his brother Ramban are standing near Marghat Shala at about 7:30 PM, at that time Raghuveer, Babli, Dharm Singh and Sachendra came and started abusing the complainant then Raghuveer gave a lathi blow on the brother of the complainant which hit on his head, thereafter Babli gave a lathi blow which hit on the left hand and right hand of the brother of complainant when brother of the complainant raised cry then his uncle Kamarlal and daughter of uncle Anko came to save him, but they were also beaten by the accused persons.Dharm Singh gave an Axe blow on Kamarlal which hit on the back side of his head and also gave an Axe blow from the blunt side which hit on the back of Kamarlal and Sachendra gave lathi blow on Anko which hit on her neck.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has falsely been implicated in the case.He has not committed any offence.No injury has been stated to be dangerous to life, hence, M.Cr.C.No.8724/2014 (Dharm Singh Vs.Hence, the applicant prayed for bail.The prayer is opposed by learned Public Prosecutor.Case diary perused.As per the medical report of Kamarlal it appears that he has received one incised wound over Pareto temporal region and contusion over scapular region.X-ray has been advised.On x-ray fracture of temporo-occipito-parietal bone of skull has been found and extra dural hemorrhage in left occiptial region has been found and sub Arachnoid Hemorrhage in left occipital region with cerebral odema has been found.It has been stated that this injury may be dangerous to life.Anko Bai has received contusion and Shailendra has received one lacerated wound on left parietal region and swelling on left wrist joint region, on x-ray no fracture has been found.Considering the nature of injuries caused to Kamarlal and the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed and looking to the fact that the applicant is under custody since 26.7.2014, but without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the application is allowed.It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
24,843,590 |
The appellants 1 to 4 stood charged and tried for the commission of the offences under sections 147, 148, 307, 326, 506[2], 450 r/w 149 IPC and A5 and A6 stood charged and tried for the commission of the offences under sections 307, 326, 341, 450 r/w 109 IPC and the Trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 16.06.2019, had acquitted the appellants/A-1 to A-6 for the offences u/s.147, 326 & 506[ii] IPC and however, convicted and sentenced the appellants as follows:-The sentences were ordered to run concurrently and set-off was also granted u/s.428 Cr.P.C.The brief facts of the case as per the charges framed against the appellants/accused is that in the ''C'' Block at 154 G.M.Pet Housing Board, Kasimedu, one Ravichandran was holding the post of President and that since his period got expired, a meeting was convened by P.W.2-Lokesh who wanted his brother Sathishkumar [P.W.4] to be the President and the said proposal was objected to by A-1 to A-4 and that they wanted to nominate a person belonging to their group and there ensued a wordy quarrel between the appellants/accused and P.W.2 and others and exchange of words in a heated passion and thereby, there existed previous enmity between A-1 to A-6 and in continuation of the same, the appellants/accused conspired together to do away with the life of Lokesh [P.W.2] and on 27.08.2009, at the wee hours on 00.30 hours, when the complainant Megala [P.W.1] / wife of Lokesh [P.W.4] were sleeping in their house, they heard the door being knocked and when P.W.1 opened the door, she saw A-1 to A-4 armed with knives and they forcibly entered the house by pushing her down and when the husband of P.W.1 was about to wake up, A-5 and A-6 prevented him from getting up and A-1 by scolding P.W.2 in an abusive language as regards electing of a new President, stabbed him on the left and right side of 3/28http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.385/2010 the chest ; A-2 stabbed P.W.2 on the back ; A-3 had inflicted a cut injury on the left wrist ; A-4 had inflicted cut injuries on both sides of the shoulders.When she attempted to open the door, the door was forcibly opened by five persons and one of them had caught hold of her neck and was standing outside.She had further stated that A-1/Sridhar was wearing white coloured half sleeve shirt ; A-2/Vinoth was wearing black colour shirt ; A-3/Gugan was wearing banian and that, all the accused came inside.She had also stated that she knew A-1 to A-3 and she saw the other three accused for the first time during the occurrence and that, all the accused except one, were armed with knives.P.W.1 had stated about the specific overt acts on the part of each of the accused, viz., [1] A-1/Sridhar stabbed P.W.2 on the left side of the chest ; [2] A-3/Gugan stabbed P.W.2 on his stomach ; [3] A-2/Vinoth stabbed on the back ; and the other two accused were holding the shoulders of P.W.2 tightly with knives and that when P.W.1 came out and raised an alarm, the public gathered and on seeing them, the appellants/accused ran away from the scene of crime.She had stated that P.W.3-Saravanan and 9/28http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.385/2010 one Manimaran took the injured P.W.2 in an auto to the police station and an oral complaint was given in the police station.Thereafter, the injured victim/P.W.2 was sent to hospital for treatment and the police came to the hospital and enquired P.W.1 and recorded her statement.The complaint given by her was marked as Ex.In the cross examination, she had stated that within few minutes of the occurrence, she went to call her mother who was residing four streets apart and by the time she returned, all the accused had fled away from the scene and that her mother-in-law Sundari [not examined] also accompanied P.W.1 and that, she along with her mother and mother-in-law to the police station and when they were enquired by the police, she had stated about the occurrence orally and went to the hospital for treatment.A-2-Vinoth, by saying that P.W.2 should not left alive, had inflicted cut injury on his hand ; A-3 had inflicted a cut injury in his stomach and when, P.W.2 warded off the attack, he sustained injuries on his hand and forehead and when P.W.2 raised an alarm, P.W.1/his wife ran out and brought her mother and mother-in-law.On hearing the hue and cry, P.W.3 also rushed to the spot and the accused ran away from the scene.On account of injuries sustained, P.W,2 fell down and P.W.3 caught hold of P.W.2 and that, the elder brother of P.W.2 came and P.W.2 was taken to Stanley Hospital by P.W.4 in an auto.He had further stated that P.W.4, one Prabhu and his mother-in-law accompanied him to the hospital and that nobody else had accompanied him.He had also stated that when the doctor enquired him, he had told that he was attacked by 7 persons.11/28http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.17.P.W.3-Saravanan, is a resident of Indira Nagar, Kasimedu and that he is the neighbour of P.Ws.1 and 2 and is residing in the fourth floor and that P.Ws.1 and 2 were residing in the 2nd floor.He had further stated that on the date and time of occurrence, when he was sleeping in his house, he heard a noise from the 2nd floor of the house and when he came down, he saw the victim/P.W.2 lying down with bleeding injuries and on seeing the victim, P.W.3 stood motionless.Thereafter, he helped the injured victim/P.W.2 to board the auto and came back to his home.He had also stated that he did not know as to what had happened thereafter.Since he did not support the case of the prosecution, he was treated as a hostile witness.P.W.4-Sathish Kumar, the elder brother of P.W.2/injured victim Lokesh, is a resident of Indira Nagar, Kasimedu and that, during the midnight on 27.08.2009, while he was sleeping, he heard the knocking of the doors and when he peeped out through the bathroom, he saw the A-1 to A-3 and A-6 were standing outside, armed with knives.He had told his wife not to open the doors and that, he called his brother Tamizhselvan [P.W.5] / son of the junior paternal uncle of P.W.4, over phone and informed him that the accused, armed with knives, were knocking the doors and that the same has to be informed to the police station.Subsequently, he heard the hue and cry of the ladies and P.W.5 called P.W.4 and informed him that the accused had cut P.W.2-Lokesh.When P.W.4 went to the house of P.W.2, he saw P.W.3 12/28http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.He had further stated that the wife of the injured victim / P.W.1, her mother and mother-in-law went in one auto and that in another auto, the injured P.W.2, P.W.4, P.W.5 and one Prabhukumar went to the police station at the first instance and narrated the incident orally and that the police instructed them to take the injured to the hospital immediately.Thereafter, the injured was taken to Stanley Hospital.He had also stated that he was not an eyewitness to the occurrence.19.P.W.5-Tamilselvan, a resident of G.M.Pet Housing Board, had stated that 27/28.08.2009 at about 00.00 hours, P.W.4-Sathish Kumar, had called him over phone and informed him that somebody were knocking the doors of his house and P.W.5 came out of his house and was going near Sengalamman Temple and at that time, A-1, A-3 and yet another person, were coming near the temple.Once again, P.W.5 called P.W.4 over phone and informed him that there was a ruckus at Lokesh [P.W.2] house and thereafter, P.Ws.4 and 5 went to the house of Lokesh [P.W.2] and P.W.2 was taken to the hospital.The police came to the scene of crime and prepared the Observation Mahazar [Ex.P.2].The police also recovered Floor Mat [M.O.5], blood stained earth [M.O.7] and the cotton swab with blood stains [M.O.8] under the Mahazar [Ex.P.3] and P.W.5 stood as a witness to the said seizure and preparation of the Observation Mahazar.Thirumuruganand, the Assistant Professor attached to the Stanley 13/28http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.385/2010 Hospital, had stated that on 28.08.2009 at about 10.00 a.m., while he was on duty, he saw P.W.2-Lokesh, aged about 29 years, being admitted in the hospital, with the complaints of high blood pressure ; heart beat and low pulse rate and the reason being the injury sustained in the stomach.On examining the depth of the injury found in the stomach, suspecting that the said injury went till peritoneal cavity, due to which, the intestines, pancreas and liver might be injured, he decided to perform a surgery and on surgery, he found a tear in the falciforum ligament 2 measuring about 2 x 2 cm and a sucabsular laceration over the right lobe of the liver and on examination, the other organs were found to be normal.This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 16.06.2019 made in SC.No.80/2010 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge [Fast Track Court IV] at Chennai.When P.W.1 raised hue and cry, the neighbours gathered and A-1 to A-4 threatened them of dire consequences by brandishing the knives ; thereby the appellants 1 to 4/A-1 to A-4 were charged for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307, 326, 506[ii], 450 read with 149 of IPC and the appellants 5 and 6/A-5 and A-6 were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 326, 307, 450 read with 149 IPC.The case was taken on file in PRC No.102/2009 on the file of the learned 16th Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai and subsequently, the case was made over to the Trial Court, viz.,the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.4, Chennai, in SC.No.80/2010 and necessary charges were framed.The accused had denied the charges and sought for trial.In order to bring home the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses as PW.1 and PW.10 and Exs.P1 to P11 and M.Os.1 to 8 were marked.On the side of the defence, no oral and documentary evidence was let in.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313[1][b] Cr.P.C as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the accused had come with the version of total denial and stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case.The Court below, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and 4/28http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.385/2010 also looking into the materials available on record, convicted the appellants/accused for the aforesaid offences and awarded punishment, as referred to above, which is challenged in this Criminal Appeal.P.Divakar, Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the appellants 1 and 2/A-1 and A-2, while assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, would put forth the following contentions:-b) The Trial Court had failed to take into consideration that there are 2 FIRs in this case, one given at the police station immediately after the incident and another, at the hospital before the Inspector and the prosecution has conveniently suppressed the earlier complaint given by P.W.1 / complainant at the police station and proceeded the case on the basis of the second complaint which has been drafted by the respondent police.c) It is the evidence of P.W.1 that she knows the names of A-1 to A-3 and she does not knows the names of the other three persons ; whereas, strangely all the names of the accused have been stated in the complaint-Ex.P.1, thereby suggesting that the complaint has been given after much deliberation and contemplation.K.Shankar, learned counsel for the 3rd appellant/A-3 would submit that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 does not tally with the medical evidence.Whereas, there is no corresponding injury as 5/28http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.385/2010 per the medical evidence.It is the evidence of P.W.2 that an attempt was made by A-3 to stab the victim in the stomach and when the victim/P.W.2 warded off, he sustained an injury on the right wrist.W.M.Abdul Azeez, learned counsel appearing for the appellants 4 to 6 / A-4 to A-6 would put forth the following contentions:- i. As per the evidence of P.W.1 before the Court, she had stated that she knows A-1 to A-3/appellants 1 to 3 herein and that she had only seen the other three accused when they had come to her house at the time of occurrence.Since she had stated to have seen them for the first time, the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt by failing to conduct the Identification Parade.The other independent witnesses have turned hostile.P.W.1 6/28http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.385/2010 in her evidence had stated that she knows about A-1 to A-3 and that other accused are also known to her when she had seen them coming to their house.He would submit that all the persons belong to the same area and there was no requirement for subjecting other accused for identification parade.P.W.2 / injured victim has also specifically spoken about the overt acts of each accused and that the evidence of P.W.2 has been corroborated by the evidence of the doctors-P.Ws.6 and 7 ; thereby, the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court had rightly convicted the appellants/accused based on cogent evidence and would submit that the judgment of the trial Court does not warrant any interference and prays for dismissal of the said appeal.11.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the appellants 1 to 4/A-1 tp A-4 have been charged for the offences u/s.147, 148, 307, 326, 506[2], 450 r/w 149 IPC and that the appellants 5 & 6/A-5 and A-6 have been charged for the offences u/s.307, 326, 341, 450 r/w 149 IPC and all the accused have trespassed into the house of the victim/P.W.2 and attacked him. A-4 and A-5, being a members of the unlawful assembly are guilty of the offences committed with common object and that the Trial Court, finding that the appellants/A-1 to A-6 had, with a common object of murdering the victim/P.W.2 had trespassed into the house and cut him and thereby, rightly convicted them.He would further submit that there was a motive for the accused persons, attempting to kill the victim/P.W.2 and that, they had come out with a common intention and object and since the occurrence had 7/28http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.385/2010 happened in the night, the witnesses cannot be expected to explain the infliction of injuries by each one of the accused individually and weapons used.He would submit that such conduct would be opposed to normal conduct of human being and when the victim / P.W.2 is fearing for his own life and in such a situation, the victim cannot be expected to speak with precision on behalf of injuries inflicted on him and role attributable to each of the appellants/accused.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that it is a case where the evidence has been let in by the victim/P.W.2 who is an injured witness and that, there could not be any reason for him to falsely implicate other persons other than the actual assailants.12.In support of his contentions, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has placed reliance upon the following decisions:- ● 1998 [5] SCC 150 [J.S.Valia Vs.State of Punjab] ;13.I have given my careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions put forward by either side and thoroughly scanned through the entire evidence available on record and also perused the impugned judgment of conviction, including the relevant provisions of Law and authorities of various Courts.14.The points for consideration are:[a]Whether the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable 8/28http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.385/2010 doubts?; and [b]Whether the evidence of the witnesses adduced on the side of the prosecution, can be believed?P.W.1 raised an alarm.She had further stated that within ten minutes, the police had come to the hospital and enquired the injured/P.W.2, her mother-in-law and brothers-in-law.She had further stated that she does not know about the complaint given by the 2nd appellant/A-2 against the brother of the victim/P.W.2 on the file of Kasimedu Police Station.P.W.2/Logesh had stated that P.W.1/Megala is his wife and that he is selling fish and that he is a resident of Indhira Nagar, G.M.Pet ; that, there existed a practice of selecting a leader for that Nagar and that, during Vinayaga Chaturthi, an election was being conducted for selection of the leader and at that time, the people of the locality told to select the brother of P.W.2, viz., Sathish/P.W.4, for the said post and that the appellants/accused, belonging to the same area, opposed for the selection of P.W.4 and that, 10/28http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.385/2010 they had given a complaint against P.W.2 an P.W.4 and P.W.2 had also preferred a complaint against the appellants and the matter was compromised in the police station.He also found the following injuries [1]injuries on the chest and the back ; [2] a cut injury on the webspace between the index finger and the thumb finger on the right hand measuring 2x1x2cm ; [3] a cut injury on the webspace between the index finger and the thumb finger on the left hand measuring 4x2x2cm ; [4] a cut injury on the chest measuring 15x8x4cm ; [5] a laceration on the back of the right shoulder measuring 2x1x0.5cm ; and [6] more than one laceration on the back of the body.He had stated that the injured was admitted as an in-patient for nearly about 12 days and the Medical Legal Opinion given by him in this regard, is marked as Ex.P.4 and he had opined that the injuries are grievous in nature.Kumaresan, is also the Assistant Professor attached to the said hospital and he had stated that on 28.08.2009 at about 12.40 p.m., while was on his duty as an Instructor, P.W.1 admitted her husband, P.W.2, in the Casualty and he was in an unconscious stage and P.W.1 had stated that 7 14/28http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.385/2010 known persons had attacked her husband using aruvals.On examination, P.W.7 found the following injuries:-● A lacerated injury measuring 5x4x2 cm in the left chest.● A lacerated injury measuring 3x2x1 cm in the epigastrium.● A lacerated injury measuring 3x2 cm in the left hand 1st web space.● A lacerated injury measuring 3x1x0.5cm in the right wrist.● A lacerated injury measuring 7x1x0.5cm in the right had dorsum.● A lacerated injury measuring 2x1x0.5cm in the right shoulder.● A lacerated injury measuring 2x1x0.5 cm in the left shoulder.● Multiple lacerations 2x0.5x0.5cm in the back.P.W.7 had further stated that after giving first-aid, he had sent P.W.2 for taking X-Ray and the Accident Register issued by him is marked as Ex.P.W.8-Sekar, had stated that he is a resident of Block No.485, 'G' Block, V.O.C.Nagar, Tondiarpet and that he is a fisherman by profession.He had stated that on 28.08.2009 between 09.30 a.m. and 10.30 a.m., he was conversing with one Gopi and at that time, a police jeep came and enquiring as to why they are standing there, the police personnel took them to the police station and they were made to affix their signatures in blank papers and thereafter, P.W.8 came to his house.He was treated as a hostile witness.P.W.9-Gopi, also deposed/stated in the same lines as that of P.W.8-Sekar 15/28http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.385/2010 and he was also treated as a hostile witness.P.W.10-Sampath, is the Inspector of Police [Law and Order] attached to N2 Kasimedu Police Station and on 27.08.2009/28.08.2009 at about 1.00 a.m., while he was on duty, upon receipt of information from the Stanley Hospital, he went there and saw the injured victim/Lokesh [P.W.2] in Ward No.201 and as he was unconscious, he received a written complaint from his wife, Megala – P.W.1 and thereafter, returned to the police station, registered a case in Cr.No.273/2009 for the offences u/s.147, 148, 448, 341, 324, 307, 506[2] IPC and took up the case for investigation.P.6 is the Printed FIR.He went to the scene of occurrence on 28.08.2009 at 02.30 a.m., and prepared the Observation Mahazar [Ex.P.2] and a Rough Sketch [Ex.P.7] in the presence of P.W.5 and one Saravanan and also seized blood stained Mat [M.O.5] ; Blood stained earth [M.O.7] and blood stained cotton swab [M.O.8] under the Mahazar [Ex.P.3] in the presence of the same witnesses.He also examined P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, Prabhukumar, Kasthuri, and Rajendran and recorded their statements.He also examined the doctor [P.W.7] and recorded his statement.On 28.08.2009 at about 9.45 a.m., he effected the arrest of A-1 to A-3, A-5 and A-6 and in the presence of P.Ws.8 and 9, A-1 to A-3 voluntarily came forward to give confession statements, the admissible portions of which are marked as Exs.P8, 9 and 10, in pursuant to which, four knives [M.Os.1 to 4] were seized under the Mahazar [Ex.P.11].The accused persons were sent for judicial remand and the material objects were sent to the Court under Form 95 for chemical analysis.P.W.10 also examined the 16/28http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.385/2010 doctor [P.W.6] and recorded his statement and received the Accident Register [Ex.P.4] issued by him.On completion of the investigation, he laid the charge sheet against the accused persons for the alleged offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 341, 326, 307, 506[2] r/w 149 IPC.25.Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused that there exist two FIRs in this case, upon perusal, consideration and analysis of the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution, more particularly, the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4, it is the categorical version of the witnesses that after the incident, they first went to the respondent police station and gave an oral complaint and upon the instructions from the police, they went to Stanley hospital for giving treatment to the injured victim/P.W.2 and within ten minutes, the police rushed to the hospital and since P.W.2 was unconscious, the statement of his wife, P.W.1 was reduced to writing, based on which, the case came to be registered and in the considered opinion of this Court, the said lapse on the part of the prosecution to immediately register the case, does not affects the prosecution case in its entirety and within few minutes of the victim reaching hospital, the police went and recorded the statement/complaint from the wife of the victim.26.As regards the contractions in respect of the overt acts attributed to each and every accused in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, it is the evidence of P.W.1 that A-1 to A-3 inflicted cut injuries using knives on the left side of the chest, stomach and on the back of her husband/P.W.2 and that two other 17/28http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.385/2010 ''28.Darshan Singh [PW4] was an injured witness.He had been examined by the doctor.He had given full details of the incident as he was present at the time when the assailants reached the tubewell.29.In State of U.P. V. V.Kishan Chand [2004 [7] SCC 629, a similar view has been reiterated observing that the testimony of a stamped witness has its own relevance and efficacy.The fact that the witness sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence, lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence.In case the injured witness is subjected to lengthy cross examination and nothing can be elicited to discard his testimony, it should be relied upon [vide Krishan V. State of Haryana [2006 [12] SCC 459].''22 In the present case, the circumstances in which PW2 had seen the accused persons even for 90 seconds, that was sufficient to absorb their faces.A.No.385/2010 the truth.33.At this juncture, the learned counsel for the appellants/accused submitted that the appellants/accused would submit that th appellants and the victim belong to the same area and that due to the intervention of elders and well wishers in the area, the dispute between them have been compromised and thereafter, there had been relationship between them due to marriaes in the family and would pray that some leniency may be shown on the 24/28http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.1.The Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court, No.4 Chennai.2.The Principal District Judge Chennai.3.The 16th Metropolitan Magistrate George Town, Chennai.4.The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Chennai.5.The Inspector of Police N2 Kasimedu Police Station Chennai.6.The Superintendent of Prisons Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.7.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.27/28http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
24,628,042 |
This petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.12 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent police as against the petitioner.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18623 of 2019The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner did not commit any offences as alleged in the impugned FIR.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case as against the petitioner in Crime No.12 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 419,420,465,467,468,471 of IPC.Hence he prayed to quash the same.3.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit that investigation is still pending and this petition is in premature stage and hence, she prayed for dismissal of this petition.Perused the materials available on record.It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific allegation as against the petitioner, which has to be investigated.Further the FIR is not an encyclopedia and it need not contain all facts.Further, it cannot be quashed in the threshold.This Court finds that the FIR discloses prima facie commission of cognizable offence and as such this Court cannot interfere with the investigation.The investigating machinery has to investigate, grab and unearth the crime in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Code.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18623 of 2019Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.Further the respondent police is directed to complete the investigation and file final report before the concerned Court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.13.12.2019 Internet:Yes/No Index :Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order aav ToThe Inspector of Police District Crime Branch Trichy District2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18623 of 2019 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA.J,.aav Crl.18623 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.(MD) No. 10935 of 2019 13.12.2019 4/4http://www.judis.nic.in
|
['Section 419 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', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
24,632,705 |
The parents of the prosecutrix Kiran (PW-3) and Ram Pal (PW-4) have endorsed that the respondent was their distinct relative, indicating that the prosecutrix and the respondent knew each other.Ram Pal (PW-4) accepted and admitted the photographs Exhibit PW-4/DA1 to DA5, which show that the respondent and the prosecutrix were friendly and extremely close to each other.Dr. Heena Kausar (PW-5), Sr.Gynaecologist, SGM Hospital, Mangolpuri had deposed as to examination of the prosecutrix on 23rd February, 2012 and the factum that the prosecutrix was very adamant to deny sexual assault.Through Ms. Inderjeet Sidhu, Advocate.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL):CRL.M.A. No. 4808/2014 Delay of 74 days in filing of the leave to appeal is condoned for the reasons given in the application seeking condonation of delay.The application is disposed of.CRIMINAL LEAVE PETITION NO. 235/2014 By impugned judgment dated 5th October, 2013, the respondent has been acquitted, giving benefit of doubt, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short).CRL.L.P. No. 235/2014 Page 1 of 6She had refused medical examination.PW-5, therefore, could not conduct internal medical examination.However, urine pregnancy test was negative.In cross-examination, PW-5 accepted as correct that the patient had told her that she was not sexually assaulted.Further, PW-5 accepted as correct that the patient had informed her that CRL.L.P. No. 235/2014 Page 2 of 6 although she had got married, she had no physical relationship with her husband.CRL.L.P. No. 235/2014 Page 2 of 6The prosecutrix was also examined under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on 24th February, 2012, vide statement marked Exhibit PW-6/A. In the said statement, the prosecutrix in categorical terms had asserted that on 2nd February, 2012 she had spoken to the respondent at Hapur on phone and that she wanted to reside with him.She had known the respondent for last six years.Thereafter, she went to ISBT and took a bus to Hapur and started living with the respondent.She had gone Hapur on her own.In her court deposition, the prosecutrix did alter her stand, to state that the respondent had enticed her to accompany him.He had told her that he would marry her and take good care.Contrary to her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, the prosecutrix in her court deposition had claimed that the respondent had taken her to Anand Vihar Bus Terminal and then to Hapur where she stayed about twenty days.She accepted as correct that the respondent used to go for work at Hapur.She admitted her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., but claimed that this statement was under the influence of the accused and as she was confused.She accepted that they had sexual intercourse, but it was with her consent.She denied the suggestion given by the Public Prosecutor, who was allowed to put leading questions that the respondent used to have sexual intercourse without her consent.In cross-examination by the counsel for the respondent, the CRL.L.P. No. 235/2014 Page 3 of 6 prosecutrix accepted that she had stated before the Magistrate in her statement Exhibit PW-6/A that she had gone to Hapur and started living with the respondent.She also accepted as correct that she had made a telephone call to the respondent on 2nd February, 2012 to state that she wanted to live with him.CRL.L.P. No. 235/2014 Page 3 of 6The said date of birth was recorded in the school records produced by Ramesh Chander (PW-13).After studying for two-three years, she left and took admission in a Government school.In cross- examination, PW-7 accepted that at the time of admission parents of the prosecutrix did not provide any documentary evidence or proof of date of CRL.L.P. No. 235/2014 Page 4 of 6 birth.He also accepted as correct that in the school records the date of birth was not mentioned.CRL.L.P. No. 235/2014 Page 4 of 6Ramesh Chander (PW-13), Record Keeper, had produced the records maintained in the Government Girls Senior Secondary School, JJ Colony, Nangloi.This included admission register (Exhibit PW-13/A), admission form (Exhibit PW-13/B) and the affidavit furnished by the father of the prosecutrix (Exhibit PW-13/C).It is apparent that only on the basis of the said affidavit the date of birth was recorded as 10th October, 1996 in the school records.Kiran (PW-3), mother of the prosecutrix in her examination in chief had stated that she did not remember the date of birth of her daughter, i.e., the prosecutrix.In her cross-examination, she accepted that she had another daughter Anshu, who had got married five years back and had a child.She, however, claimed that Anshu was married at the age of fifteen years.She also deposed that Anshu had expired recently from jaundice.Ram Pal (PW-4), the father in his cross-examination accepted as correct that he did not have any documentary proof as to the date of birth of the prosecutrix and had also not furnished any documentary proof at the time of admission.These facts CRL.L.P. No. 235/2014 Page 5 of 6 create doubt about the age of the prosecutrix.No ossification test was conducted in the present case.CRL.L.P. No. 235/2014 Page 5 of 6Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, we find that no ground for interference is made out and the leave to appeal is dismissed.The surety bond furnished by the respondent will be treated as discharged.CRL.L.P. No. 235/2014 Page 6 of 6
|
['Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
246,357 |
He could nto be telling the whole truth while favoring btoh sides.If the accused had really said that he had given this seized money for ghee, then the accused must have stated that the money had been given to P. W. 1 Sant Ram, for the gliee and that it was returned by Sant Ram, but the witness did nto go that far.The question is whether the testimony of these so called independent trap witnesses coupled with the testimony of P. W. 1 Sant Ram and the two police officers who took part in the trap, viz., P. W. 22 S. M. Sagar and P. W. 23 Bhag Singh, is sufficient to show that the amount of Rs. 50.00 was paid by P. W. 1 Sant Ram to the accused in accordance with the plan to trap the accused.The later analysis of the Shakkar having proved it to be puri, the accused must be said to be unscruplous enough to frighten Sant Ram for getting something out of him.The accused is nto hardened enough to demand a cash bribe He just throws a hint that Sant Ram should arrange for four or five kilos of ghee implying that the accused would do him some favor if Sant Ram did so.The accused is a young man and he and his wife probably constitute his family.They do nto need so much s;hes for thoms?lv"s.but it appears that the family of the accused in Ludhiana needs it a.nd this is the temptition for the accused Ci-i usi his powers to make illegal benefit out of th(r)m.JUDGMENT V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) This is an appeal by the State against the judgment of the Special Judge acquiting the respondent Harbans Lal Gupta, of the charge of having accepted illegal grantification of Rs 50/ from the complainant P. W. 1, Sant Ram, on 31st March, 1965, an offence which, if proved, would have been punishable under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereniafter called the Act).(2) The respondent Gupta, was the Sanitary and Food Inspector posted at Arki while P. W. 1 Sant Ram has a shop at Dhundhan, a few miles from Arki.On 23rd March, 1965, Gupta came to the shop of Sant Ram for inspection.Though Tuesday was a closed day for Sant Ram's shop, Gupta ordered him to open it and brought by way of sample 750 grammes of Shakkar, i e. unrefired sugar, sealed it in three packets and gave one to Sant Ram and took away the toher two.It is alleged that Gupta., however, told Sant Ram nto to be afraid and asked him to come and see him at his office at Arki.Sant Ram however had no intuition to do so.When Sant Ram met him accidentally on the 28th March, 1965 at the Arki bus-stand, Gupta again told him that he should nto be afraid but asked him to arrange to supply him four or five kilos of ghee asking it as a. bribe by implication inasmuch as in the circumstances in which the two parties were placed, the accused did nto intend to pay the price of it to Sant Ram.Sant Ram did nto like the corrupt suggestion made by the accused :.nd on the 30th of March went to Simla to the Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police.Anti Corruption Unit and made a written report there that if the accused were to demand cash as bribe, he would pay to the extent of Rs. 60.00 to him as bribe.Six ten rupee ntoes were shown by Sant Ram to the police and their numbers were ntoed in the report made by Sant Ram This report is Exhibit P. W. 1/A. The police asked Sant Ram to bring two independent witnesses from his village in the 31st March, 1985 to Arki police station Accordingly, Sant Ram went there with P. W. 7 Sukh Dev of Dhundhan and P. W 8 Brij Lal of Lalhyana.The police also called two independent witnesses of Arki, viz., P. W. 2 Balmukand and P W. 3 Mehar Chand to witness the trap Sant Ram had, is the meanwhile, collected some applications for license from his neighbours and visted the accused to get those applicatioiis sanctioned During his meeting with the accused at the latter's office at Arki, Sant Ram is said to have been told by the accused that since no ghee had been arranged some cash may be paid inasmuch as something out of it would have to be sent to Chandigarh also for obtaining favorable report on the sample seized from Sant Ram's shop Accordingly, Sant Ram paid Rs. 50.00 to the accused.Thereafter, Deputy Superintendent of Police Shri S. M, Sagar (P. W, 22) and Inspector Bhag Singh (P. W. 23) accompanied by P. W. 2 Balmukand and P. W. 3 Mehar Chand went to the office-cum-residence of the accused and recovered the marked currency ntoes of Rs. 50.00 from the almirah in his office.(3) The defense was that on the 28th March, 1965 when Sant Ram nto the accused at Arki, the latter gave him Rs. 50.00 to buy four or five kilos of ghee.for the accused.However, on the 31st March Sant Ram came to the accused and said that he could nto procure the ghee wanted by the accused and returned the sum of Rs. 50.00 which Sant Ram had borrowed from the accused.It is these Rs. 50.00 which were seized by the police from the almirah in the office of the accused.The money was thus nto received as illegal gratification, but only as the repayment of the money which had been paid as advance for the price of ghee by the accused to Sant.(5) The two really important questions in this case were (1) whether the accused received Rs 50.00 from Public Witness -1 Sant Ram toherwise than by way of legal remuneration and, if so, whether the presumption under Section 4 of the Act arose against him and (21 whether the accused has rebutted the said presumption by proving that the money was received by him as repayment of the advance which had been made by him to Sant Ram for the purchase of ghee The nature of a case like the present one in which the presumption under Section 4 of the Act is raised differs fundamentally from on ordinary criminal case.In the latter, the general burden of proof is on the prosecution till the end.It may be that under Section 105 of the Evidence Act, the burden to bring his case in one of the general or special exceptions to enable him to escape from punsihment may be on the accused.On the toher hand.The fact that ultimately on the 31st March, 1985, the accused accepted the marked currrency ntoes from P. W. 1 Sant Ram would show that either of the two following things happend.The defects-.in the testimony of P. W. 2 Balmkand and P. W. 3 Mehar Chand are nto such as.a destroy the prosecution case on on this essential point.In such a case when money is clearly proved to have been paid to the accused, the defects in the testimony of prosecution witnesses do nto weigh much with the Court.He says that when the accused asked him for this loan for being given to Sant Rain there were five or six customers taking tea at the htoel In his examination, the accused said one Tulsi Ram was there.Rut none of those persons has been examined as a witness for defense.D W. 2 Jai Ram being; a htoel keener is also subject to the influence of the accused who was a Food Inspector.He was also apparently on friendly terms with him as a customer taking his meals at his htoel He is nto.He was examined by the police during title investigation, but.said that his statement was recorded only with respect to the amount of rent of his house paid by the accused, He does nto say that he wanted to tell the police that the accused was innocent and that Rs 50.00had been.returned by Sant Ram to the accused It would appear, therefore, that the defense of the accused is an after-thought.It was only when the prosecution witnesses P. W 2 Balmukand and P. W. 3 Mahar Chand came to be examined that we see the defense first emerging.(12) The evidence of D.W. 1 Mahender Parkash and D W.2 Jai Ram and the equivocal statements of P. W. 2 balmukand and P. W. 3 Mehar Chand trying to prove the prosecution case and also the defense at the same time are indicative of a peculiar feature of our criminal trials which has been observed often by the police, magistrates and the judges.When a crime is committed the prosecution is able to secure evidence (though with some difficulty) to bring home the crime to the accused.Then the attempts on the part of the accused to invoke the sense of pity in the prosecution witnesses are made and by the time the recovery of evidence begins the prosecution witnesses are found reluctant to depose the truth fearing that it would inflict hardship on the accused, who would be sent to jail.The defense witnesses influenced by the same sense of misplaced compassion think that they should do a good turn to the accused to escape being sentenced to imprisonment.He h.ui already taken a tin of ghee from Public Witness 17 Rirku kam before 13th March, 198v But he has nto been able to pay the price of Rs 138. 85 for the sim" till W. ^DV-e-iher, !")65. .Here also the accused his gto out a tin from Kirku Rain who knew that the accuse was nto able to pay the price of it.Rirku of it.Rirku Ram would nto have given the ghee to him if the accused had nto been a Fool-Inspector since the chance of gettting the price of the ghee tin was nto brought (14) It is this desire to take out ghee from shop keepers that seem to be the temptation to which the accused fell prev.We can nto ntolurstind that the accused purchased ghee from Rirku Ram because Rirku Ram was selling ghee.but Public Witness -1 Sant Ram was nto selling ghee.We do nto understand, therefore, how the accused could think of purchasing ghee from Sant Ram.If Sant Ram did nto sell ghee.we see no point in the accused asking him to procure ghee from toher ghee sellers by paying the price of it.toher ghee sellers including DW-1 Mahender Parkah himself were available to the accused from whom he could directly purchase ghee.Further, what were the relations between the accused and Sant Ram? They appear to be perfect strangers and the only contact between them was that in the course of his official duties, the accused had seized a sample of Shakkar from Sant Ram.This contact if at all was an unfriendly contact, it put Sant Ram in some fear of the accused, but did nto create any intimacy between them.The story of the accused that out of all persons he selected Sant Ram to procure ghee for him and even advanced Rs. 59.00 by borrowing the same from DW-2 Jai Ram to Sant Ram is extremely unnatural, In Emden's case referred to above, the accused had taken the plea that the money seized from him had been advanced as a loan to him by the complainant.The Surpme Court observed as follows about this plea at pages 603- 604 :- "BESIDES,the High Court has also considered whether it would have been probable that Shukla should have advanced money to tin- appellant.Having regard to the relations between the appellant and Shukla it was held by the High Court that it was extremely unlikely that Shukia would have offered to advance any loan to the appellant."In the present case, the accused was a petty official getting a small salary.He was nto in possession of fund? as he could nto even pay the price of ghee supplied by Rirku Ram, To purchase ghee he had many toher ghee sellers under his influence from whom he could have gto the ghee cheaply Sant Ram should have been the last person to whom the accused should have turned for purchasing ghee is Sant Ram did nto sell it.Further, the accused had seized Shakkar sample from Sant Ram with a view to prosecute him if it proved to be adulterated.To ask favor from him was improper and would contravane Rules 3 and 13 of the Central Service Conduct Rules, 1964, and even Section 165, Indian Penal Code.The defense was an after-thought, the evidence to prove which was apparently gto up at the stage of the trial; in assessing the evidence in support of the defense including nto only the defense witnesses proper but also the prosecution witnesses so far as they have supported the defense, even if it is assumed that the plea in defense was nto an after-thought and that it was raised by the accused at the time of the seizure of the money from him, the mere fact that such an explanation was given by title accused at the time of the seizure of the money is in itself nto of much importance.The accused Vaidyanatha Iyer in State of Madras v Vaidyanatha Iyer and the accused V.D. Jhingan in V.D. Jhingan v. State of U. P. had btoh raised the defense pleas immediately when the money was seized from them.Nevertheless, the pleas were disbelieved and they were btoh convicted.The reason is that the pleas have to be examined on their own merits.If Sant Ram had been there, the immendiate confrontation of the accused and Sant Ram would have been useful to show which of them reacted in what manner.For instance, Sant Ram could have said that these ntoes were given by him to the accused or the accused could have have said that Sant Ram gave these ntoes to him as a return of the advance made for ghee.In fact, the accused in answer to a question in his examina.tion under section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure, stated that he requested P W-22 S. M. Sagar to call Sant Ram for the verification of these ntoes, but the accused did nto state that if rant Ram were called he would immediately admit that title ntoes were given by way of an advance to him and that he had returned the same to the accused and the truth could immediately be ascertained from Sant Ram.Nto only has no prosecution or defense witness stated that the accused desired the presence of Sant Ram there, hut oven Public Witness -22 was nto asked why he did nto enqurie the presente of Sant Ram at the time of the recovery of the ntoes.Public Witness Public Witness 22 S. M.Sagar has stated that he did nto take Public Witness PW2 Palmukand and Public Witness Public Witness 3Mehir Chand into confidence because he did nto like that the trap may be known generally to tohers which might defeat its purpose.This does nto appear to be the right method of planning a trap.The witnesses to the trap should have been kept fully informed as to what was going to happen.
|
['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
24,638,609 |
During the altercation, in a heated spur of moment, Ramchandra gave lathi blows on the hand of the complainant and fractured his right wrist.When his mother and other family members tried to save him, they beat them also by sticks.(08/02/2019)Feeling aggrieved by judgment dated 04/10/2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1000352/2015 by First Additional Sessions Judge, Dhar, whereby the learned appellate Court has confirmed conviction under Section 325, 325/34, 323 and 323/34 (three counts) of IPC , the learned appellate Court modified and awarded sentence of 6-6 months R.I in place 3-3 years R.I. under Section 325 and 325/34 of IPC and fine of Rs.2,000/-each in place of Rs.1,000/-each with default stipulations awarded by the learned JMFC, Dhar vide judgement dated 18.08.2015 passed in Criminal Case No.1285/2013, the petitioners have preferred this petition.2. Facts giving rise to the present petition in brief are that on 23.05.2013, at about 9:35 PM, the petitioners (Ramchandra, Sathsih, Mukesh and Shailendra) came to the house of the complainant and on the issue that as to why the HIGH COURT OF MP BENCH AT INDORE family of the complainant broken the engagement of daughter of brother of the appellant Ramchandra, they abused family members of the complainant in filthy language.Arjun reported the matter to the police.The police registered Crime No.91/13 and after usual investigation, filed charge sheet against them.The petitioners were charged under Section 294, 323, 323/34 325, 325/34 and 506(2) of the IPC.On appeal, their conviction was confirmed and sentences are modified by the appellate Court.This petition is preferred by the petitioners on several grounds but during the arguments learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he does not want to press merits of the petition.Due to imprisonment, their families are facing financial hardship and it has become difficult for them to survive.The incident has taken place in the year 2013 and since then they are facing trial.Consequently, the petition is partly allowed.Conviction of the petitioners recorded by the learned trial Court and confirmed by the learned Appellate Court under Sections 323 323/34, 325 and 325/34 of IPC is upheld.
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
24,640,978 |
This is a case, where already investigation is over and charge- sheet has been submitted and April 8, 2016 is the date fixed for framing of charge.We find from the memo of evidence that the petitioner has a criminal antecedent and as many as 12 other cases are pending, details whereof are as follows:ap C.R.M. 12241 of 2015 In the matter of: an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 28.12.2015 in connection with Kalyani Police Station Case No. 283 of 2014 dated 05.06.2014 under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.And In re.: Mandela @ Siddhartha @ Sumon Mondal. .. Petitioner Mr. Shibaji Kumar Das. ...... for the petitioner Mr. Prasun Kumar Dutta, Mr. Subrata Roy. .... for the State Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.i) Haringhata PS Case No.410/11 Dt. 31.08.11 U/S 25(i)(a)/27 Arms Act.ii) Kalyani PS Case No. 251/05 Dt. 27.10.2005 U/S 302/120B IPC & 25/27 Arms Act.iii) Kalyani PS Case No. 283/14 Dt. 05.06.2014 U/S 302/34 & 25/27 Arms Act.iv) Kalyani PS Case No. 145/14 Dt. 26.03.2014 U/S 302/34 & 25/27 Arms Act.v) Kalyani PS Case No. 544/13 Dt. 03.11.13 U/S 395/397 & 25/27 Arms Act.vi) Kalyani PS Case No. 345/13 Dt. 03.11.13 U/S 147/148/149/323/353/307/506 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act & 9(b) I.E. Act.vii) Kalyani PS Case No. 130/14 Dt. 17.03.2014 U/S 341/325/506/34 IPC.viii) Kalyani PS Case No. 54/5 Dt. 25.03.05 U/S 302/34 IPC.ix) Chakdha PS Case No.17/04 Dt. 06.01.04 U/S 364 IPC.x) Sandeshkhali PS Case No. 336/15 Dt. 27.06.15 U/S 20(b)(i) NDPS Act.xi) Kalyani PS Case No.05/15 Dt. 05.01.15 U/S 399/402 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act.xii) Kalyani PS Case No.443/14 Dt. 24.08.2014 U/S 448/325/307/34 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act & 9(b) I.E. Act. Now, considering the nature of the allegations and material collected in support of the same and the petitioner's antecedent and the fact that already a date for framing of charge has been fixed, this application for bail is rejected.Trial be expedited.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) 3 (C.S. Karnan, J.)
|
['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
24,646,257 |
Amanpreet Singh, Advocates + W.P.(CRL.) 682/2019 CHANDRA KANT JHA ..... Petitioner Represented by: Ms.Neha Kapoor, Adv.with Mr.Mohit Bhadu, Adv.Represented by: Mr.Rahul Mehra, Standing counsel and Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, Addl.Standing Counsel for the State with Mr.Jamal Akhtar, Mr.Chaitanya Gosain and Mr.Amanpreet Singh, Advocates CORAM:The two appeals filed by Chandra Kant Jha and the Reference by the State, were disposed of by this Court vide judgment dated 27th January, 2016 returning the findings as under:-The appeal and the death reference are accordingly disposed of."In W.P.(CRL) 2049/2012 Sanjay Kumar Valmiki sought furlough from the respondent which was declined, hence he filed the writ petition.All the sentences were to run concurrently.The issue thus arose whether a convict who has been awarded imprisonment for life with direction that no remissions will be granted for a period of 25 years can be granted furlough.Hence he filed the writ petition challenging the said order seeking parole.From the nominal roll of Chandra Kant Jha it was evident that he was awarded sentence of death by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, however the same was not confirmed by this Court in the Reference and instead this Court awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life with the direction that the convict shall not be released on remission for remainder of his natural life except for the exercise of power under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution of India.Though this Court granted parole to the petitioner Chandra Kant Jha, however, in view of the legal issue required to be decided, this Court vide order dated 1st April, 2019 directed the Director General (Prisons) to indicate as to how a convict who has been sentenced to life imprisonment with the stipulation that he would not be released on remission for the remainder of his natural life, could be granted furlough.Affidavit and written submissions were thus filed by the respondent and written submissions by learned counsels for the petitioners.Since a common question of law arose in the W.P.(Crl.) No.2049/2019 & WP(Crl.) 682/2019 Page 3 of 21 two petitions, the same were heard together.Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
24,649,133 |
Shri R. Bohre, learned counsel for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that the petitioner has filed a complaint against one Ramveer S/O Prem Narayan Dhakad and Dipak S/O Shivcharan Dhakad on the basis of which crime No. 70/2015 has been registered under sections 341, 294, 323, 506-B, 34 of the IPC.The petitioner however, states that in the FIR lodged by him he has also made allegation of loot and dacoity against the accused persons but no offence in that regard has been registered by the policy authority.The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore prays for appropriate directions.Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the fact that the FIR has been registered and the matter is under investigation/enquiry, the appropriate remedy of the petitioner is to approach the investigating agency, if so required, or the Superintendent of Police, Guna to bring to their notice all relevant facts and documents and ask for registering the case under the relevant provisions the I.P.C.In view of the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach the police authorities and ask them to look into the matter.It goes without saying that in case the petitioner does so, the authority concerned shall look into the same and deal with it, expeditiously, in accordance with law.It is made clear that this court has not issued any positive direction against any person and has only directed the police authority to look into the matter and investigate it properly, therefore, the policy authority would be at liberty to examine the matter and take action in accordance with law to ensure that the faith of the public in the police administration is established .With the aforesaid observations, the M.Cr.C. stands disposed of.C.C. as per rules.(RAVI SHANKAR JHA) JUDGE
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
24,650,628 |
They told that unless their demands are fulfilled she will not be kept and Pawan shall remarry.The parents and relatives of O.P.No.2 went to her Sasural and try to make them understand the problems but in-laws did not pay any head to it.3.On 12.07.2009 she along with her near relatives went to her Sasural with Marshal Jeep but in-laws did not change their stand of demands and did not permit her to enter in Sasural and try to assault her and her relatives.She anyhow managed her escape and came back to her parental house.4.In marriage her father gave Rs. 75,000/- cash, almira of Godrej, Double bed, Gold Rings, about 250 small and big utensils, fan, cooler, gas stove,swing machine, cloths and other items.5.She went to police station and approached high ups of police but her report was not lodged.1.This petition under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') has been filed for quashing the order dated 23.05.2012 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Ambedkar Nagar, in Criminal Revision No. 86 of 2010 and order dated 13.4.2010 passed by judicial Magistrate, Tanda, District Ambedkar Nagar, arising out of case No.940/2009 under sec.498-A,323,504,506 IPC and sec.3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S.-Ibrahimpur, District-Ambedkar Nagar,2.The brief facts for deciding the present petition are that Smt. Geeta Devi, Opposite party No.2 filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C against the petitioners, and one Phallan in the court of Additional Judicial Magistrate, Tanda, District Ambedkar Nagar with allegations that she is the wife of Pawan Kumar Yadav (Petitioner No.1) who according to Hindu rites married with her on 31.3.2005 in Village Absanpur Purva P.S. Ibrahimpur District Ambedkar Nagar.In Gauna, Pawan Kumar, his father Ganga Ram (Petitioner No.5), grandfather Phallan Yadav (since deceased), Uncle Gayadin (Petitioner No.6), younger brothers Arvind Yadav (Petitioner No.2), Ashok Yadav (Petitioner No.8) and Vikas Yadav (Petitioner No.9) demanded motorcycle, fridge, T.V., and Rs.50,000/- cash.However on request made and to make them understand they took O.P.No.2 with them in her Saural where she remain for a week with her husband.During this period aforesaid petitioners and mother-in-law Smt. Sunita (Petitioner No.4), Chachrei Sas Smt Sobhawati (Petitioner No.7), Nanad Mithlesh Kumari, Suman Devi, Urmila Devi (Petitioner Nos.3, 10 and 11 respectively) and others start taunting, harassing and treating her with cruelty on account of demand of dowry.She came back from Sasural and thereafter she visited her Sasural 3-4 times.All the above mentioned in-laws during the aforesaid period treated her with cruelty by not giving proper food, proper treatment in illness and also by beating her.They did not mend despite making request by her parents not to do such acts with her.She was expelled on 20.01.2009 from her Sasural in bearing cloths after beating her and after taking her all belongings.She was left near her village in Maruti car by Husband, his father, uncle, brothers Arvind Kumar, Ashok Kumar, Vikas and others.(f) That petitioner Ganga Ram, the father of petitioner No.1 was working in MTNL Bombay but he was also dragged in the case.The married sisters and living separately with the family, the petitioner No.3, 10 and 11 respectively, have also dragged into litigation with intent to harass them.I have considered the above facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 13.04.2010 passed by the learned Magistrate summoning the petitioner and revisional order dated 23.05.2012 are liable to be set aside.Consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance of the order dated 13.04.2010 are also liable to be quashed .Consequently, the petition is allowed .The impugned order dated 13.04.2010 and 23.05.2012 are set aside.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
24,661,153 |
We are pained to saythat this is not only asking a man to prefer an appeal from Caesar toCaesar’s wife but it also compels him like a cursed Sisyphus to carry thestone to the top of the mountain wherefrom the stone rolls down and he isobliged to repeatedly perform that futile exercise.The factual matrix as uncurtained is that the appellant, an AyurvedicDoctor with B.A.M.S. degree, while practising in West Chirmiri Colliery,Pondi area in the State of Chhattisgarh, used to raise agitations andspread awareness against exploitation of people belonging to weaker andmarginalized sections of the society.As a social activist, he ushered inimmense awareness among the down-trodden people which caused discomfort tothe people who had vested interest in the coal mine area.The powerfulcoal mafia, trade union leaders, police officers and other persons who hadfiscal interest felt disturbed and threatened him with dire consequencesand pressurized him to refrain from such activities.Embedded to hiscommitted stance, the petitioner declined to succumb to such pressure andcontinued the activities.When the endeavor failed to silence and stiflethe agitation that was gaining strength and momentum, a consorted maladroiteffort was made to rope him in certain criminal offences.As the factual narration further unfolds, in the initial stage, casesunder Section 110/116 of the Criminal Procedure Code were initiated andthereafter crime No. 15/92 under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (forshort ‘the IPC’) and crime No. 41/92 under Sections 427 and 379 of theIPC were registered.As the activities gathered further drive and becamemore pronounced, crime No. 62/90 was registered for an offence punishableunder Section 379 of the IPC for alleged theft of electricity.In the saidcase, the appellant was taken into custody.Though he was produced before the Magistrate on 22.9.1992 forjudicial remand and was required to be taken to Baikunthpur Jail, yet bythe time the order was passed, as it was evening, he was kept in the lockup at Manendragarh Police Station.On 24.9.1992, he was required to betaken to jail but instead of being taken to the jail, he was taken to PondiPolice Station at 9.00 a.m. At the police station, he was abused andassaulted.As asseverated, the physical assault was the beginning of ill-treatment.Thereafter, the SHO and ASI, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, tookhis photograph compelling him to hold a placard on which it was written :-“Main Dr. M.N. Azam Chhal Kapti Evam Chor Badmash Hoon”.The sustenance of suchdignity has to be the superlative concern of every sensitive soul.Theessence of dignity can never be treated as a momentary spark of light or,for that matter, ‘a brief candle’, or ‘a hollow bubble’.(I, Dr. M. N. Azam, am a cheat, fraud, thief and rascal).Subsequently, the said photograph was circulated in general publicand even in the revenue proceeding, the respondent No. 5 produced the same.The said atrocities and the torture of the police caused tremendous mentalagony and humiliation and, hence, the petitioner submitted a complaint tothe National Human Rights Commission who, in turn, asked the Superintendantof Police, District Koria to submit a report.As there was no responsefrom the 2nd respondent the Commission again required him to look into thegrievances and take proper action.When no action was taken by therespondent or the police, the petitioner was compelled to invoke theextraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court of Judicature at Bilaspur,Chattisgarh with a prayer for punishing the respondent Nos. 4, 5 & 7 on thefoundation that their action was a complete transgression of human rightswhich affected his fundamental right especially his right to live withdignity as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution.In the WritPetition, prayer was made for awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 10lakhs.After the return was filed, the learned single Judge passed adetailed order on 3.1.2003 that the Chief Secretary and the DirectorGeneral of Police should take appropriate steps for issue of direction tothe concerned authorities to take appropriate action in respect of theerring officers.Thereafter, some developments took place and on24.3.2005, the Court recorded that the writ petitioner was arrested on22.9.1992 and his photograph was taken at the police station.The learnedsingle Judge referred to Rule 1 of Regulation 92 of Chhattisgarh PoliceRegulations which lays down that no Magistrate shall order photograph of aconvict or other person to be taken by the police for the purpose ofIdentification under Prisoners Act, 1920, unless he is satisfied that suchphotograph is required for circulation to different places or for showingit for the purpose of identification to a witness who cannot easily bebrought to a test identification at the place where the investigation isconducted or that photograph is required to be preserved as a permanentrecord.Thereafter, the learned single Judge proceeded to record that notonly the photograph of the writ petitioner had been taken with the placardbut had also been circulated which had caused great mental agony and traumato his school going children.Thereafter, he referred to Regulation 737 ofthe Chhattisgarh Police Regulations which relates to action to be taken bythe superior officer in respect of an erring officer who ill-treats anaccused.After referring to various provisions, the learned single Judgecalled for a report from the Chief Secretary.On 18.11.2005, the Court wasapprised that despite several communications, the Chief Secretary had notyet sent the report.Eventually, the report was filed stating that theappellant was involved in certain cases including grant of bogus medicalcertificate and regard being had to the directions issued in 1992 that thephotograph of the offender should be kept on record, the same was taken andaffixed against his name and after 7.9.1992, it was removed from therecords.Thatapart, on 19.7.2005, a case had been registered under Section 29 of thePolice Act against the erring officers.It is apt to note here that when the matter was listed for finalhearing for grant of compensation, the learned single Judge referred thematter to be heard by a Division Bench.In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the appellant submitted arepresentation which has been rejected on 19.3.2012 by the OSD/Secretary,Government of Chhattisgarh, Home (Police) Department.He might have agitated to ameliorate the cause of the poor andthe downtrodden, but, the social humiliation that has been meted out to himis quite capable of destroying the heart of his philosophy.It has beensaid that philosophy has the power to sustain a man’s courage.
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
24,661,786 |
The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- The deceased, in this case, was one Mr.PW-1 and PW-2 are the sons of the deceased.They were all residing at Eachampatti Village,Manachanallur Taluk, Trichirappalli District.The deceased was looking afterhis livelihood by coolie work.PW-1 was also a coolie by profession.PW-2was then aged 12 years and he was studying 7th standard in a local school.The accused also hails from the same village.There was neither ill-feelingnor any motive between these two family.At 07.00 PM, on 25.10.2013, the accused had come to the Tea Shop situated just in front of the house of the deceased.PW-2 had gone to thesaid shop for purchasing some household needs.The accused was standing in the said Tea Shop.He asked PW-2 as to where was his father.PW-2 replied that he did not know as to where his father had gone.The accused quarreledwith PW-2 and slapped him.PW-2, out of pain, wept and cried.Incidentally,PW-1 and the deceased came in that way and they reached the Tea Shop.On seeing them, PW-2 told about the occurrence.This resulted in aquarrel between them.At the end of the quarrel, it is stated that theaccused took out a stick lying there and gave a single blow on the head ofthe deceased.The deceased fell down.EX-P4 is the AccidentRegister.He admitted him as an in-patient.2.9. PW-6 has spoken about the treatment given to the deceased at theMahatma Gandhi Government Hospital, Trichirappalli.PW-7, Dr.They are all to be takencare of by the accused.He had no bad antecedents.[JUDGMENT of the Court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU, J] The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.85 of 2014, on the file ofthe learned Principal Sessions Judge, Trichirappalli.He stood charged forthe offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and 302 of the Indian PenalCode.By Judgment dated 15.10.2014, the Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him, as detailed below:-Section of LawSentence of imprisonment Fine amount 302 IPC To undergo imprisonment for life.Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.294(b) IPCRs.500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has come up withthis Criminal Appeal.On seeing the same, the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence.PW-1 informed his mother about the occurrence.She came to the Tea Shop and took the deceased to the Government Hospital at Srirangam.PW-12, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No.250 of 2013, under Sections 294(b), 324and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code.EX-P1 is the complaint and EX-P8 is theFirst Information Report.Then, he forwarded both the documents to the Court.PW-12, taking up the case for investigation, at 02.45 PM, on25.10.2013, proceeded to the place of occurrence, prepared an ObservationMahazer and a Rough Sketch, showing the place of occurrence in the presence of the witnesses.He recovered bloodstained earth and sample earth from theplace of occurrence.He also recovered a stick [MO-1] from the place ofoccurrence.At 03.30 PM, on 26.10.2013, PW-12 arrested the accused and forwarded him to the Court for judicial remand.He examined many morewitnesses, including PW-1 and PW-2 and recorded their statements.At 01.45PM, on 07.11.2013, the deceased succumbed to the injuries in the hospital.Therefore, PW-13 altered the case into one under Section 294(b) and 302 ofthe Indian Penal Code.EX-P12 is the alteration report.EX-P13 is the inquest report.Then, he forwarded the deadbody for postmortem.PW-10 - Dr.EX-P7 is the postmortem certificate.Henoticed the following injuries:-"Oblique, sutured injury 5 cm with intact sutures, on (L) temporooccipital region of the scalp; on removal of sutures, the margins wereadherent with each other; on dissection of head, diffuse, resolving,yellowish coontusion on the (R) temporal region and adjoining midparietalregion and the upper part of the (L) temporal region of the scalp; oblique,fissured fracture 18 cm on the (R) temporal region and adjoining midparietalregion and the upper part of the (L) temporal region of the vault; durameter; intact; diffuse, dark red subdural and subarachnoid hemorrhages on allover the brain; brain was edematous; skull base:intact":He gave opinion that the death of the deceased was due to head injury.Hefurther opined that the said injury could have been caused by a blow like MO-1, stick.PW-13 collected the medical records and examined the doctors.Since he was then transferred, the investigation was taken over by hissuccessor - PW-14. PW-14 examined few more witnesses, recorded their statements and on completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet againstthe accused.Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed appropriatecharges, as detailed in the first paragraph of this Judgment.When theaccused was questioned in respect of the charges, he pleaded innocence.Inorder to prove the charges, on the side of the prosecution, 14 witnesses wereexamined, 13 documents and one material object were marked.Out of the said 14 witnesses, PW-1, PW-2 and PW-8 have been examined as eye-witnesses.They have vividly spoken about the entireoccurrence.PW-3 has spoken about his hearsay information.Thus, his evidence is of no use for the prosecution.PW-4 has spoken about the preparation ofObservation Mahazer and the Rough Sketch and the recovery of material object[MO-1] from the place of occurrence.PW-5, Dr.N.Anbuchezhian, has stated thatat 09.00 PM, on 25.10.2013, when he was on duty at the Government Hospital, at Srirangam, the deceased was brought for treatment.He found a cut injurymeasuring 5 X 1/4 CM on the left side of the head.W.Edwina Vasnatha, has spoken about the death of the deceased at Annal Gandhi Government Hospital, Trichirappalli.PW-9 has spoken about the hearsayinformation and he has not stated anything incriminating against the accused.PW-10 has spoken about the autopsy conducted by him and his final opinion regarding the cause of death.PW-11, a Head Constable, has stated that hehanded over the dead body to the hospital for postmortem, as directed by theInvestigating Officer.PW-12 has spoken about the registration of the case,on the complaint made by PW-1 and the investigation done by him.PW-13 and PW-14 have spoken about the further investigation done by them and the filingof final report.When the Trial Court examined the accused under Section 313 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the incriminating evidencesavailable against him, he denied the same as false.However, he did notchoose to examine any witness nor to exhibit any document.His defence was a total denial.Having considered all the above materials, the Trial Courtconvicted the appellant, as detailed in the first paragraph of this Judgmentand punished him accordingly.We have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for theappellant, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for therespondent and also perused the records carefully.These three witnesses have spoken vividly about the entire occurrence.They have stated that the accused, in thequarrel, as vividly narrated, took out a stick and gave a single blow on thehead of the deceased.PW-1 informed his mother about the occurrence.She came to the Tea Shop and took the deceased to the Government Hospital atSrirangam, Trichirappalli.The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant would submit that therewas enormous delay in making the complaint to the police, which, according tohim, would create doubt in the case of the prosecution.In our consideredview, it is not so.As we have already pointed out, the deceased hadsustained serious injury and immediately he was rushed to the hospital.Thus,PW-1 would have been much concerned only about the survival of the deceased.Therefore, he would not have thought of proceeding to the Police Stationimmediately, after the occurrence.Thus, though there had occurred delay inpreferring the complaint, on that score, we cannot reject the case of theprosecution.The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant would, next, submitthat PW-1, PW-2 and PW-8 are interested witnesses and therefore, theirevidences should be rejected in the absence of any corroboration from anyindependent source.Though attractive, this argument does not persuade us.Because these witnesses are closely related, their evidences cannot berejected outright.Prudence requires only close scrutiny of their evidences.Keeping in mind the yardstick, we have gone through the evidences of PW-1,PW-2 and PW-8 very carefully and meticulously.Though these witnesses have been subjected to lengthy cross-examination, nothing has been brought onrecord so as to disbelieve their version.The presence of PW-2, at the timeof occurrence, cannot be disputed, because the occurrence was ignited by theslapping of PW-2 by the accused.At that time, neither PW-1 nor the accusedwas present.They came to the place of occurrence incidentally.This resulted in a quarrelbetween them.It was only at that time, the deceased was attacked by theaccused by inflicting a single blow on the head of the deceased with a stick.Thus, the presence of PW-1 cannot be doubted.Similarly, the presence of PW-8 also cannot also be doubted.From the evidences of these witnesses, in our considered view, theprosecution has established that it was this accused, who inflicted a singleblow on the head of the deceased, which resulted in his death.The doctor,who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased, found a fracture of theskull.He further opined that the death of the deceased was due to the headinjury.Having come to the said conclusion, now, the next immediate questionis as to what was the offence, that the accused had committed by his act.Aswe have already pointed out, there was neither ill-feeling nor any motivebetween these two family members.The occurrence was not a pre-medidated one.PW-2 had gone to the Tea Shop for purchasing some household needs.It was only at that time, in a casual manner, the accused had enquired as to wherethe deceased had gone.PW-2 had answered in a rough manner.This provoked the accused.As we have already pointed out, atthat time, neither PW-1 nor the deceased was present.Their arrival to theplace of occurrence itself was by chance.On seeing them, PW-2 told thedeceased about the slapping by the accused.The deceased questioned the same.This resulted in a quarrel.The accused was not armed with any weapon.In thequarrel, he took out the stick lying there and gave a single blow on the headof the deceased.As we have already pointed out, but for the quarrel and the fightbetween the accused and the deceased, the accused would not have attacked the deceased.The accused had not taken any undue advantage and he did not cause any more injury, except the single blow.It is also seen from the recordsthat the deceased was under the influence of alcohol.The death of thedeceased was not immediate and the death had occurred after 12 days of theoccurrence.Thus, it is crystal clear that the act of the accused wouldsquarely fall within the ambit of the Fourth Exception to Section 300 of theIndian Penal Code.Therefore, the accused is liable to be punished underSection 304(ii) of the Indian Penal Code.Now, turning to the quantum of punishment, the accused is a roadworker and coolie by profession.Equally, the deceased was also a coolie.Theaccused has got two children, the mother and a wife.As we have already pointed out, the occurrence was not a pre-medidated one.Having regard to all these mitigating as well as the aggravatingcircumstances, we are of the considered view that sentencing the accused toundergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-,in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two weeks would meet the endsof justice.In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed in thefollowing terms:-The conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court on theaccused/appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside andinstead, the accused/appellant is convicted under Section 304(ii) of theIndian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fouryears and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- [Rupees One Thousand only], in defaultto undergo rigorous imprisonment for two weeks.The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused under Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code is confirmed.It is directed that the period of sentence already undergone by theappellant/accused shall be set off under Section 428 of the Code of CriminalProcedure.Fine amount, if any paid by the appellant/accused, shall be dulyadjusted.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.1.The Inspector of Police, Samayapuram Police Station, Trichy.2.The Principal Sessions Judge, Trichirappalli.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..
|
['Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
39,835,617 |
[Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM, J] This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying to call for records relating to detention orderpassed in C.No.03/Detention/C.P.O/T.C/2016 dated 12.01.2016 by the detaining authority, who has been arrayed as second respondent herein against thedetenu by name Kottappattu Maharaja, Son of Marimuthu and quash the same.2.The Inspector of Police, Edamalaipattipudur Police Station assponsoring authority has submitted an affidavit to the detaining authority,wherein it is stated that the detenu has involved in the following adversecase:?Crime No.523 of 2015 on the file of Cantonment Police Station, TrichyCity registered under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b) and 307 read with 149 ofthe Indian Penal Code?.3.Further it is stated in the affidavit that on 05.11.2015 at about21.30 hours one John Marianam, Son of Soosai as de facto complainant has given a complaint against the detenu and others in Edamalaipattipudur PoliceStation and the same has been registered in Crime No.450 of 2015 underSections 341, 302 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and subsequentlyaltered into Sections 147, 148, 341, 302 and 506(ii) read with 120(b) of theIndian Penal Code and ultimately requested the detaining authority to invokeAct 14 of 1982 against the detenu.4.The detaining authority viz., second respondent herein afterconsidering the averments made in the affidavit and other connected documentshas derived subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenu is ahabitual offender and ultimately branded him as 'Goonda' by way of passingthe impugned detention order and in order to quash the same, the detenuhimself has filed the present Habeas Corpus Petition as petitioner.5.On the side of the respondents a detailed counter has been filed,wherein it has been contended to the effect that all the averments made inthe petition are false and ultimately prayed to dismiss the same.6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended thaton the side of the detenu a representation has been submitted and the samehas not been disposed of without delay and therefore the detention order inquestion is liable to be quashed.7.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that therepresentation submitted on the side of the detenu has been duly disposed ofwithout delay and therefore the detention order in question does not call forany interference.8.On the side of the respondents, a proforma has been submitted whereinit has been clearly stated that in between Column Nos.7 to 9, five clearworking days are available and in between Column Nos.12 and 13, nine clearworking days are available and no explanation has been given on the side ofthe respondents with regard to such delay and that itself would affect therights of the detenu guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution ofIndia and therefore the detention order in question is liable to be quashed.9.In fine, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detentionorder passed in C.No.03/ Detention/C.P.O/T.C/2016 dated 12.01.2016 by the second respondent/detaining authority is quashed and consequently therespondents are directed to set the detenu viz., Kottappattu Maharaja, Son ofMarimuthu at liberty forthwith, unless he is required to be incarcerated inconnection with any other case.2.The Commissioner of Police, O/o.The Commissioner of Police, Tiruchirappalli City, Tiruchirappalli.3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 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.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.