id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
39,841,392 |
This is First application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.391/2015 for the offence punishable under Section 307,294 and506/34 of the IPC.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant is a woman aged about 62 years and permanent resident of District- Ujjain (M.P.).She has no criminal antecedents.As per the prosecution case, she instigated the crime.The applicant is ready to co-operate with the investigation.In such circumstances, the applicant be granted anticipatory bail.On the other hand, learned Govt. Advocate for the non-applicant/State opposes the prayer.Facility of this bail shall remain available to the applicant duirng trial with the condition that when the final report shall be filed, the applicant would furnish fresh bail bond as per this order.Applicant shall ensure that she would not commit any such offence during currency of bail and rest of the conditions stipulated under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be binding on her.It is made clear that if the applicant will breach any of the condition, then this order shall automatically stand cancelled without reference to this Court and the concerning Court shall be free to take appropriate action to secure presence of the applicant.Certified copy as per rules.(JARAT KUMAR JAIN) JUDGE khushbu
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 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.
|
39,843,056 |
Present accused-applicant is the son of maternal uncle of Ankur Tyagi.Hence, a prayer for grant of anticipatory bail has been made.Learned private counsel, appearing for the informant and learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail with this contention that anticipatory bail application of Sudhir Tyagi has been rejected, though, in the case of co-accused, Rishabh Tyagi, it has been allowed, but in the statement, recorded, under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., accusation, levelled, is one and common against all accused persons, who are residents of same locality, and this assault has been said to have been made while she was on her way to the court, with her father, with a view to harass and threaten the informant for withdrawing her case, filed against her husband, Ankur Tyagi.Hence, Application, for grant of Anticipatory Bail, be rejected.Having heard rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and gone through first information report as well as statement recorded, under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., it is apparent that there is a matrimonial dispute between the informant and her husband, Ankur Tyagi.He is having no criminal antecedents nor has any concern with the matrimonial dispute.In view of aforesaid, the application for anticipatory bail is, accordingly, allowed.Order Date :- 30.9.2019 bgs/
|
['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
39,843,174 |
C. R. M. No. 5273 of 2014 MNS.And In the matter of: Pavel Sarkar and others ...petitioners.Mr. Sekhar Bose, Mr. Prabir Majumder ...for the petitioners.Mr. Syed Shamsher Ali ...for the State.Therefore, the accused/petitioner no. 1, namely, Pavel Sarkar, the petitioner no. 2, namely, Sujit Sarkar alias Sujan Sarkar, and the petitioner no. 3, namely, Bhola Gain alias Vola alias Apurba Gain, be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only each with two sureties of like amount, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Krishnagar, District- Nadia, on condition that the accused/petitioners shall not enter into the territorial jurisdiction of Krishnaganj police station area without the leave of the trial court, but they shall disclose their whereabouts where they will be residing after their release to the concerned police station.The accused/petitioners shall, also, attend the court regularly on each and every occasion unless prevented by sufficient cause.The application for bail is, thus, allowed.(Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.) (Shib Sadhan Sadhu, J.)
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
39,844,220 |
03.10.13 Item No. 55 Court No.17 A.B.Item No. 55And In the matter of: Asir Dafadar & Anr.- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Asraf Mandal For the Petitioners Sk.Arif Hossain For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Tehatta Police Station Case No. 515 of 2013 dated 14.08.2013 under Sections 341/325/326/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties.We have seen the case diary and other relevant material on record including the injury report.Considering the nature of injuries there is no need for the custodial interrogation of the Petitioners in this case.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.D (Nishita Mhatre, J) (Ranjit Kumar Bag, J) 03.10.13 Item No. 55 Court No.17 A.B.Item No. 55And In the matter of: Asir Dafadar & Anr.- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Asraf Mandal For the Petitioners Sk.Arif Hossain For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Tehatta Police Station Case No. 515 of 2013 dated 14.08.2013 under Sections 341/325/326/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties.We have seen the case diary and other relevant material on record including the injury report.Considering the nature of injuries there is no need for the custodial interrogation of the Petitioners in this case.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.D (Nishita Mhatre, J) (Ranjit Kumar Bag, J)
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
39,848,997 |
The petitioner is falsely implicated.Learned GA for the respondent/State vehemently opposed the sh contentions and submitted that there was love affair between the e deceased and the petitioner/Sujeet Lowanshi.They were ad communicating with each other through their cell phones.The petitioner is residing in the neighbourhood of deceased.The petitioner Pr tried to blackmail the deceased and called her to deposit money in his a account number.a hy This revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred challenging the order dated 09/11/2017 ad passed by the Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad, in S.T. No.140/2017, M wherein charge has been framed against the petitioner for offence under Section 306 of IPC.of Filtering the unnecessary details, the prosecution story in brief is rt that, Sonali Rajput aged about 17 years, committed suicide on ou 25/08/2017 by consuming poison.She was declared dead at hospital, Hoshangabad during treatment.Merg No.68/17 was registered at C Police Station, Shivpur.Subsequently, inquest was made and Merg h No.30/17 was registered.During the inquest, it was found that the ig deceased had relationship with the petitioner/Sujeet Lowanshi.H Because of the harassment caused by the petitioner/Sujeet Lowanshi, Sonali committed suicide.Crime No.147/2017 has been registered under Section 306 of IPC.Charge-sheet has been filed.Learned Session Judge framed charge under Section 306 of IPC against the petitioner by the order impugned.On behalf of the petitioner, the order is assailed on the ground that the order is bad in the eyes of law, as well as on facts.It is stated that the offence under Section 306 of IPC is not made out for the elements of Section 107 of IPC is completely missing.He provided his account number as well as the IFS hy Code.Hence, the call details and the SMS indicate that the petitioner ad is responsible for the suicide committed by Sonali, therefore, the order impugned do not call for any inference.M Perused the case diary.of The postmortem report dated 25/08/2017 show that, deceased died due to cardio respiratory failure as a result of poisoning.Viscera rt report has been sent for chemical analysis.According to the ou prosecution, Sonali Rajput was studying at Chanakya School, Seoni C Malwa along with her friend, Muskaan.A Nokia mobile with a SIM h was given by the accused/petitioner.Both the friends were using that ig SIM.After the incident, the petitioner destroyed the same.Vishal H Singh Rajput, cousin of Sonali has stated that he is a student of LLB second year.Sonali was studying in 11th class.Sonali had intimated her mother, Girja Bai that the petitioner/Sujeet Lowanshi met her 4 months back at the house of Devendra Singh Rajput.The petitioner was asked not to "taunt" Sonali when she goes to school as she is of tender age and it will bring bad name to the village.Merg report was lodged.14-15 days before the incident, Sonali informed her mother that the petitioner has been harassing her while going to the school.She was feeling annoyed for the same.On 24/08/2017, when he was at Bhopal, he received a message that Sonali consumed poisonous substance and has committed suicide.She was taken to hospital, Hoshangabad.Sonali was declared dead.sh When Sonali's cell phone was checked on 27/08/2017, it was e found that, she has received a message on her cell phone from the ad accused to deposit money on his account number.He has provided the account number as well as the IFS Code.The call details could only show that several calls were made between the deceased and the petitioner.M Message received by the deceased was, "if she has money, she may of deposit in his account".If she has money, she may deposit in this C account.This message was received on 24/08/2017 at 1:17 am.Even if h this message is said to be received by the deceased, it does not indicate ig that there has been any blackmailing or any threat, etc. H On this background, it cannot be said that the deceased was left with no other alternative except to commit suicide.If the deceased has any such allegation or if she was allegedly threatened or torture by the petitioner/accused, she could have lodged report against him.
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
3,985,808 |
This petition has been filed, seeking to direct the Learned IIIAdditional District and Sessions Judge (PCR Court), Madurai to accept thesurrender of the petitioners and consider the bail applications of thepetitioners on the same day on merits in connection with Crime No. 80 of 2016on the file of the respondent police.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner hasbeen implicated in this case for the alleged offences under Sections 147,294B, 323, 448, 354 IPC r/w 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act in Crime No.80 of 2016 andthat in view of the specific bar under Section 18 of the said Act, thepetitioner cannot move any anticipatory bail application and therefore, thepetitioner has come forward with the said prayer.Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) takes notice for therespondents and submits that the injured has been discharged from thehospital.Considering the submissions of both sides and also considering thenature of the prayer in this case in view of the specific bar under Section18 of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act that the petitionerscannot move any anticipatory bail, the learned III Additional District andSessions Judge (PCR Court), Madurai is directed to accept the surrender ofthe petitioners and consider their bail application, in the event of thepetitioners filing such petition in Crime No.80 of 2016 on the file of therespondent police, and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance withlaw on the same day.With this observation, this petition is disposed of accordingly.The III Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR Court), Madurai.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Samayanallur, Madurai District.The Inspector of Police, Alanganallur Police Station, Madurai District.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
39,862,414 |
Perused the case diary, This second application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the applicant in Crime No.288/2019 registered by Police Station Damoh Dehat District Damoh (MP), under Sections 498-A, 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.Earlier application i.e. M.Cr.The allegation of the prosecution is that the marriage of the prosecutrix was solemnized with Babulal Ahirwal.The prosecutrix was burnt badly because of fire.She was taken to hospital for treatment.On 9/02/2019, she succumbed due to burn injuries.On the basis of information from the concerned authority, a merg intimation was recorded.During the course of merg inquiry, it has come on record that the applicant, who is brother-in-law (Jeth) of the deceased and other co-accused persons have used to harass the prosecutrix and subjected her with cruelty.Due to cruel behaviour of the applicant and other co-accused persons, deceased set herself on fire and during treatment, she died because of burn injuries.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has not committed any offence, he has falsely been implicated in the crime.The applicant is in custody since 31/05/2019 and trial will take long time for its decision.In view of the aforesaid, it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail.Learned P anel Lawyer f o r t h e respondent/State has opposed the application for bail.Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case particularly the fact a s p o inted o u t b y t h e learned c o uns el f o r the applicant, changed circumstances and looking to the period of detention of the applicant (since 31/05/2019), it would not be proper to keep the applicant in custody for the remainder of the trial.Consequently, this second application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant is allowed.It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Accordingly, the M.Cr.C. stands allowed and disposed of.FAHIM ANWAR) JUDGE Astha Digitally signed by ASTHA SEN Date: 29/11/2019 14:46:28
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
157,335,709 |
In order to appreciate the issue involved in these appeals, it is necessary to state the prosecution case in brief infra.In a village - Bhaismudi in District Janjgir, there were two groups of villagers.One group consisted of deceased - Jawahar Singh, Bhupendra Singh and others whereas the other group consisted of the appellants herein and other accused.There were disputes between the two groups on account of Panchayat elections in the village and also several other reasons.In the intervening night of 16th & 17th January 1995, the accused persons convened a meeting and hatched up a conspiracy to eliminate Jawahar Singh and others.The accused persons accordingly formed an unlawful assembly with a common object to murder Viki Singh, Jawahar Singh, Bhupendra Singh, Shailendra Singh - both sons of Jawahar Singh, and Kalicharan and in furtherance of this common object, all accused persons with deadly weapons (lathi, sword, ballam, Tabbals, iron roads) first went to the residence of Viki Singh near a place called Nawa Talab, and killed Viki Singh by severely beating him with the weapons which they had carried with them.The accused persons then proceeded towards the agriculture field of Jawahar Singh where they killed Jawahar Singh and his two sons - Bhupendra Singh and Shailendra Singh by severely beating them with the weapons, which they were carrying with them.Thereafter, the accused party proceeded to a place called - Holha Chowk of Bhaismudi and killed Kalicharan with the aid of same weapons.Madhubala Bai (PW-1) reported this incident by lodging Dehati Nalishi (Ex-P-1) on the spot on 17.01.1995 around 3.00 P.M.At this stage it is proper to reproduce the substance of the contents of Ex-P-1 herein below: -“…….that she is resident of village Bhaismudi, at about 11.30 a.m. she was at her shop, at that time, Karia Sabaria came crying to her shop and said that Viki Singh has been murdered near Nawa Talab by Shiv Sena persons namely, Kumar Singh, Nande Singh, Guharam, Rohit, Jaipal, Resham, Rajkumar Singh, Prahlad Singh, Rameshwar Singh, Dhananjay, Nand Kumar, Santosh & others.When she reached the spot, she saw that all these persons were carrying lathi, rod, battle axe etc. They were crying and saying ‘let us now go to the field of Jawahar Singh and finish them there’, they started going towards the agricultural field of her father.She and her mother also followed them and requested that once they should save their life, but they did not accede to their request.While going to the agricultural field, she informed Vinay Singh that Babuji has been murdered near Nawa Talab, Nirmal Kashyap, Amrit, Basant and Baran were also along with them.After reaching the agricultural field, these persons attacked her father Jawahar Singh and brothers Bhupender Singh and Shailender Singh with lathi and Tabbal as a result of which her father Jawahar Singh and brother Bhupender Singh succumbed to the injuries sustained by them instantaneously, and brother Shailender Singh succumbed to the injuries after 15-20 minutes.All these persons have committed the murder of her father and brothers.”On receipt of the aforesaid report, Brajender Singh (PW-16) - the Head Constable of Police Station Janjgir, registered the FIR (Ex-P-Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.These appeals have been directed against the final common judgment dated 11.05.2007 passed by the High Court of Chhatisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal Nos. 785, 866, 762, 868, 761, 853, 875, 970, 851, 873 and 842 of 2001, whereby the High Court upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellants herein under Section 302 read with Sections 149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short “IPC”) which was awarded to them by the Sessions Court whereas the High Court allowed the Criminal Appeals of other accused and acquitted them of the charges by setting aside the judgment of the Sessions Court dated 12.07.2001 in Sessions Trial No. 342 of 1995 to that extent.The concluding part of the impugned judgment of the High Court reads as under:“In the result, the appeals filed by accused Raj Kumar Singh, Dhananjay, Rohit, Nirmal, Surjan, Santosh Singh, Gopal Das, Chhatram, Balchand and Devilal succeeds.Conviction and sentences imposed upon them under Sections 302 read with Sections 149 and 148 of the IPC are set aside.They are acquitted of the said charges.They are directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.The appeal filed by accused Rameshwar Singh stands abated.The appeals filed by accused Kumar Singh, Nande Singh, Nand Kumar, Baran, Jaipal, Resham Lal, Guharam, Amritlal and Basant Das are dismissed.Conviction and sentences imposed upon them under Sections 302 read with Sections 149 and 148 of the IPC are maintained.Baran, Jaipal and Resham Lal are on bail.Their bail bonds are discharged and they are directed to surrender before the trial court forthwith to serve out the remaining sentence.”The question that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the High Court was justified in upholding the conviction and sentence of the present appellants.64) for commission of the offence under Sections 302, 147, 148 and 149 IPC.After giving necessary notices (Exs. P-2, 51, and 63), the Investigating Officer prepared inquest of Bhupendra Singh (Ex-P-3), Shailendra Singh (Ex-P-52) and Jawahar Singh (Ex-P-64).Dr P.K. Narula (PW-12) conducted post-mortem on the body of Bhupendra Singh (Ex-P-56).In his opinion, the cause of death of Bhupendra Singh was due to shock as a result of hemorrhage on account of extensive homicidal head injury.Dr. U.C. Sharma (PW-13) conducted post-mortem on the body of Jawahar Singh, who vide his report (Ex.P-59) opined that cause of death of Jawahar Singh was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of extensive head injury and that the death is homicidal in nature.Dr. A.K. Paliwal (PW- 14) conducted post-mortem on the body of Shailendra Singh and vide his report (Ex-P-61) opined that cause of death was due to shock resulting from hemorrhage caused by extensive head injury and that death is homicidal in nature.After completing the investigation and collecting all the evidence, the charge-sheet was filed against 29 accused persons for commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of the IPC in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Janjigir, who in turn committed the case to the Session Judge, Bilaspur, who in turn transferred it to the Additional Sessions Judge.During the trial, one of the accused - Prahlad Singh, died.Prosecution examined as many as 22 witnesses at the trial to prove the case.Statements of accused persons were then recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.), in which all the accused persons denied their involvement in the commission of the offences and also denied the material collected against them in the form of evidence.They stated that they were falsely implicated in the crime and are thus innocent.One of the accused, Ganesh, stated that the deceased and their party members were indulged in selling illicit liquor and since members of their party -Shiv Sena were not allowing them to do such acts which included accused, who were also the members of Shiv Sena, they were falsely involved in this case due to this grudge against them.He also stated that since in Panchayat elections, some candidates of the deceased party had lost the election and hence, they were hostile to the accused persons.Another accused - Gopal Das stated that on the date of incident, he was at Raigarh for medical test.The accused in defence examined Lalit Kumar (DW-1) and Dinesh Chandra Pathak (DW-2).The trial Court, by judgment dated 12.07.2001, acquitted eight accused and convicted the remaining accused.All the convicted appellants were directed to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Sections 148 and 149 with a fine of Rs. 2000/- each.The convicted accused persons filed appeals in the High Court.By impugned judgment, the High Court upheld the conviction of nine accused persons by dismissing their appeals and acquitted the remaining accused persons by allowing their appeals.One appeal was held abated due to death of accused.The details regarding conviction/acquittal of accused persons by the High Court are mentioned herein below:Against this judgment of the High Court, the convicted accused persons have preferred these appeals before this Court questioning the correctness of the impugned judgment in so far as their conviction and sentence is concerned.It is for the prosecution to decide as to how many and who should be examined as their witnesses for proving their case.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
157,336,481 |
Bail Application No. 57286 of 2019, therefore, applicant is also entitled for bail.It is next submitted that another co-accused, Gulphool, who has assigned the role of causing injury, has also been released on bail by this Court on 11.2.2020 in Criminal Misc.Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
|
['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,573,455 |
JUDGMENT J.G. Chitre, J.These two applications have been disposed of by common judgment and order.The Petitioners are assailing the correctness, propriety and legality of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge for Greater Mumbai in Criminal Revision Application No. 13 of 1995 by which she directed the Addl.Chief Metropolitan magistrate 37th court, Esplanade, Bombay, Bombay to hear further the complaint which was filed by Respondent No. 1 in his Court for setting aside the order which has been passed by him on 1.12.1994 by which he discharged the present petitioners.The complaint was filed by Respondent No. 1 alleging that the petitioners committed an offence under Section 420 read with 34 of IPC.Respondent No. 1 alleged that though the petitioners were bound to give him the commission in context with the articles exported for sale to customers residing in Germany, Berlin, Switzerland,he did not pay the said commission amount to the respondent No. 1 (original complainant).He further alleged that without informing the original complaint he dispatched some articles to the customers residing in the said areas who directly ordered for such commodities on account of emergencies.But when an application was moved before the trial Court in view of Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Code for convenience), the learned Magistrate by passing an order in writing discharged the present petitioners.Respondent No. 1 filed revision application against the said order and the Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Mumbai allowed that application and set aside the order which was passed by the Trial Court and that is the subject matter of challenged in the present petition.He submitted that the respondent No. 1 was entitled to get the commission at 10% only if the order happens to be coming through him.He submitted that at no stage the petitioners denied the liability of paying the amount which was payable to respondent No. 1 during the period when the said agreement was subsisting and was in operation between them.He submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has unnecessarily interfered in the order which was passed by the trial Court in accordance with the provisions of Section 245(2) of the Code and, therefore, the order which has been put to challenge needs to be set aside by allowing this application and issuing appropriate writ.Shri Borkar, counsel appearing for respondent No. 1, submitted that the said agreement in question restricts the petitioners from entertaining the order from the mentioned areas because the customers from the said areas have been introduced by the respondent No. 1 and, therefore, he was entitled to get the commission from those orders.He submitted that some of the customers who were already introduced by the respondent No. 1, booked orders in emergency directly to the petitioners and they without informing the respondent No. 1 dispatched the required commodities to them and, therefore, he caused wrongful loss and wrongful gain to respondent No. 1 dishonestly and thereby committed the offence which has been made punishable by provisions of Section 420 of IPC.Therefore, there was no reason for him to reverse that order by discharging the petitioners.He submitted that the respondent No. 1 should have been given the opportunity of adducing the evidence.But unnecessarily and illegally the said opportunity has been denied to him and the learned trial Court discharged the petitioners for no reasons.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
157,348,555 |
[ T.V. NALAWADE, J. ] ssc/ ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2017 01:40:01 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2017 01:40:01 :::
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,573,492 |
JUDGMENT V.S. Sirpurkar, C.J.This is an appeal against the conviction of the appellant for offence under Sections 306, IPC and 498A of the IPC.On the first count the accused-appellant was convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and on the second count he was convicted rigorous imprisonment for three years along with fine.The prosecution case was that Nepti, the unfortunate girl, who died, was married to the appellant, Niren Adhikary, and she committed suicide in her own marital house nearly one year and six months after her marriage by hanging herself.The prosecution case further was that Nepti, who was an orphan girl and grew up in her maternal uncle's house, even she used to tell her maternal uncle, her cousins and other relations like uncle, etc., that she used to be ill-treated by her husband as well as her father-in-law.Eventually, Dakeya Adhikary, who was also an accused, has been acquitted by the Trial Court and since there is no appeal against the acquittal of accused-appellant, we are not concerned with accused Dakeya.3. Be that as it may, the unfortunate lady complained that she used to be beaten by her husband who refused to cohabit with her.Thereafter, on the fateful night her body was found hanging dead in her bedroom.Investigation was made and the Investigating Officer arranged for post-mortem of her body where it was confirmed that she died due to hanging.The Investigating Officer collected statements of various witnesses from the village at Kowagab and other village Dhoulaguri where maternal uncle and other relations lived.At the trial, the prosecution examined as many as eleven witnesses.The defence of the accused was of denial.He claimed that he did not compel the unfortunate girl to commit suicide by hanging as such.The learned Counsel, appearing for the accused-appellant, contends that in this case the necessary ingredients of the offences under Section 306 as also under Section 498A have not been proved and the learned Sessions Judge has failed to properly appreciate the oral evidence.The learned Counsel took pains to point out that all the witnesses are interested witnesses and the Trial Court has not exercised its option to exercise caution while appreciating the evidence of the relations of the unfortunate girl as witnesses.The other contention of the learned Counsel is that it is the case of the prosecution that there were some steps taken for rapprochement and settlement between couple.But no evidence in Court was adduced by family members of the unfortunate girl nor the same was brought to the notice of the learned Sessions Judge.The learned Counsel for the defence submitted that from the village at Kowagab, where the unfortunate girl lived no witness had supported the prosecution.Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge relied only on the relations who were the admittedly not the residents of Kowagab village.The learned Counsel for the State supported the judgment and pointed out that the accused had not put any proper defence before the Court so as to extricate himself out of the presumption raised under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned Counsel for the State, therefore, took pains to point out that the case of cruel treatment upon the unfortunate girl was established and rightly accepted by the Trial Court and under such circumstances, if the unfortunate lady committed suicide within seven years of her marriage, then the accused would be bound by the presumption raised under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned Counsel for the State further points out that there was undoubtedly cruel behaviour on the part of the accused towards the lady also in refusing to cohabit with her.In this background, it is to be seen as to whether the Sessions Judge was right in convicting the accused.In support of the prosecution, witnesses were examined, who were the relations of the unfortunate girl.The first amongst them is PW 1, Bhabendra Nath Roy, who deposed that he was the only maternal uncle, in his oral evidence he stated that this girl was an orphan.He also pointed out that after her marriage, she used to come back to his house and complain about the ill-treatment at her maternal house.He, therefore, stated that efforts for rapprochement of the problems in between the couple was made by some villagers.However, he candidly admitted that he had not got any letter from his niece nor had he made any complaint to anybody except holding Panchayat Salisi (mediation) in bringing about the compromise between the couple.There is nothing unnatural that the unfortunate girl made so many complaints against her husband about the ill-treatment.There is also circumstance that the husband had expressed his inability to cohabit with her.The prosecution witnesses can be classified into two groups.Smt. Nandarani Roy.All these witnesses are relations of the unfortunate girl, Nepti.PW4 is her uncle, PW5 is her cousin brother, PW 7 is her sister-in-law.All these witnesses have, undoubtedly, stated that Nepti used to complain about ill-treatment meted against her husband, who used to beat her and also refused to cohabit with her.The only departure is to be found in the evidence of P.W. 7, Smt. Nandarani Roy, to whom Nepti had reported that her husband cohabited with her only during the first one month immediately after marriage and thereafter there was no cohabitation.Insofar as the ill-treatment, such as, beating, etc. is concerned there is hardly any cross-examination of these witnesses.The learned Counsel for the defence tried to take us through the evidence of all these witnesses and tried to rely on certain contradictions inter se.We do not give much importance to those contradictions which are insignificant.The main story of the prosecution is well-established by the evidence of these witnesses who in cross-examination had asserted that they were aware of the ill-treatment having been meted out by the accused to the unfortunate lady.The Trial Court has rightly accepted their evidence.The other group of witnesses is PW2, Ananda Roy, PW 3, Bhabya Nath Roy, P.W. 6, Gajen Ray.Very significantly, all the three witnesses are residents of village Kowagab where the unfortunate lady resided.Needless to mention that all the three witnesses were declared as hostile witnesses.However, PW 3 has, however stated in examination-in-chief that about six months after her marriage, Nepti came to his house and reported to him and his wife that her husband did not reside with her and she also told that she came to learn that her husband had some illness in his penis.This is a clear indication of the fact that the unfortunate girl had complained to the concerned witness and his wife about the non-cohabitation on the part of the husband.It is trite law now that the evidence of a hostile witness can be relied on if it is found to be truthful.We are not impressed by the evidence given by the PW 2, PW 3 and PW 6 as they were obviously the witnesses under the influence of the accused.One of the witnesses has even admitted in his cross-examination that he was a Panchayat member and was expecting to get votes of the accused person.We have ourselves seen that the evidence of this witnesses was most natural and it was very natural on the part of the unfortunate lady to complain before a lady and other relations.After all in matrimonial matters, the witnesses were bound to be the relations because in matrimonial matters, such as the present one, a lady would not make any complaint to any outsider particularly regarding the intimate subject like cohabitation.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
157,355,198 |
Item No. 66And In the matter of: Sujoy Ghosh & Ors.- versus -The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Santipur Police Station Case No. 413 of 2013 dated 07.07.2013 under sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned Advocate for the State.The Petitioner No.1 is the husband of the Complainant while the Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are her parents-in-law.Hence, their application for anticipatory bail stands rejected.As regards the other Petitioners, there is no need for their custodial interrogation in this case.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
105,600,082 |
Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 07/08/2011, the respondent had committed murder of his wife and her dead body was found in the Saatkhuta forest near Village Jhirpa.Information in this regard was given at police chowki Roshni (Police Station- Khalva) on which investigation was conducted.After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed.The application, being devoid of merit and substance, stands dismissed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
105,600,166 |
This is first application under section 438 Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail as he apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.07/2020 registered at Police Station, Neemuch Cant.for the offence punishable under sections 272, 273 & 420 of the IPC.As per the prosecution story on 02.01.2020 Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, Food Safety Officer, Neemuch submitted a written complaint at Police Station Neemuch Cant.stating that on 02.12.2019 he conducted a raid in the firm viz. M/s Airen Spices situated at Ward No.23, Scheme No.9, Neemuch where he collected the sample of various spices and sent to the Food Laboratary, Bhopal for analysis.According to him, he had earlier collected certain samples on 17.04.2019 which were found to be sub standard and the investigation of that case is still pending.On the basis of the complaint, FIR bearing crime No.07/2020 has been registered against the applicant.The Food Safety Officer has not followed the procedure and directly got registered an FIR against the applicant.In similar facts and circumstances the Court has quashed the FIR in MCRC No.39005/2019 vide order dated 23.11.2019 and in other similar cases the bail under section 438 has been allowed by the coordinate bench, hence the applicant is also entitled for bail.Under the Act of 2006 there is no bar for the Police to register an FIR against the accused.As per the complaint of the Food Safety Officer the applicant is also equally involved in the business along with his son, therefore, he is not entitled for anticipatory bail.-3- MCRC No.1718/2020 That the applicant is also facing a trial No.86/2011 before the JMFC under the same offence and thereafter the samples were collected from the firm on 02.12.2019 which were found substandard but the applicant is continuously involved in the offence and repeating it.At present the samples have been sent to the laboratory for chemical examination, therefore, the application is pre- mature.The Apex Court has held that there is no conflict between the provisions of IPC and the Motor Vehicles Act, both the statutes operate in entirely different spheres.The ingredients of the offence under both the statute, as discussed, are different and the offender can be tried and punished independently under both the statutes.The prosecution if otherwise maintainable would lie both under IPC and Motor Vehicles Act. The Motor Vehicles Act is a complete Code in itself in so far as the motor vehicles are concerned, however, there is no bar under the Motor Vehicles Act or otherwise to try and prosecute the offence-4- MCRC No.1718/2020 under the IPC for an offence relating to motor vehicle accident.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
105,600,275 |
The complainant Raisingh (P.W-2) went along with his brother Laharia to a party, where a weekly market (hart) was assembled.The deceased Laharia brother of the complainant went to peshab khana (urinals) to ease himself.The prosecution witness Sachin Dongre (P.W-3) and Gangaram were also in the urinal.There, it was alleged that the appellant inflicted one single injury by knife on left side of chest of the deceased.Prosecution witness Sachin Dongre (P.W-3) and Gangaram ran out to inform the complainant.On being so informed, he ran towards the urinals and found his brother severely injured, lying on the ground and present appellant ran from the spot.The deceased was shifted to the Government Hospital, Pati, where he succumbed to the injuries.According to the facts stated in the F.I.R., the reason for inflicting the injury on the deceased was a dispute between Dakhania and Bhuna regarding land of the deceased.__________________________________________________________ CORAM Hon'ble Shri Justice S.C. Sharma Hon'ble Shri Justice Alok Verma Whether approved for reporting ?Shir Mukesh Sinjonia, learned counsel for the appellants.This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Barwani, District-Barwani in Sessions Trial No.254/2004 dated 10.02.2005, wherein the learned Additional Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs.200/- and also three years additional imprisonment by way of default stipulation.It was said that the deceased intervened and both the sides entered into a compromise.Due to this fact, appellant Dakhania was harboring grudge against the deceased, finding the opportunity, he inflicted injuries on the deceased, due to which, he died.The trial Court framed charge under Section 302 of IPC, recorded evidence of both the sides and passed the impugned judgment finding the appellant guilty under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him as aforesaid.Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, this appeal is filed on the ground that nobody saw the present appellant inflicting injury on the deceased.The prosecution witnesses were interested witnesses and no independent witness was examined.It was a natural death while the prosecution witnesses rushed towards the complainant to inform him about the incident, the appellant was standing there with knife in his hand.As in the opinion of the complainant, there was some earlier dispute and he was falsely implicated in the case.The prosecution examined the complainant Raisingh (P.W-2).He informed that he was sitting at bus stand Patan, his brother went to urinal to ease himself then Sachin Dongre (P.W-3) and Gangaram came to him running.When he went to urinal, he saw his brother, the deceased Laharia lying on the ground and he saw the appellant going toward the river.The appellant inflicted injuries on left side of chest of the deceased by knife.Sachin Dongre (P.W-3) also supported the prosecution case and said the he went to inform Raisingh (P.W-2), the complainant and brought him back.There, they saw the deceased lying on the ground and saw the appellant going away from the spot.Learned counsel brought our attention to the statement of this witness, who is an eye-witness.In para-4 of his statement, he admitted that he did not see the appellant inflicting the knife injury on chest of the deceased and further he specified that he saw knife in the hand of the appellant and deceased Laharia was lying on the ground.He was further examined on this aspect and then he clarified that he only saw the appellant standing there with knife in his hand and the deceased on the ground in injured condition.Another eye-witness Gangaram was examined by the prosecution.Dr. S.S. Gehlot was exmained as P.W-1 and he found one single injury of 5 x 2 x 8 cm.The cause of death was reported to be excessive bleedings from the stab wound caused on his chest.Looking to the statement of prosecution witnesses, which is supported by the medical evidence, the discrepancies pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant is not very important and it is proved that the present appellant was found on the spot, the place was urinals, and therefore, it cannot be assumed that the deceased or the appellant remained there for very long time.In this view of the matter, the discrepancies pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant looses its importance as such it is proved that the deceased died due to the injuries caused by the present applicant on his chest.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this single injury was caused on the deceased due to animosity between the deceased and the present appellant was not proved.In the F.I.R., it was mentioned that the deceased was instrumental in bringing about a compromise between the parties and as such appellant was himself voluntarily entered into a compromise.There appears to be no occasion for him to nurture any grudge against the deceased.As such there was no reason for the appellant to commit murder.At the most, it may be said that he was not happy with the deceased, and therefore, suddenly, he inflicted one single injury without having intention to cause his death.In this view of the matter, it is apparent that he has no intention to cause death of the deceased, and therefore, the case falls under under the provisions of Section 304-II of IPC.Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed.The conviction and sentence passed on the appellant under Section 302 of IPC is hereby set aside.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
105,603,030 |
Prosecution story, in brief, is that accused-appellant Selvaraj @Chinnapaiyan is husband of PW-2 Selvi.He belongs to Vellala GounderCommunity, and PW-2 Selvi belongs to Vanniayar Community.The twodeveloped intimacy.This was not liked by Sundarammal (mother ofSelvaraj).As such the accused-appellant Selvaraj and PW-2 Selvi left thevillage, and started living as husband and wife in Bangalore.From theirrelationship PW-2 Selvi conceived a baby.Sundarammal, when came to knowof it, wanted to get the baby aborted but Selvi declined to do so.On thisSundarammal approached PW-4Chandra, a nurse, and sought her help to get thebaby aborted.Selvaraj also joined his mother in asking Selvi to get thepregnancy terminated.This made Selvi apprehensive of threat to her lifeand that of her child in the womb.She went to her parents house andstayed there.After sometime, a Panchayat of the villagers was held andmarriage was arranged between Selvaraj and Selvi whereafter the accused-appellant (Selvaraj) again left for Bangalore.While he was in Bangalore,Selvi delivered a female child on 27.1.2003 in her parental village aboutwhich the appellant and his mother were informed.On 28.2.2003, theappellant Selvaraj came to his village from Bangalore.On 3.3.2003 atabout 8.00 p.m., according to the prosecution, the appellant entered insidethe house of PW-2 Selvi, raised the volume of radio and closed the room.From there he went to thatched shed where the young baby was sleeping.Onhearing the cries of the baby, PW-2 Selvi, PW-3 Rajammal (mother of Selvi)and PW-10 Chinapappa (sister of Selvi), who were standing outside thehouse, rushed to the thatched shed and saw Selvaraj administering paddyseeds in the mouth of the child, and strangulating him with a gunny wire.PW-2 Selvi shouted and attempted to save the child.All the threewitnesses, i.e., Selvi (PW-2), Rajammal (PW-3) and Chinapappa (PW-10) tookthe child to PW-4 Chandra (a nurse).She (PW-4) advised above three eyewitnesses to take the child to a doctor at Marandehalli, who, in turn,directed to take the child to Government hospital, Dharmapuri.The babywas admitted in the Government Hospital, Dharmapuri on 6.3.2003 at 10.00a.m., but died at 5.25 p.m. on the same day.A First Information Report (Ext. P-15) was lodged by PW-2 Selvi at 11.00p.m.on the very day (6.3.2003) at Police Station Marandehalli, which wasregistered as Crime No. 110 of 2003 relating to offence punishable underSection 302 IPC against the two accused, namely, Selvaraj @ Chinnapaiyanand his mother Sundarammal.Crime was investigated by PW-13 InspectorThangavel, who interrogated the witnesses and took the body of the femalechild in his possession, sealed it and sent for autopsy.PW-1 Dr.Balasubramaniam conducted post mortem examination and prepared the autopsyreport (Ext. P-4).PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 8.1.2008passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 337of 2007 whereby said Court has dismissed the appeal of accused-appellantSelvaraj @ Chinnapaiyan, who was convicted by the trial court under Section302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and sentenced to undergo imprisonmentfor life and directed to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment ofwhich he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further periodof three months.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record.He observed a linear blackish contusion of size 15mm x1mm extending from left to right side of neck, hyoid bone found intact,ribs were intact, no foreign body found in the lungs, liver congested,stomach empty, bladder empty.PW-1 Dr. Balasubramaniam preserved a pieceof skin from neck for forensic analysis and also took pieces of intestine,liver and kidney and preserved the same for forensic analysis.He recordedopinion on 7.3.2003 (the day on which autopsy was done) that "The deceasedwould appear to have died about 12-24 hrs prior to autopsy.Opinion aboutthe cause of death reserved pending chemical analysis." The ForensicScience Laboratory, Vellore reported, after examination of pieces ofintestine, liver, kidney and skin that there was no poison found in any ofthe above articles.After receiving the report of Forensic ScienceLaboratory, PW-1 Dr. Balasubramaniam gave final opinion on 16.11.2003endorsing "NO DEFINITE OPINION COULD BE GIVEN FOR THE DEATH.The deceasedchild might have died due to SUDDEN DEATH SYNDROME, a medical entity." Oncompletion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against two accused, namely, the appellant Selvaraj @ Chinnapaiyan inrespect of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, and his motherSundarammal for her trial regarding offence punishable under Section 302read with Section 109 IPC.After giving necessary copies, as required under Section 207 of Code ofCriminal Procedure, and hearing the parties, learned Additional SessionsJudge, Fast Track Court, Dharmapuri, framed charge in respect of offencepunishable under Section 302 IPC against the appellant Selvaraj, and thecharge under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC against Sundarammal,both of whom pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.Prosecution got examined PW-1 Dr. Balasubramaniam (who conducted postmortem examination), PW-2 Selvi (informant and mother of the deceased), PW-3 Rajammal (mother of the informant), PW-4 Chandra (nurse), PW-5 J.Kuppuraj (witness of recovery memo - gunny wire), PW-6 Murugavel (anotherwitness of the recovery memo), PW-7 Dhotta Pappan, PW-8 Barchulla (HeadConstable who took the body for autopsy), PW-9 Thathaki (Deputy Nazir ofMunsiff Court, who sent viscera for medical analysis under orders of theMagistrate), PW-10 Chinnapappa (sister of the informant), PW-11 Sub-Inspector Paulraj (who registered Crime No. 110 of 2003 at the PoliceStation), PW-12 Dr. Vallinayagam (Director of the Institute of ForensicMedicine), and PW-13 Inspector Thangavel (who investigated the crime).The oral and documentary evidence appears to have been put to both theaccused under Section 313 Cr PC, in reply to which they alleged that theincriminating part of the evidence is false.However, the trial court,after hearing the parties, found both the accused, Selvaraj and his motherSundarammal, guilty of the charge framed against them and sentenced each ofthe accused to imprisonment for life and directed to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of which the defaulter convict was required toundergo further imprisonment for three months.Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 5.3.2007, passed by theAdditional Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri in Sessions Case No. 193 of 2006,both the convicts preferred appeal before the High Court of Judicature atMadras.The High Court, after hearing the parties, found that charge ofoffence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC against co-accused Sundarammal is not proved and, as such, conviction and sentencerecorded against her was set aside.However, the High Court found no meritin the appeal of the accused Selvaraj, and dismissed the same.Hence thisappeal before us.Before further discussion we think it just and proper to mention theopinion of PW-1 Dr. Balasubramaniam recorded by him in the post mortemreport (Ext. P-4).On 7.3.2003 he gave his opinion after autopsy as under:"The deceased would appear to have died about 12-24 hrs prior to autopsy.Opinion about the cause of death reserved pending chemical analysis."On receipt of the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory regardingthe preserved items of viscera and the skin, PW-1 Dr. Balasubramaniam gavefinal opinion on 16.11.2003 which reads as under: -"NO DEFINITE OPINION COULD BE GIVEN FOR THE DEATH.The deceased childmight have died due to SUDDEN DEATH SYNDROME, a medical entity."As such, on going through the medical evidence and the statement of PW-12Dr.Vallinayagamal Director, Institute of Forensic Medicine, we are of theview that the above report is not suggestive of homicidal death of thechild, though the possibility of such death cannot be ruled out.Now, we have to see from the oral testimony of the witnesses whether or notit establishes commission of murder by the appellant Selvaraj of his 39days old female child.As such this key witnessturned hostile in the cross-examination.Similarly, PW-3 Rajammal (mother-in-law of the appellant) has also turnedhostile in her cross-examination, and stated that it is correct to statethat the child died because of sickness.She also further told that it iscorrect to state that her son-in-law did not come even after death of thechild.Also PW-10 Chinapappa (sister of the informant) has made similar statementin her cross-examination corroborating that the child died because ofillness.As such, all the three alleged eye witnesses took somersault inthe cross-examination, and their testimony requires to be scrutinized withgreat caution.It is argued on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu that since the eyewitnesses have been won over by the accused, as such, their statements incross-examination cannot be believed.On the other hand, on behalf of theappellant it is contended that once the key witnesses have turned hostile,their evidence cannot be relied upon to record the conviction.However, such evidence is required to be examined with greatcaution.Apart from the above, it is relevant to mention here that PW-5 J. Kuppurajand PW-6 Murugavel (both witnesses of recovery memo) have not supported theprosecution case even in their examination-in-chief.Nay, PW-4 Chandra (nurse), who could be said to be only independent witnessof this case, too turned hostile to prosecution.It is pertinent tomention here that though PW-2, PW-3 and PW-10 turned hostile after ten daysof their examination-in-chief, i.e., for which their cross-examination wasdeferred, this witness (PW-4) has turned hostile to prosecution on the veryday (22.1.2007), i.e., date of examination-in-chief of other eye witnesses.Not asingle witness has stated that the accused succeeded in running away fromthe place of incident.We have also considered the prosecution story from the angle ofprobability.Prosecution has tried to develop the story that the accused(Selvaraj) was strangulating the child with the gunny wire and wassimultaneously inserting paddy seeds in the mouth of the infant.In ouropinion, both these modes simultaneously appear to be unnatural,particularly, in view of the fact that the incident had occurred on3.3.2003 and the child died on 6.3.2003, i.e., after a period of threedays.PW-4 Chandra (nurse) to whom child was taken after the incident hasstated that there was nothing in the mouth of the child when she saw her.She further stated that the child was looking good.Consideration of all the above facts takes us to the conclusion that in thepresent case it cannot be said that prosecution has successfully provedcharge of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC as against the appellantwho is languishing in jail for about eight years.For the reasons, as discussed above, we are of the view that the trialcourt and the High Court have erred in law in holding that the charge ofoffence punishable under Section 302 IPC stood proved against the appellantSelvaraj.Therefore, the appeal is allowed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
105,605,311 |
4.We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival submissions put forward by the learned counsel on either side and thoroughly scanned through the impugned detention order and the entire materials available on record.
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
105,606,678 |
Heard on admission.Learned panel Lawyer for the respondent/State accepts notice on the behalf of the State.Heard on IA.No.6309/2015 under section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.A perusal of the impugned Judgment reveals that appellant has been convicted under sections 326 and 506 (Part II) of the I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and fine in the sum of Rs.5000/- for each offence and he has also been directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years in case of default of payment of fine under each offence.He has further submitted that the fine amount has been deposited.Therefore, it has been prayed that the substantive jail sentence of the appellant be suspended.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand, has opposed the bail application.Keeping in view the quantum of sentence imposed and the fact that the disposal of appeal is likely to take time, in the opinion of this Court, appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail.Consequently, this first application for bail under section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed on behalf of appellant Shankar Gond is allowed.It is directed that on depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited and furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 27.8.2015 and all other subsequent dates fixed by the Registry in this regard, the remaining part of the substantive jail sentence imposed upon him shall stand suspended and he shall be released on bail.Certified copy as per rules.(C V SIRPURKAR)
|
['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
105,608,550 |
(i) The Appeal is allowed.(ii) The impugned Order rejecting the claim of anticipatory bail of the appellants/accused by the learned Special Judge is quashed and set aside.(iii) The application for anticipatory bail moved by the appellants/accused in the subject crime stands allowed.(iv) In the event of their arrest in the subject crime, the appellants/accused be released on bail on their executing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each and on furnishing surety in the like amount by each of them.(v) As a condition of this order, the appellants/accused to cooperate the Investigating Officer for investigation of the crime in question.Gaikwad RD 5/6 ::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 16:56:54 ::: (6)APEALNo.92019(J).doc::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 16:56:54 :::(vi)They should not extend any threat inducement or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.(vii) The appellants/accused should not repeat commission of similar offence in future.(viii)The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 16:56:54 :::
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
105,609,604 |
The short question involved in the present petition is whether an employee, who has been dismissed from service after a departmental enquiry, is entitled to be reinstated on his acquittal in a criminal case.The facts in this case are not disputed.Two persons came to the office of the Reserve Officer claiming that they had been declared fit for appointment as a Constable by the Interview Board.The respondent, a police constable in the State Armed Police, was posted at the relevant time at Raiganj.He applied for anticipatory bail and was granted the same on 28th January, 2008 by this Court.In the meantime the respondent had been transferred.On obtaining the anticipatory bail and after surrendering to the Raiganj Court as directed by this Court, the respondent sought to join at the Jalpaiguri Police Lines.But he was not permitted to do so.His second representation was also rejected.The allegation against him was that he had tarnished the image of the police in the eyes of public by his activities which had led him to be an accused in a criminal case.The respondent was asked to submit his explanation.However, as that was not found acceptable, it was decided that a departmental enquiry would be held against him.The charge sheet in the criminal case was submitted on 28th June, 2008, adding the name of the respondent as one of the accused persons.The trial proceeded against him as well.The respondent attended the disciplinary proceedings and after the enquiry was completed, the second show cause notice was issued to him.He filed OA 1034 of 2011 challenging the same.Besides this, he was awarded four minor punishments during the 15 years of his service.He had also been granted extraordinary leave for 229 days on 14 occasions.Considering the charges levelled against him and the fact that the criminal case against him was pending, the disciplinary authority dismissed him from service as it was of the view that there were no mitigating circumstances in his past service record.By an order dated 16th April, 2013 the Tribunal upheld the order of dismissal.The Tribunal was of the view that the punishment of dismissal could not be considered to be either unfair or disproportionate having regard to the material facts in the case.The Criminal Court convicted one of the three accused persons under Section 419 IPC.On securing this judgment of acquittal, the respondent submitted a representation to the Superintendent of Police calling upon him to reinstate him in his original post.He pleaded that since he had been acquitted in the criminal trial, he was entitled to be reinstated in service and that the order of dismissal passed against him should be recalled.The reliefs sought by him were as follows:(c) A further order do issue directing the respondent authorities to transmit records pertaining to the instant case so that conscionably justice can be done.(d) Any other appropriate order/orders direction/directions as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper to protect the right of the applicant and in the ends of justice."After considering the relevant material on record and the judgments cited at the bar, the Tribunal by its judgment dated 17th December, 2015 concluded that the respondent was entitled to be reinstated in service as he had been honourably acquitted in the criminal trial.The State of West Bengal and the officers of the police department have filed the present petition challenging the order of the Administrative Tribunal.Later, he was remanded to police custody and then to judicial custody.Thereafter he was released on bail.Then a charge-sheet was issued to him by the department setting out the fact of his arrest and involvement in the criminal case.The last paragraph in the charge-sheet was as follows:The appellate authority confirmed that order.Two years thereafter he was acquitted in the criminal trial.The employee therefore filed proceedings before the Administrative Tribunal for reinstatement in service as did the present respondent.The Tribunal allowed the application and directed reinstatement of the employee.The State preferred a writ petition against this order of the Tribunal before the High Court.The High Court confirmed the order of the Tribunal.Aggrieved by that order the State challenged the order before the Supreme Court.
|
['Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
105,616,635 |
Heard on I.A. No.6652/2020, a repeat third application filed under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant, whereas previous first two applications have been dismissed on merits.The appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2)(i) of the IPC read with Section 3/4 and 6 of the POCSO Act and jointly sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.1000/- and under Sections 363 and 366-A of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs.1000/- and R.I. 10 years with fine of Rs.1000/- respectively, with default stipulations.Perused the statements of parents of prosecutrix.They both categorically stated that prosecutrix was between 15 to 16 years old at the time of incident.Nothing has been asked in cross-examination to contradict the factum of age of the prosecutrix as stated by the parents of the prosecutrix.It is prima facie reflected that the prosecutrix at the time of incident was 16 years old.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State has vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that previous applications have been dismissed on merits and there is strong case available against the appellant.Therefore, he prays to dismiss the application.
|
['Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
548,922 |
JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J.In this appeal from jail, the accused/appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') has called in question the legal propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 2nd March, 2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh in Sessions Trial No. 116 of 1999 whereby he has convicted the accused of offences punishable under Sections 450 and 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 10 years' and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment of six months on each count, with a further stipulation that the sentences would be consecutive.Prosecution version, shorn of unnecessary details, is as follows :--On 27-6-1999 at about 11 a.m., Rani Kachhi, the prosecutrix, a blind woman, who was sustaining herself by receiving alms was inside her house.At that juncture, the accused who was a resident of the locality, entered into the house and tried to offer money to the child of the prosecutrix, which was not appreciated by the prosecutrix and she questioned the accused relating to such act of the accused.The accused, in reply, stated that by giving the money to the child, he was earning Punya and accordingly, he have Rs. 10/- which was snatched away by the prosecutrix who thereafter asked the accused to leave the premises.Despite the protest raised, the accused did not leave the premises and gave money to the 9 year daughter Bhagwati and other children.On receipt of the said money, the children went out and at that point of time, the accused caught hold of the prosecutrix and when she tried to shout, he gagged her mouth and committed rape on her.It is the further case of the prosecution, the prosecutrix though blind was able to identify the accused from his voice.Immediately after the act was committed, the prosecutrix proceeded to the police station and reported the matter.The criminal law being set in motion, the Investigating Agency got the prosecutrix medically examined, seized the wearing apparel of the prosecutrix, sent them to the State Forensic Laboratory at Sagar for examination, prepared the spot map, examined certain witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and eventually placed the charge-sheet in the Competent Court, which, in turn, committed the matter to the learned Trial Judge.The accused abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication.The prosecution in furtherance of its case, examined six witnesses.P.W. 1 is Dr. Madhu Jain, who had examined the prosecutrix; P.W. 2 is the prosecutrix herself; P.W. 3 is Bhagwati, the daughter of the prosccutrix; P.Ws. 4 and 5 are Sheela and Kalicharan, who have turned hostile; and, P.W, 6 is the Investigating Officer.Apart from the ocular evidence produced by the prosecution, it also got certain documents exhibited.Assailing the order of conviction, it is submitted by Mr. G.C. Jain, learned Counsel for the accused that when Dr. Madhu Jain (P.W. 1) has opined that no definite opinion could be given with regard to rape, the learned Trial Judge should have acquitted the accused of the charge.It is submitted that no injuries have been found in her private parts or other parts of the body and, therefore, the whole prosecution story lacks evidence.It is his further submission that the version of the prosecutrix is replete with inherent contradictions and that being the position, her statement should have been rejected as incredible, unacceptable and not beyond reproach.It is urged by him that the prosecutrix is a blind lady and, therefore, she could not have seen the accused but has implicated him in the crime out of hostility.It is also submitted by him that the daughter of the prosecutrix who was alleged to have seen the occurrence should not have been believed by the learned Trial Judge as there was no possibility on her part to see the occurrence.Lastly, the learned Counsel submitted that the learned Trial Judge had been governed by emotions while imposing the sentence and this Court, if eventually, agrees with the conclusion, should interfere in the quantum of sentence.Mr. V. Khan, learned Counsel for the State, per contra, has contended that the prosccutrix, a married lady having children, though a widow, was acquainted to sexual intercourse and, therefore, non-finding of injuries in her private parts can not be the sole governing factor to discard her evidence with regard to sexual intercourse by the accused.It is proponed by Mr. Khan that there is no contradiction, worth the name, to discard the testimony of the child witness Bhagwati (P.W. 3) as she has deposed in an unequivocal manner with regard to the act of the accused.To appreciate the rivalised submissions raised at the Bar, I have carefully perused the judgment of the learned Trial Judge and scrutinized the evidence brought on record.It is noticeable that the prosecutrix had lodged the FIR in quite promptitude.In the FIR, she has categorically stated that she was able to identify the accused from his voice.In her testimony in Court, she has deposed that the accused was drunk and despite repeated requests, he did not leave the place and spoke in abusive language.She has vividly described how the accused had behaved with her and ravished her.It is in her testimony that there was sperm on her clothes.She has stated that her daughter also could identify the accused as he had come to their house and paid money.The aforesaid evidence of the prosccutrix finds corroboration from the evidence of Bhagwati (P.W. 3).She has deposed that the accused had come to her house and given her Rs. 10/- and asked her to bring ice.However, she did not go out as her mother had gone on the terrace.It is in her version that when she went up on the terrace, the accused abused her and asked her to leave the place.Being scolded by the accused, she came near the door.Thereafter, as stated by her, accused made himself nude and made her mother naked and physically over-powering her, slept over her.Despite searching cross-examination, nothing has been elicited from him.
|
['Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
54,897,461 |
By the present petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR No.295/2013 registered under Section 363 IPC at Police Station Jaitpur, Delhi and proceedings arising therefrom.2. Notice.Consummation of marriage may have its own consequences.If the girl is more than 16 years, and the girl makes a statement that she went with her consent and the statement and consent is without any force, coercion or undue influence, the W.P.(C) 1698/2013 Page 2 of 3 statement could be accepted and Court will be within its power to quash the proceedings under Section 363 or 376 IPC.Here again no straight jacket formula can be applied.The Court has to be cautious, for the girl has right to get the marriage nullified under Section 3 of the PCM Act. Attending circumstances including the maturity and understanding of the girl, social background of girl, age of the girl and boy etc. have to be taken into consideration."W.P.(C) 1698/2013 Page 2 of 3Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the school leaving certificate, which has been provided by the respondents, the girl is more than 16 years.Heard counsel for the parties.Consequently, FIR No.295/2013 registered under Section 363 IPC at Police Station Jaitpur, Delhi and proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.G.S.SISTANI, J OCTOBER 11, 2013 ssn W.P.(C) 1698/2013 Page 3 of 3
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
54,905,475 |
27.08.2004 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Puasd in Sessions Trial 29/2000, by and under which, the appellant-accused is convicted for offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and is ::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2018 02:06:07 ::: apeal710.04.J.odt 2 sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to payment of fine of Rs.300/-.The accused is however, acquitted of offence punishable under Section 341, 294 and 314 of IPC and of offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2] Since the learned counsel for the appellant-accused chose not to appear, with the fair and able assistance of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri N.H. Joshi, I have scrutinized the record and the reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2018 02:06:07 :::3] The prosecution case, is that on 25.12.1999 the accused assaulted one Chandrabhagabai on the abdomen with fists and kick blows.Due to the assault, Chandrabhagabai suffered a bleeding and on 29.12.1999 suffered an abortion of 3½ months foetus.On the basis of report lodged on 01.01.2000 by Chandrabhagabai the offence punishable under Section 313 of IPC and offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was ::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2018 02:06:07 ::: apeal710.04.J.odt 3 registered.Investigation ensued, charge-sheet submitted to the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pusad, the case was committed to the Sessions Court.The accused abjured guilt and claimed to be tried in accordance with law and the defence is of total denial.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2018 02:06:07 :::4] Unfortunately, Chandrabhagabai died during the pendency of the trial, due to reasons unconnected with the incident, before she could be examined.5] The only witness who is material from the perspective of the prosecution is P.W.2 Bhimabai Dhole who states that at 10:00 a.m. when she was cooking food she heard noise of quarrel, she went to the scene of the quarrel and saw accused beating Chandrabhagabai.However, it is brought on record that the statement of Bhimabai is not recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code.For reasons only known to the cross examiner, it is nonetheless suggested to Bhimabai, that she did not disclose to the police that the accused kicked Chandrabhagabai on the abdomen.Fortunately, for the defence, Bhimabai admits not ::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2018 02:06:07 ::: apeal710.04.J.odt 4 having made such a disclosure.Be that as it may, the evidence of Bhimabai is fragile and cannot be the basis of conviction.6] The reliance placed on oral report Exh.27, by the prosecution, and which reliance unfortunately found favour with the learned Sessions Judge, is misplaced.Concededly, the death of the informant was absolutely unconnected with the incident.The cause of death was not in issue.The report Exh.27 was not admissible under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act. At any rate, the observation of the learned Sessions Judge that the report corroborates the prosecution case, appears to be erroneous.The report could have corroborated only the maker.The report was not lodged immediately.Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act also did not come into play since the report was not lodged in immediate proximity with the incident.7] Having given my anxious consideration to the evidence on record, in my opinion, the accused could not have been convicted for offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2018 02:06:07 ::: apeal710.04.J.odt 5 8] The judgment and order impugned is set aside.9] The accused is acquitted of offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2018 02:06:07 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2018 02:06:07 :::11] Fine paid by the accused, if any, shall be refunded.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2018 02:06:07 :::
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
54,905,543 |
sdas allowed CRM 9344 of 2019 In Re : An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 25.09.2019 in connection with Amta Police Station Case no. 541 of 2017 dated 11.12.2017 under sections 447/323/325/354B/379/195A/34 of the Indian Penal Code.and In Re : Sk.The application for anticipatory bail is, accordingly, allowed.(Manojit Mandal, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
54,916,607 |
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE GITA MITTAL1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?2.To be referred to the Reporter or not?There is no material dispute by the respondents to the facts placed by the petitioner before this court.It is an admitted position that the Delhi Development Authority, respondent no.1 herein, announced a scheme for allotment of plots in 1981 in new project which was named as "Rohini Residential Scheme" in the North-West part of Delhi.In a computerised draw of lots held on 25th March, 1985 by the DDA, the petitioner was successful in drawing a plot bearing no.36, Pocket II, Block B, Sector 16, Rohini admeasuring 60 sq. meters (hereinafter referred to as the `plot').The demand-cum- allotment letter issued by the respondent no.1 to the petitioner required him to make payment of the balance amount of Rs.5,702/- as per schedule by the 31st May, 1985 while the total cost of the plot was fixed at Rs.12,011/-.The petitioner made applications dated 14th October, 1987 and 15th October, 1987 to the DDA to hand over the possession of the plot -2- along with the requisite documents.By a communication of 31st October, 1988, the DDA informed the petitioner of its intention of handing over possession of the plot and he was required to appear for this purpose at the site office.The petitioner reached the site office of the respondent no.1 on 8th December, 1988 as required where physical possession of the plot was handed over to him.The DDA also issued the possession letter along with the lay out plan of the plot to the petitioner.On the 2nd of July, 1996, the respondent no1 required the petitioner to furnish additional documents including the ration card, photographs etc. for preparation of a lease deed.The petitioner has claimed that he submitted all the required documents to the DDA on 12th May, 1997 and thereafter kept awaiting receipt of the lease deed papers and information with regard to the time and date for execution of the lease deed at Mandsaur, M.P. where he was permanently residing.Despite passage of of about one and a half years, no information was received by the petitioner from the DDA.The petitioner states that he came to Delhi on 11th February, 1999 to meet his relatives and on 15th February, 1999 went to see his plot.To his shock, a double storey building had been raised on the plot and the name plate of Mr. S.N. Swami, respondent no.2 herein, was affixed on the entrance gate.The respondent no.2 did not give any satisfactory responses to the petitioner and only -3- informed him that he had bought the plot from its owners.The petitioner also approached the DDA by complaints made on 15th March, 1999 and 29th April, 1999 requesting the DDA for removal of the unauthorised construction carried out on the plot in question.The petitioner was so asserting title to plot as he was the allottee of the plot and had paid the entire amount towards the cost thereof and possession had been handed over to him, while only the lease deed remained to be executed.The petitioner has two daughters and a son while his daughters are married and residing in Delhi and Gurgaon.The petitioner has explained his desire of acquiring a property in Delhi.The petitioner has stated that the DDA informed him on 1st July, 1999 that further action in the matter would be taken on receipt of a report from the Delhi Police and he was required to await the outcome of the investigation.On investigation by the police, one of the persons investigated, Shri Brij Kishore, had stated that the file of the plot no.36, Pocket II, Block B, Sector 16, Rohini was obtained from the dealing clerk Shri L.K. Jha because the real owner of the said plot had never visited the DDA office.Apart from the UDC of the DDA, its superintendent Shri Prem Lal and the lease officer Shri Indira Singh (LAO) were also investigated with regard to the execution of the lease deed.In the charge-sheet filed by it, the police has noted that according to these officers, the concerned file of the plot in question was missing.For this reason, no action could be taken against these officers due to lack of complete evidence.In this background, the police filed a charge-sheet dated 11th October, 1999 against seven persons which includes Shri Lalit Kumar Jha, an employee of the DDA.The petitioner has contended that the illegal acts were conducted with the complicity and active involvement of the officials of the DDA which is manifested from these facts.In the counter affidavit which has been filed by the DDA before this court, the DDA has admitted that when it came to know about the execution of the lease deed of the plot in reference under forged signatures in the name of the respondent no.2, it required the Crime -5- Branch of the Delhi Police to investigate the same.It has also been further submitted that the DDA also initiated a departmental inquiry against the dealing clerk/assistant in whose possession the file of the plot in reference was entrusted and also placed the seven other persons under suspension and initiated inquiry against them for their suspected role in the incidents.Interestingly, despite the passage of almost a decade, the departmental inquiry has not been concluded and the DDA is unable to inform the court about its fate.Be that as it may, so far as the execution of the lease deed is concerned, in the counter affidavit it is admitted that on "2nd November, 1996, the lease deed with regard to the plot of land was got executed by somebody impersonating as the petitioner and his wife in the name of the respondent no.2".It is thus admitted that the lease deed was executed under forged signatures.The DDA has not placed anything on record to show that these papers were actually dispatched to or received by the petitioner.The petitioner has disputed receipt of any such documents from -6- the DDA.The petitioner has also submitted that he has not paid the stamp duty nor deposited these documents with the DDA.Record from the dispatch section could have been produced by the respondent if it existed.This is not done.So far as the respondent no.2 Shri S.N. Swami is concerned, he has contended that "the petitioner and his wife are strangers to him as they are not the persons in whose favour the DDA executed the lease deed in respect of the plot in question on 28th November, 1996 and got it registered on 2nd December, 1996".He has further contended that he was a bona fide purchaser for good consideration and has acted in good faith after purchasing the plot from the ostensible owners, duly identified by the real owner, that is the DDA, who had admittedly created/transfered the ownership in favour of the transferrors.This respondent has also submitted that as per the plan submitted by the transferrors and approved by the Delhi Development Authority, he had constructed a two and a half storeyed residential house spending an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- and that since 10th July, 1997 he is residing therein.The respondent no.2 has also filed a civil suit bearing Suit No.329/1999 against the DDA, Shri Vijay Kumar Gupta, the present petitioner and his wife Smt. Maya Gupta as defendants, seeking permanent injunction.It would be useful to examine the contentions of the respondent no.2 in the plaint so far as execution of the document is concerned in paras 1 to 4 & 9 of the plaint and the stand -7- of the DDA in its written statement:-That the contents of para no.2 of the plaint as statedThat the perpetual by the plaintiff are not lease deed in respect of the correct as such not aforesaid plot was duly admitted.according to the satisfaction of the DDA authorities for getting execution of the lease deed but the DDA authorities have not executed any lease deed in favour of defendant no.2 and afterwards it revealed that the plaintiff in collusion with certain other persons and also certain staff members of DDA got executed and registered the alleged forged leased deed by affixing photographs of certain other persons.In para 7 of the written statement of the DDA in Suit No.329/1999, it has been categorically admitted the involvement of some of its officials in executing the lease deed and passing of the building plan on the forged signatures and fake photographs.It is also noteworthy that in the light of the facts placed on record by the respondent no.2, the DDA was also a party to the sanctioning of the building plans in favour of the impersonators and that its officers have connived in the illegal acts done in respect of and on the plot including the handing over of its possession to the respondent no.2 and raising of construction thereon to the prejudice of the petitioner.In the instant case, I am informed that even file of cases is missing from the office of the DDA.In the suit filed on 22nd November, 1999, the petitioner had sought the following prayers:-(b) That decree for declaration be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants to the- 11 -effect that the lease deed executed on 28.11.1996 and also got registered on 2.12.1996 as Document Registration No.8717 Book No.1 Volume No.215 Page No.82 to 87 at the office of Sub-registrar VI Delhi by fraud and impersonation and using forged signatures and fake photographs of the plaintiffs be declared null and void or cancelled and there after due information in this regard be also sent accordingly to the concerned Sub-Registrar office for the purpose to make entries in the concerning records.(c) That decree for declaration be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants to the effect that the alleged Special Power of Attorney dated 2.12.1996, General Power of Attorney dated 2.12.1996 purported to be executed by the name of Sh.Vijay Kumar Gupta and Deed of Will dated 1.12.1996 purported to be executed by the name of Smt. Maya Gupta, Receipt of Consideration, Agreement to Appoint Arbitrator, Construction Agreement, Indemnity Bond, Affidavit, Form B, D & E alongwith sanctioned plan and all other documents alleged or claimed by the defendant no.3 got to be executed or prepared regarding the said plot in dispute as detailed at the end of the plaint be declared null and void or cancelled.- 12 -In the written statement filed by the DDA on 4th October, 2001, the DDA had stated that the defendant no.3-Shri S.N. Swami (respondent no.2 herein) had raised illegal and unauthorised construction over the plot in question.The respondent no.1-DDA in its written statement contended that:-No steps for verifying the identity of the allottee were taken.Despite these admitted facts, the DDA has taken no action at all against the impersonators for the admitted violations.The DDA has admittedly taken no action even in respect of the missing records.The same clearly point towards those who were involved in the transaction, execution of the document handing over possession to impostors, sanction of building plans, permitting construction thereon and occupation.- 16 -(ii) The allottee will after receipt of lease deed papers from the DDA, be required to return the lease deed duly stamped from the Collector of Stamps within a period of six months failing which the penalty will be charged as decided by the Lessor and the allotment will be cancelled after one year.The allottee will be required to execute the lease deed on a date for which he will be informed in writing and penalty will be charged if he does not come for execution as decided by the lessor."The DDA, which has been statutorily constituted and mandated under the provisions of the Delhi Development Act, 1957, to act fairly and to ensure the protection of the property.Such a plea has to be noticed only to be rejected.DDA admits the fact that it was aware of the identity of the petitioner yet the registered conveyance of this plot has been admittedly executed by it in favour of the impostor thereby conveying all rights, title and interest therein to them.The petitioner who wasTo say the least, DDA has not proceeded even for tracing out records or taking action for failure to maintain and protect its records.- 18 -Therefore, irrespective and independent of the stand taken by the respondent no.2, the petitioner cannot be deprived of his admitted rights.Perhaps if the matter stopped at mere dispossession, there may have been some difficulty.- 19 -even a bare notice under the lease terms noticed above has been issued.It is the petitioner's contention that he is presently aged about 68 years and is residing at the District Headquarters at Mandsaur (Madhya Pradesh) since birth.He was in the field of education for 38 years and in September, 2002 retired from Government service from the post of Principal of the Government PG College, Mandsaur (MP).Between the period 1998 to 2001, the petitioner was serving as a principal of the Government PG College, Neemuch (MP).His wife is stated to be a housewife presently aged 60 years.Even if the suit filed by the respondent no.2 was ultimately dismissed,It is also not disputed that that the conveyance deed has been executed and registered in the name of an impostor and building plans sanctioned construction permitted to impostor.The DDA admits that the petitioner has submitted all required documents with it on 12th May, 1997 and was therefore in possession copy of his ration card, photographs etc. The petitioner would have clearly indicated his identity as well as the fact that he was residing in Madhya Pradesh.
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
549,177 |
2. Facts in brief, shorn of details and necessary for disposal of these appeals are in narrow compass.On 27-2-85 at about 5.00 p.m. when deceased Govardhan was at his field he asked Udayveer as to why he indulge in abusing him, whereupon Rameshwar brought a Farsa from his house and abusingly assaulted the deceased twice on head and neck followed by Udayveer who also assaulted the deceased by lathi, as a result thereof deceased fell down on the ground.Dinesh son of Rameshwar also arrived at there armed with lathi and assaulted the deceased with lathi when he was lying on the ground.Raghubir Prasad (P.W. 1), who is one of the eye-witnesses of the incident when intervened, accused persons also rushed to assault him with a result that he ran away from the spot and came to his brother-in-law, Munshilal and narrated him the incident.Then accompanied with Munshilal he lodged First Information Report (Ex. P-1) at Police Station, Mehgaon.Jainarayansingh Parihar (P.W. 11), Station House Officer, after recording First Information Report came in the night itself and inspected the spot.He also went at the place where the deceased was being cremated and with the help of villagers took out the half burnt body from the pyre and recovered semi-burnt skeleton of the deceased.JUDGMENT R.B. Dixit, J.1. Judgment in this appeal shall also govern the disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 1986, Udayveer @ Lotan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, as both appeals arise out of common judgment dated 31st January, 1986, delivered by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind, in Sessions Trial No. 89 of 1985, thereby convicting the appellants Rameshwar as well as Udayveer under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC and sentencing them to life imprisonment.He also collected bloodstained earth from the spot, which was sent for chemical examination.It is reported that the recovered bones were sent for post-mortem examination and lateron were also forwarded for Medico-Legal test.However, neither ppst-mortem report nor medico-legal report has been brought on record nor any medical-expert has been examined on behalf of the prosecution in this regard.The defence of the accused persons is of complete denial and of false implication out of enmity.Learned Trial Court after recording prosecution evidence and examining the accused persons under Section 313, Cr.PC came to the conclusion that there is no ground to disbelieve the testimony of Raghubir Prasad from whose evidence it is proved that deceased was assaulted by the appellants and accordingly convicted them as stated hereinabove.Learned Counsel for appellants has submitted before us that appellants are sons from first wife of the deceased while Raghubir Prasad and Mahabir are sons from second wife.Admittedly, there were family disputes between both the parties and the deceased.There were number of litigations of assaulting each other as well as land disputes between them.Raghubir Prasad, long before the instant incident, was residing at Mehgaon.In the circumstances, the question of his presence at the time of alleged occurrence does not arise.The independent witnesses produced in support of prosecution and they all have turned hostile.It seems that out of previous enmity Raghubir Prasad with the help of his brother-in-law, Munshilal, had concocted a false story.In fact, the deceased had died a natural death and was accordingly cremated with necessary rituals by the appellants who are his real sons.Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand has supported the findings of the learned Trial Judge.We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and have carefully perused the record.Raghubir Prasad (P.W. 1) has admitted that one of his brother Mahabir had separated himself for 20-25 years and was residing at Gormi.Although this witness tried to impress that after this incident he went to Mehgaon, however, the Investigating Officer, Jainarayan Singh Parihar, (P.W. 11) in para 5 of his cross-examination has admitted that wife and children of Raghubir Prasad had not been residing at Kohar at the time of incident and they were residing at Mehgaon from before.Shivnarayan (P.W. 5) in para 3 of his cross-examination has admitted that accused Udayveer had turned a hermit for the last six years and was residing away from Kohar in a Shiva-temple.Similarly, he has also admitted that Raghubir Prasad was not keeping good terms with his father and was, therefore, residing at Village Mehgaon.Thus, there is enough evidence to suggest that Raghubir Prasad was residing at Mehgaon.In the circumstances his version regarding assault on the deceased cannot be believed particularly when there is no corroboration in support of his evidence.Udayveer was reportedly blind, as such, his involvement is also doubtful.It is further to be noticed that even when the deceased, father of Raghubir Prasad, was being assaulted by his step brothers, he made no effort to save him nor he tried to collect villagers and without waiting for the fate, whether his father is dead or alive he went to another village to contact his brother-in-law, Munshilal.The natural conduct in such a situation of a real son was to make attempts to save the life of the deceased.The witness should have atleast gone straight first at the police station in order to seek earliest police protection, even when the police station is hardly six kilometers from the place of occurrence and he could have reached there within half an hour.Police report was lodged after more than three hours and the conduct of the Investigating Officer does not seems to be quite fair as it has come in the evidence of Raghubir Prasad that from neck to waist only half of the body of the deceased was recovered by the police and rest parts of the body were turned into ashes.However, it seems that Panchnama, Ex. P-2, has been prepared only regarding recovery of ten burnt bones pieces.No date and time has been mentioned in this Panchnama and the date below the signature of the Investigating Officer is found over-written.From the statement of Raghubir Prasad it seems that half burnt body was recovered.However, this fact is belied by the evidence of Investigating Officer and memo of recovery (Ex. P-2).In so far as the other witnesses of the occurrence, Rameshwardayal (P.W. 2), Gopiram (P.W. 3), Vinod (P.W. 4), Naresh (P.W. 9) and Sureshsingh (P. W. 10) are concerned, they have not at all supported the case of prosecution and were declared hostile.Other witnesses of the prosecution i.e., Shivnarayan (P.W. 5), Kailashnarayan (P.W. 6), Village Chowkidar Kishora (P.W. 7) have also not supported the prosecution and were declared hostile.Harvilas (P.W. 8) although declared hostile by the prosecution has, however, stated that he had heard from the villagers that deceased was murdered by appellants.This, he came to know after twenty days of the death of the deceased, who was his maternal uncle.He could not even say from whom he heard about the incident.On the other hand, according to his police case diary statement he is an eye-witness but he has denied to have witnessed the occurrence.
|
['Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
54,919,803 |
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP in the matter and also perused the trial Court record, which has been summoned for today.The case of the prosecution is that on the receipt of some secret information that a person will come near Sarai Rohilla flyover on 27.04.2001 at about 03:00 p.m. with huge quantity of Govt. medicines which are stolen with intention to sell them, it laid a trap at about 02:45 p.m. beneath the flyover.At the appointed time one person came under the flyover holding one bag in his each hand.The informant identified him.On this the said person namely Ashok s/o Kesar Das was overpowered by the police and some medicines bearing the inscription "MCD Supply Not For Sale" were recovered from his possession.When he was asked to produce ownership proof, he was unable to do so and upon intensive interrogation, he told that all these medicines were stolen from MCD Dispensary and that he had come to sell them.The police registered the First Information Report No.177/2001 against the accused Ashok under Section 411 IPC.The statement of the accused Ashok was recorded under Section Crl.M.C. No.1628/2007 page 2 of 21 161 of the Code, who disclosed that more persons were involved in this business.Ravi Dutt No.783/N and informed him that a person will come near Sarai Rohilla Flyover today at about 3.00 P.M. together with huge quantity of Govt. Medicines which are stolen/theft with the intention to sell them...............""........... This H.C. Constituted a raiding party with his accompanied staff together with the said informant and held a trap at about 2.45 P.M. beneath the flyover.At about 3.00 P.M. a middle aged man came on feet under the flyover and started waiting there for somebody.This man was holding one bag in his each hand.The said reliable informant identifying that man informed the raiding party by way of giving signs that this is the said person.On this I H.C. Over powered that person with the help of raiding party.After interrogation, it was revealed that the name of the said person is Ashok S/o Kesar Dass R/o RZ-25, Arya Mohalla, New Basti, Nangloi, Delhi.A while coloured bag was recovered from the right hand of Ashok in which four corrugated packets were found.It was found on the opening of these packets that each packet was containing 25 bottles of medicines Kufryl Syrup and MCD supply not for sale was written on each packet and Crl.M.C. No.1628/2007 page 7 of 21 same stamp was also inscribed on bottles.A green coloured bag was recovered from the left hand of the said person and three packets were found in the said bag and from each packet, when opened, 40 bottles of TONOFERON DROPS were recovered.On these bottles and packets stamp of "M.C.D.supply not for sale" wee inscribed.Ashok was asked to produce ownership proof of the said recovered Govt. medicines but he could not produce any proof and on intensive interrogation, he told that all these medicines are stolen from MCD Dispensary and I had come today to sell them.""............ Thus, accused Ashok S/o Kesar Dass R/o RZ-25, Arya Mohalla, New Basti, Nangloi, Delhi has comitted an offence u/s 411 IPC by keeping stolen Govt. Medicines in his possession.This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) is filed to challenge the order dated 16.10.2006 and the notice framed on 28.11.2006 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, in respect of a non-cognizable offence under Section 103 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978, and the order dated 17.02.2007 passed by the learned Additional Crl.M.C. No.1628/2007 page 1 of 21 Sessions Judge, Delhi, in Criminal Revision Petition No.6/2007, whereby the aforesaid order dated 28.11.2006 has been confirmed, and for quashing the proceedings before the learned MM in the aforesaid case.At his instance further quantities of such like medicines were recovered from his house and on 29.04.2001 accused Anil Kumar was arrested on the identification of accused Ashok.Thereafter, upon further further investigation of both accused Ashok and Anil Kumar, their other companions including the petitioner herein, namely, Dr. Kamal Kishore Kalra were also traced out.The petitioner was arrested on 01.05.2001 on the identification of accused Ashok and Anil Kumar and at their instance a huge quantity of such like medicines were recovered from their possession.It appears that the charge under Section 411, upon further inquiry, could not be sustained since the MCD hospitals and dispensaries which had been disclosed by the accused as being the ones from where the theft had taken place did not report any case of theft.Consequently, the police while filing the "Charge Sheet" dated 27.11.2001 before the learned Magistrate stated as follows:"Since, huge quantity of Govt. medicines as per detail have been recovered from the accused persons in this case regarding which no accused has produced any ownership proof or evidence of their possession in respect of the recovered medicines and hence, it is prayed to this court that section 411 IPC may please be cancelled and cognizance U/s 103 D.P. Act Crl.M.C. No.1628/2007 page 3 of 21 may please be taken.All five accused are on bail granted by the court."On 07.01.2002, the learned magistrate took cognizance against all the accused persons in respect of the offence under Section 103 of the Delhi Police Act, which is a non- cognizable offence.The order taking cognizance records "Fresh challan received.Be checked and registered.I take cognizance of the offence and (as) (sic) shown in the charge sheet u/s 190 (1) (a) CrPC.The learned Magistrate, thereafter, framed the notice vide order dated 28.11.2006, which is also impugned before me on the same ground i.e. that the investigation conducted by the police was illegal and void.The challenge to the order dated 28.11.2006, whereby the notice was framed in Criminal Revision No.06/2007 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, has also proved unsuccessful and the same has also been impugned in this petition.In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following decisions: -Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs.) & Anr.Kanwar Pal Singh Gill & Anr.(1995) 6 SCC 194Siddanagouda Vs.State of Karnataka 1998 Cri.Mam Chand & Ors.State 78(1999) DLT 2Ajit Singh Vs.State 39(1989) DLT 468Surinder Kumar.State 1997 JCC 45Brahm Dutt & Ors.A perusal of the FIR bearing No.177/2001 shows that the allegations made therein do constitute a cognizable offence.The relevant extract from the said FIR reads as follows: -Mahabir Singh No.1642/N were on patrolling at about 2.20 P.M. in North District at Vaishno Mata Mandir.At this time some reliable informant came to Ct.Hence, this complaint is being sent through Ct.Ravi Dutt to the police station.Kindly register the case and inform me."Section 411 IPC states that "Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both".Therefore, it cannot be said that the allegations contained in the FIR do not constitute the offence under Section 411 IPC, since the allegation is that the accused Ashok was possessed of substantial quantities of medicines with the stamp "MCD Supply Not For Sale", and that Ashok was asked to produce ownership proof of the recovered Crl.M.C. No.1628/2007 page 8 of 21 medicines but he could not produce the same, and upon interrogation he is alleged to have stated that all these medicines are stolen from MCD Dispensary and that he had come to sell the same.The offence under Section 411 IPC, which carries a sentence upto three years imprisonment, is a cognizable offence.Consequently, the police was empowered to investigate the same under Section 154 read with Section 156 of the Code.In the so called "Charge Sheet" filed by the police before the learned Magistrate, it was stated that "during investigation, SI prepared a site plan of the spot after visiting there and accused Ashok (Col. No.4) was interrogated and statements U/s 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded.Accused Ashok confessed in his statement that some more persons are also involved in this business and he can help the police by getting these people apprehended and medicines recovered.Hence, SI obtained police custody of the accused Ashok from the court and on his instance 55 corrugated packets each containing 50 coscofin cough zinctius and 10 corrugated packets each containing 108 bottles Furoxon Syp were recovered from his house and on 29.04.2001 accused Anil Kumar Col. No.4 Sr. No.2 was arrested on the identification of accused Ashok Col. No.4 Sr. No.1 on whose instance a huge quantity of Govt. medicines as per list of different names were recovered and after obtaining police custody remand of both the accused from the Crl.M.C. No.1628/2007 page 9 of 21 court till 02.05.2001, their other companions were traced out.In this case accused Kamal Kishore Kalra Col. No.4 Sr. No.4, Om Prakash Col.No.4 Sr.No.3 and Mukesh Mutreza Col. No.4 Sr.No.5 were arrested on 01.05.2001 on the identification of accused Ashok and Anil and on their instance a huge quantity of Govt. medicines as per list were recovered from their possession and after making inquiry their statements were recorded and statements of witnesses U/s 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded and enquiry was conducted from the persons named by the accused.Since, the huge quantity of Govt. medicines as per detail have been recovered from the accused persons in this case regarding which no accused has produced any ownership proof or evidence of their possession in respect of recovered medicines and hence, it is prayed to this court that section 411 IPC may please be cancelled and cognizance U/s 103 D.P. Act may please be taken.
|
['Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
54,923,407 |
I. The application is hereby allowed.In the event of arrest of the applicant - Mangal Prakash Bhil @ Bhagat in connection with Crime No. 19 of 2018 registered with Adawad Police Station, District Jalgaon, for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366(A), 376(2)(i)(j) and 368 of IPC and under Section 4, 8, and 12 of POCSO Act., he be released on bail on his furnishing P.B. of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) with one surety of the like amount on the following conditions;a. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner.b. The applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station once in a week on every Sunday between 8.00 am to 11.00 am, till filing of the charge sheet.The application is accordingly disposed of.(V.K. JADHAV, J.) Sameer//::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2018 03:10:12 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2018 03:10:12 :::
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
54,926 |
ORDER Somasundaram, J.These are revisions against the order passed by the Hard Presidency Magistrate under the following circumstances.The accused is prosecuted for an offence under Section 409, IPC The prosecution in compliance with the provisions of Section 173, Cr.PC furnished in the first instance certain documents, on which they proposed to rely.On the basis of those documents, after questioning the accused, charges were framed.Subsequently the prosecution felt the need to furnish some more documents on which they were going to rely.They supplied those documents to the accused, but the accused refused to receive the same.Thereafter, the prosecution filed an application before the Court asking the Court to direct the accused to receive these documents.The application is an extraordinary one.I can understand an application by the prosecution for permission to tender those documents; but an application to compel the accused to receive those documents is something which I have not heard of.But no one has got a right to compel the accused to receive anything from the prosecution, except the punishment which the Court may inflict when he is found guilty.But the learned Magistrate has gone one step further and held that the prosecution cannot even file these documents, as they were not tendered in the first instance.In this the learned Magistrate has erred.
|
['Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
54,926,075 |
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 2700376 of 2019 (State Vs.Matadeen @ Ganesh and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 351 of 2018, under Sections 354-B, 506 IPC, P.S. Saiya, District Agra.The argument is that the parties have entered into compromise, as per averment made in para - 9 of the affidavit, filed in support of this application.He has made statement that the parties have settled their dispute outside the court and do not want to proceed with the present case.B.S. Joshi and others Vs.State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 6752. Nikhil Merchant Vs.Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]Manoj Sharma Vs.Narindra Singh and others Vs.State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466 In the aforesaid cases, the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences.Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court inShaifullah and others Vs.State of U.P. And another [2013 (83) ACC 278] in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case.Accordingly, the proceedings of Case No. 2700376 of 2019 (State Vs.There shall be no order as to costs.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
54,933,455 |
On behalf of the applicant, this application is preferred under Section 439 of CrPC for grant of bail as he is in custody since 28/10/2015 in connection with Crime No.512/2015 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Vidisha for the oences of Section 354, 354B and 295 of IPC.In the course of arguments, on raising some query from the applicant's counsel based on the available evidence in the charge sheet, instead to argue further applicant's counsel seeks permission to withdraw this bail application as not pressed with liberty to revive the prayer after two months.
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
54,939,058 |
Allegation is that Kamini had taken her to her photo shop in the market and had inquired about her educational background and then informed her that once she completes her 10 th class, then she will be in a position to help her with computer tutorials.Cr.A. Nos. 626/2012, 655/2012 & 670/2012 It has also come on record that thereafter Kamini took her to a house close to handpump and informed her that other girls are also visiting her.After some time, accused Kalicharan had also reached that room.It is also submitted that when the prosecutrix informed Kamini that she wants to go back to her home, she was stopped from doing so and they informed her that they will take her to Indore and if she is not agreeable then they will kill her.Thereafter due of fear she had slept in the said room for whole night and she was alone in said room.In the morning, accused persons had opened the room and woke her up and they prepared tea for her and made her change clothes after taking off her ear rings but she continued to wear her pajama.Thereafter, a driver had visited the room and accused persons Kamini and Kalicharan after closing her with the driver, left the room and driver had closed the room from inside.It is also submitted that when she tried to shout then driver had pressed her mouth and thereafter undressed her and raped her.(30/03/2019) These Criminal Appeals have been filed by the appellants under the provisions of Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'), being aggrieved by common judgment dated 20.07.2012 passed in Sessions Trial No. 142/2010, whereby appellant-Kamini has been convicted under Sections 120 (B), 347, 363 and 366 (A) of IPC and sentenced to undergo 10 years, 3 years, 5 years & 10 years R.I and fine of Rs. 4,000/-, 2000/-, 2000/- & Rs.4,000/- respectively, with default stipulation.Appellant Kalicharan has been convicted under Sections 120 (B), 347 and 366 (A) of IPC and sentenced to undergo 10 years, 3 years & 10 years R.I and fine of Rs. 4,000/-, 2000/- & Rs.4,000/- respectively, with default stipulation.Appellant Bablu @ Mahendra has been convicted under Section 376 (1) of IPC and sentenced to undergo 10 years' R.I and fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation.[2] Learned counsel for the appellants submits that they have 3 Cr.A. Nos. 626/2012, 655/2012 & 670/2012 been falsely implicated.As per report of the doctor, namely, Dr. M.L. Agrawal (PW-3), he has given opinion on the basis of x-ray report contained in Exhibit P-6 that radiologically age of the prosecutrix was above 16 years and below 18 years.It is pointed out that in cross- examination, concerned doctor specifically admitted that the age of prosecutrix may be 1 or 2 months less than 18 years.It is submitted that no documentary evidence in the form of first school entry register or date of birth certificate from the school has been produced so to show that prosecutrix was minor at the relevant point of time.[3] Learned counsel for the appellants have taken this Court through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as well as the judgment and it is pointed out that prosecutrix, as per the prosecution had left her house at 12 noon on 06.03.2010 to purchase certain stationary items where on the way she had met accused Kamini who started walking with her.It is also deposed that thereafter when some noise came from outside, the driver ran away due to fear.Prosecutrix followed the driver after putting on her clothes and reached her home, then FIR (Exhibit P-1) was lodged on 07.03.2010 at about 9:15 pm (21.15 hours).Distance of the Police Station from the place of incident is shown as 1 km.[4] It is pointed out that as per the spot map (Exhibit P-2), the building where the incident is alleged to have taken is a house of one 5 Cr.A. Nos. 626/2012, 655/2012 & 670/2012 Tara Devi, she stays in 'B' portion of that house. 'C' portion is shown to be one belonging to accused Kalicharan and in 'D' portion Kamini is staying and in this room of Kamini at 'E' place, a wooden cot has been shown over which proseuctrix was allegedly raped.It is submitted that prosecutrix belongs to Scheduled Caste community and she has falsely implicated the appellants who are from forward community out of vengeance.[5] It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that it has also come on the record in the deposition of PW-1 that there are several shops on the way between the house of prosecutrix and the house of Kamini and Kalicharan.It has also come on record that prosecutrix admitted that Kalicharan had reached at the place of incidence at about 5:30 pm after prosecutrix reaching the said house at about 2:00 pm -3:00 pm.At about 9 pm -10 pm, Kamini and Kalicharan had left the house and she was left alone in the house.In Para 16, prosecutrix admitted that there is a room and the kitchen in the house where such incident took place but in the spot map such kitchen and room have not been shown separately.The common passage marked as 'F' is also that belonging to Tara Devi.It has also come on record that prosecutrix was made to sit on a photo shop for about 1 hours but she did not inform anybody about such allurement or she being forcefully abducted, she has admitted that neither Kamini nor Kalicharan applied any force on her.She was neither 6 Cr.A. Nos. 626/2012, 655/2012 & 670/2012 beaten nor tied up with ropes.Reading testimony of the prosecutrix, it is submitted that it is a case where prosecutrix was already knowing the accused Mahendra and after she was caught, she has falsely implicated Kamini and Kalichran.It is also pointed out that prosecutrix has admitted that there was a window in the room and she had not tried to open such window even though when she was alone and was not tried to shout or inform anybody about such illegal confinement.[6] In para 31 of her cross-examination, prosecutrix has admitted that the rape was committed by making her stand on the northern wall of the room and the accused Mahendra was holding her mouth with one hand and was pressing her breast with another, thereafter she was raped on the cot.It is submitted that there is contradiction in the evidence of prosecutrix and that of Raghuveer (PW-2) inasmuch as per the prosecutrix in Para 15 of her cross-examination, she has refused to divulge the time as to what time Kamini and Kalicharan had reached the spot to wake her up and offer her a cup of tea after which allegedly such incident took place.In Para 9 of his cross-examination, he has admitted that after 1 month of incident, T.I. had called him informing him that accused is going to come, and therefore, he had reached there along with his daughter.Thereafter identification was carried out at Police Station itself, where prosecutrix had identified Mahendra.[8] Dr. Usha Chaurasiya (PW-4) who conducted MLC of prosecutrix had found two marks of scratch on the sternum, however, she had opined that her private parts were normal and healthy and did not bear any mark of injury.Hymen was old ruptured and healed.Two fingures were easily entered in the vagina and uterus was in normal condition.She refused to give any definite opinion as to rape on the body of the prosecutrix because she was habitual of intercourse.[9] Evidence of Bhuri (PW-5) has also been read over.Bhuri is mother of prosecutrix and it is pointed out that as per PW-5, prosecutrix had returned back home at about 4 p.m. on the next day.This is contradictory to evidence of her husband Raghuveer (PW-2), according to whom, prosecutrix had returned back in the early hours of morning of next day.It is also pointed out that there is contradiction in case diary statement of Bhuri (PW-5) and the Court statement inasmuch as Bhuri (PW-5) has admitted in her case diary statement that as soon as the land lady opened the gate, then accused Mahendra left the place and then prosecutrix had put on her Kurta and had 8 Cr.A. Nos. 626/2012, 655/2012 & 670/2012 hidden herself in the room.[10] The issue in this case is as to the involvement of each of the accused on the basis of evidence which has come on record.[11] From the evidence which has come on record, it is apparent that prosecutrix has herself deposed that Kalicharan had reached place of incidence at about 5:30 pm i.e. after about 1 hours when prosecutrix had reached the room of Kamini.It has also come on record that neither the prosecutrix was beaten by Kamini or Kalicharan nor any part of her body was tied up.She was left to look for herself in the room and Kalicharan and Kamini had left the room in the evening.There are several loop wholes in the prosecution story.In Exhibit P-8, she narrated that accused Mahendra had run away when he heard noise of land lady having been woken up.If he had left the place and had run away in the morning and as per Raghuveer (PW-2), his daughter had returned back at 6 - 7 am, then the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants that the prosecutrix was closeted with the accused Mahendra in the said room since morning and when in the morning Mahendra heard noise of waking up of the land lady, had ran away and then prosecutrix followed him, when examined this chain of circumstances is not connected, then it is apparent that conviction of Kamini and Kalicharan specially when no force, intimidation or coercion is attributed to them, except threatening after allegedly reaching the room of Kamini creates substantial doubt as to prosecution story.Prosecutrix has admitted that she was not knowing Kamini then walking with Kamini and reaching her house appears to be improbable because nobody will walk to a house of stranger specially when there is no allegation of alluring her with any material good or intoxicating her or use of any force.[13] Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the Sessions Judge has erred in appreciating the evidence which has come on record and since none of the ingredients of sections 347, 363 and 366 (A) of IPC 10 Cr.A. Nos. 626/2012, 655/2012 & 670/2012 IPC is made out against the appellants Kamini & Kalicharan, they could not be punished with aid of section 120-B of IPC, therefore, appellants Kamini and Kalicharan need to be exonerated giving them benefit of doubt and are hereby exonerated.The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court against the appellants- Kamini and Kalicharan is hereby set aside and the appeals filed by them are allowed.As per FSL report, there were sperm marks of human origin on all three articles A, B and C, namely, salwar, slide so prepared of the prosecutrix and the bed-sheet which was recovered from the place of incident.(Vivek Agarwal) Judge Aman AMAN TIWARI 2019.04.03 11:09:40 +05'30'
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
54,944,569 |
At near about 11:15 PM, the present appellant alongwith 4 Bilawar, Shakur, Parwat and Piva were found standing near Indira Complex in a suspicious condition.The Police party called them and asked their names.They disclosed their names and ASI has directed Ramchandra and Kirtiram (Constables) to bring them in the Police Station.When these two constables were taking them to the Police Station, present appellant took out Tami (iron rod) from his pocket and gave a blow on the head of Kirtiram (PW1) and abused him by a filthy language.He gave a blow by Tami to Ramchandra also with an intention to kill both of them and thereafter all the four accused ran away from the spot.(Delivered on 02/05/2019) The appellant has filed the present appeal being aggrieved by the judgement dated 14.01.2005, passed by the 4th ADJ, Indore by which he has been convicted under Section 332 and sentenced for 2 years RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- and under Section 294 and sentenced for 1 month RI with fine of Rs.250/- and in default of payment of fine, 15 days' additional SI .Immediately, Kirtiram and Ramchandra were referred to the M.Y. Hospital.Statements were recorded after completing the investigation, challan was filed.The trial was committed to the Sessions Court and the charges were framed under Section 294, 503, 333/34, 307/34, 325/34, & 506-B of IPC.Except appellant, all the three accused were declared absconding and trial was held against the appellant only.The prosecution examined number of witnesses.The X-Ray was done and as per the statement of Doctor, the Constable Kirtiram received 4 the injury on his forehead as well as on left side of head.After appreciating the evidence came on record, the learned Sessions Judge has discharged the appellant from the charges under Section 307/34, 333, 325/34, 506-B of IPC but convicted him under Section 332 and 294 of IPC, hence, the present appellant before this Court.Though, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated by the Police, as he did not cause any injury to the complainant, he was enlarged on bail by this Court by order dated 05.04.2005 and since, then he is regularly attending the Court.Thereafter by order dated 03.07.2013 the order of suspension was recalled and 4 non-bailable warrant was issued for serving remaining part of the jail sentence.In view of the above, because he was detained in jail, hence, he could not appeared before this Court.Trial remained pending for 5 years and thereafter this appeal is pending since last 14 years.The appellant has only suffered the agony of trial as well as this appeal since last 29 years.With the aforesaid, this appeal is stands partly allowed to the extent indicated above.(VIVEK RUSIA) Judge jasleen Digitally signed by Jasleen Singh Saluja Date: 2019.05.04 11:08:41 +05'30'
|
['Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 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.
|
54,945,262 |
P.C.. It is an admitted position that the complainant Mr. Gian Chand Pruthi and the petitioners herein are business associates and operate as property dealers, who work together.The dispute arose over their respective shares qua the commission earned as a consequence of sale- purchase of property.Counsel for the parties state that subsequent to the registration of the subject FIR, the parties have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 12.10.2015 whereby the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved.The said Memorandum of Understanding is annexed to the present petition as Annexure 'B'.The salient terms and conditions of the said Memorandum of Understanding are as follows:-That after execution of this MoU, both the parties shall be left with no claim, right, title, interest or any grievance towards their respective movable or immovable properties and assets of whatsoever nature in whatsoever circumstances against each other nor they shall be entitled to prefer any claim or complaint of any nature against each other n future and they further undertake not to initiate any case(s) against each other.W.P.(CRL) 1230/2016 Page 3 of 7The offences alleged to have been committed in the subject FIR are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society.Through: Mr. R.S. Kundu, ASC (Criminal) with Mr. Vishesh Wadhwa, Advocate and SI Bhawani Shankar, PS- Paschim Vihar, Delhi for R-1 Mr. R.N. Vats, Advocate and Ms. Pranati Vats, Advocate for R-2 along with R-2 in person CORAM:HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL) CRL.M.A.6411/2016 (Exemption) Exemption granted subject to all just exceptions.The application is disposed of accordingly.The present is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) W.P.(CRL) 1230/2016 Page 1 of 7 seeking quashing of FIR No.181/2013, under Sections 420/468/471/387/506/120b IPC, registered at Police Station- Paschim Vihar, Delhi, and the proceedings arising therefrom.W.P.(CRL) 1230/2016 Page 1 of 7The subject FIR came to be registered on an allegation levelled by Mr. Gian Chand Pruthi, the respondent no. 2/complainant herein in pursuance to a direction by the concerned Magistrate in a complaint case under Section 156 (3) of Cr.In view of the foregoing, since the dispute that led to the registration of the subject FIR has been settled amicably by and between the parties without any undue influence, pressure or coercion; and the settlement between the parties is lawful, no useful purpose will be served by proceeding with the subject FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom.Resultantly, the FIR No.181/2013, under Sections 420/468/471/387/506/120b IPC, registered at Police Station- Paschim Vihar, Delhi, and the proceedings arising therefrom are hereby set aside and quashed qua the petitioner subject to his depositing a sum of Rs.20,000/- each with the Victims' Compensation Fund within a period of two weeks W.P.(CRL) 1230/2016 Page 6 of 7 from today.A copy of the receipt thereof shall be provided to the Investigating Officer in the subject FIR.W.P.(CRL) 1230/2016 Page 6 of 7
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
134,965,809 |
[Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM, J.] This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for records relating to the detention order passed in C.M.P.No.23/Goonda/C2/2016 dated 24.08.2016 by the Detaining Authority against the detenu by name, Ramakrishnan, aged 30 years, S/o.Ramasamy, residing at VRO, Senkadu, Yercaud, Yercaud Taluk, Salem District and quash the same.The Inspector of Police, Yercaud Police Station as Sponsoring Authority has submitted an affidavit to the Detaining Authority, wherein, it is averred to the effect that the detenu has involved in the following adverse cases :Yercaud Police Station Crime No.289/2015 registered under Sections 392 of IPC @ 395 r/w 397 of Indian Penal Code.Yercaud Police Station Crime No.49/2016 registered under Sections 457, 380 of IPC @ 395 of Indian Penal Code.Yercaud Police Station Crime No.53/2016 registered under Sections 392 of IPC @ 395 r/w 397 of Indian Penal Code.Further, it is averred in the affidavit that on 12.07.2016, one Muthu, S/o.Chinnappan, residing at 5 Roads, Yercaud, Salem District, as de facto complainant has given a complaint in Yercaud Police Station, wherein, it is stated that in the place of occurrence, the detenu had shown deadly weapon and snatched a sum of Rs.1,000/- from the de facto complainant and also threatened him and consequently, a case has been registered in Crime No.111/2016 under Sections 341, 392 r/w 397, 427 and 506[ii] of Indian Penal Code and ultimately, requested the Detaining Authority to invoke Act 14 of 1982 against the detenu.The Detaining Authority after considering the averments made in the affidavit and other connected documents, has arrived at a subjective satisfaction that the detenu is a habitual offender and ultimately, branded him as goonda by passing the impugned Detention Order and in order to quash the same, the wife of the detenu has filed the present petition as petitioner.Despite repeated adjournments, on the side of the respondents, counter has not been filed.Ramasamy, is quashed and directed to set him at liberty forthwith, unless he is required to be incarcerated in any other case.
|
['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
134,966,812 |
D of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of : Rohit Rahaman Molla @ Rohit Molla & Ors.... ... petitioners Mr. Iqbal Kabir, Mr. Siladitya Sanyal ... ... for the petitioners Mr. S.S. Imam, Mr. S. Kundu ... ... for the State The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Shyampur P.S. Case No. 542 of 2018 dated 02.11.2018 under Sections 417/376/376D of the Indian Penal Code.The State relies on the statement of the alleged victim recorded under Section 164 of the Code.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.Certified copies of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J.)
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
134,967,702 |
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith.Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.Order Date :- 4.11.2020 Sumit S
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,349,706 |
1. Accused 1 to 4 and 6 in C. C. No. 3308 of 1953 on the file of the Seventh Presidency Magistrate, Egmore, are the petitioners herein.This case is an off-shoot of the tramway Strike.The accused were all tramway workers.The third accused belongs to the tramway workers' association while the first accused was the Vice-President of the Tramway Workers' Union.Except the sixth accused, the rest were all office-bearers in the Union or the Association.On 24-4-1953 a large number of these tramway workers had collected at the junction of Rundalls Road and Poonamallee High Road at about 9 A.M. According to the prosecution they had collected there for the purpose of starting trouble; but according to the defence almost all the workers had come there for the purpose of taking back their ration cards, which, according to them, the labour officer promised to re-turn on that day.The police having information of the likelihood of the gathering of these persons that morning had posted police officers to maintain law and order.According to the evidence of the Inspector of Police, P. W. 1, they were shouting against Mr, 'Brookes and other officers of the company.He kept the crowd on the platform and off the road.The police were trying to disperse them and the crowd were moving towards the west on the Poonamalee High Road, At about 9-15 or 9-20 a.m. the Traffic Manager, Vanspal, who is P. W. 3 in this case was proceeding in his car from west towards his office in Rundalls Road.Near the tramshed and near the house of Dr. Krishnaswami there was a car in front of him to turn to Dr. Krishna-swami's nursing home.The car in which Mr. Vanspal was going and which was being driven by P, W. 4, therefore, slowed down, and after the proceeding car gave way, P, W. 4 started moving slowly towards the office.The workers who were assembled there are said to have rushed at the car and pelted stones which hit the front glass pane and also the bonnet.The workers then are alleged to have shouted slogans "Down with Brookes, down with the Traffic Manager" and so on.The Police then intervened and several of the workmen then dispersed.The police were able to round off about 66 persons all of whom were taken to the police station.The petitioners herein were among the 66 persons who were rounded off by the police and taken to the police station.The Commissioner of Police later released all of them on bail.The police laid the charge sheet against the petitioners alone for offences under Sections 147, 427, 337 and 323, I.P.C.The evidence of P. Ws. 6, 7, 8 and 9 makes it quite clear that the petitioners took an active part and were vigorously shouting slogans and throwing stones.The fifth accused was acquitted on the ground that there was only one witness, P. W. 7 who speaks to his participation; and as he was not corroborated benefit of doubt was given to him and he was acquitted.With regard to the petitioners more than one witness speaks to their participation and, therefore, their evidence was accepted and they were convicted.The fourth accused stated that he went to get his ration card.A clerk by name Sathu, a friend of his, entered the office.He asked him to stop and a crowd gathered.Accused 2 and 5 intervened and they were also taken in the lorry and marched to the police station.The 5th accused stated that at 8-30 a.m. he also went to the office to get his ration card.Accused 1 and 4 were arrested and when he and the second accused intervened, he was taken to the police station.No formal charge was framed against them and the magistrate simply stated that charges under Sections 147, 337, 427 and 149, I.P.C. were framed.The defence of these petitioners before the lower court was this : According to the first accused he was arrested on the date of the occurrence between 8 and 8-30 a.m. and was not on the scene of offence when P. W. 3's car came and he attributes his implication on account of the instigation of someone (without mentioning who it is); he further states that because he was the President of the Tramway Workers' Association he has been implicated suggesting at the instance of the management.The second accused stated that he and the fifth accused were at Rundalls Road at about 8-30 a.m. and accused 1 and 4 were arrested by the police officers.He and accused 5 intervened and remonstrated when they were arrested and taken away to the police station.This accused stated that he was not there at the time when the car came.The third accused stated that he was in Rundalls Road at 8 a.m. and that about 9-15 a.m. all of a sudden, the policemen asked the crowd, about 800 or 900 strong, to stop.They had gone there to obtain their ration cards from the Head Clerk of the Ration Store as previously advised.At that time two lorries and a police van came and the crowd began to melt away and the police rounded off those who did not leave the spot and he was one of those who happened to be caught.In revision the first contention.They have no interest to implicate falsely any of these persons and the suggestion that they were trying to oblige the management is falsified by the fact that against the management also the police have filed a charge-sheet later.The next question is whether they can be convicted for specific offences of hurt on a mere charge of rioting.I do not think that any accused can be convicted under Section 323 on a charge of rioting, for the simple reason that for the offence of rioting it is enough even if one member of the unlawful assembly uses violence or force.The others may not have used violence or force, but still they are constructively liable once they are members of an unlawful assembly.Still if it is proved that a particular accused's act is responsible for the hurt caused, then he can be convicted.But here such proof is lacking, as the evidence is these accused threw stones at the car.Whose stone caused hurt to P. W. 4 or damaged the car is not satisfactorily established.In the circumstances, no one can be convicted for hurt.In the result the convictions and sentences passed on the petitioners are set aside, and the petitioners are acquitted.The fines, if paid, will be refunded.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
134,973,649 |
Case diary is available.Heard on this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the applicants in connection with Crime No.379/2018 registered at Police Station Sarai, District Singrauli under Sections 394, 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.The case of the prosecution is that, on 21.09.2018 at about 11:30 pm complainant Nagendra Yadav, who is a cleaner in Truck No.UP-72 T 3568 being driven by Rakesh Tiwari were taking his truck loaded with bricks and another Truck No.UP 72 T 1325 being driven by Ashique Ali have reached Chuhigadai, under the jurisdiction of Police Station Sarai, District Singrauli and when they are taking rest, four unknown persons came there in a Bolero Jeep and were trying to steal diesel of the trucks.When complainant Nagendra Yadav and driver Rakesh Tiwari objected, they abused and beaten them by means of wooden sticks.They have also taken mobile phone and Rs.17,000/- from Rakesh Tiwari; thereafter, they fled from the spot.Complainant Nagendra Yadav and driver Rakesh Tiwari informed the incident to the owner of the truck and reported the matter to the Police, on that basis, crime under the aforementioned offence has been registered against unknown persons.During the course of investigation, applicants and other co-accused persons have been interrogated, they have admitted the commission of crime.On the information of the applicants and other co-accused persons, diesel, mobile phone, Bolero jeep, etc. were recovered from their possession.Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 20/08/2019 01:20:05 The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh MCRC-26040-2019 (VINOD KUMAR SAKET & ANO.There is no chance of their absconding or tampering with the evidence.In view of the aforesaid, prayer has been made to enlarge the applicant on bail.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/ State on the other hand has opposed the application.(Mohd. Fahim Anwar) Judge taj.Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 20/08/2019 01:20:05
|
['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
134,980,753 |
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the FIR was got registered by victim himself under sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and section 3 (1) (Dha) SC/ST Act, on 27.08.2018 against the applicant and three other named persons with the allegation that the first informant is a fair price shop dealer and on 12.07.2018 at about 4.00 p.m. the appellant and named persons had committed marpeet with him and abused him by naming his caste.Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is village Pradhan and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to local politics.It is next contended that the appellant has a criminal history of 15 cases and the same has also been explained in paragraph 11 of the appeal.Learned A.G.A and learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail and could not dispute the aforementioned facts and submitted that the appellant has a criminal history of several cases.The submission made by learned counsel for the appellant, prima facie, is quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only.Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail.Let the appellant- Pramod Kumar Yadav, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-(i) THE APPELLANT WOULD FULLY COOPERATE IN THE CONCLUSION OF TRIAL WITHIN ONE YEAR AND ANY TEMPERING OR WILLING TACTICS ON THE PART OF THE APPLICANT TO DELAY THE TRIAL WOULD WARRANT THE AUTOMATIC CANCELLATION OF BAIL.(ii) THE APPELLANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(iii) THE APPELLANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iv) IN CASE, THE APPELLANT MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPELLANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.(v) THE APPELLANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPELLANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.However, it is made clear that any willful violation of above conditions by the appellant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court.Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed.Impugned order dated 10.06.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Etah, in Bail Application No. 1248 of 2019 (Pramod Kumar Yadav and others Vs.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
134,990,517 |
C.R.M. No. 3230 of 2014 S.And In the matter of: Nakul Majumder ...Petitioner.Mr. Sekhar Barman ...for the petitioner.Therefore, the accused/petitioner, namely, Nakul Majumder, be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only with two sureties of like amount, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Kalyani, District- Nadia, on condition that the accused/petitioner shall meet the Investigating Officer once in a week till completion of the investigation.The application for bail is, thus, allowed.(Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.) (Shib Sadhan Sadhu, J.)
|
['Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
13,499,579 |
Applicants have been detained since 5.6.2015 whereas the trial will take considerable time to conclude.In such circumstances, applicants - Mukesh son of Yashwant Rao Maratha and Ganesh son of Yashwant Rao Maratha, be released on bail.Certified copy as per rules.(JARAT KUMAR JAIN) JUDGE ss/-
|
['Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
136,105,886 |
Applicant Madhav Bairagi was arrested on 27/01/2020 in Crime No.As per the prosecution case, in pursuance of criminal conspiracy hatched between applicant Madhav Bairagi and co-accused Narendra Prajapati and Rajesh Chutani, who was posted as Chief Manager of Punjab National Bank Branch, Marwari Road, Bhopal by misusing his official position, opened a CC limit account on 01/07/2014 in the name of applicant Madhav Bairagi (proprietor of M/s Swastik Enterprises) and sanctioned CC limit of Rs.400 lac to him on the same day.The loan was to be used in the business related to Coal Trading.Applicant Madhav Bairagi who was proprietor of the firm M/s Swastik Enterprises had hypotheticed the coal purchased from the loan amount as primary security with the Bank.Co- accused Narendra Prajapati and his relatives are the guarantor of that loan.For the security of loan guarantor co-accused Narendra Prajapati, Suresh Prajapati had mortgaged a land admeasuring 0.556 hectare which was part of Khasra No.143, 144 and part of Khasra No.154, 157 located at Village Jamunia Cheer as a collateral security in favour of the Bank.At the time of sanction of loan, the value of the collateral security was shown on higher side which also significantly decreased as per current valuation.The coal stock hypothecated as primary security was inspected from time to time by the bank officials.In this process, which this unit (coal yard) at Mendiya, Near Devdharm Mandir, Gram Mandla, Indore Road, Ujjain of borrower applicant Madhav Bairagi was inspected on 25.06.2015, it came to the notice that applicant Madhav Bairagi had misappropriated coal stock financed by the Bank and hypothecated to the Bank without any intimation to the Bank and did not deposit sale proceeds with the Bank and also closed the business without intimation to the Bank.Case dairy perused and argument heard.This is first application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.By diverting the funds i.e., selling the coal stock and not depositing their proceeds in the Bank, the borrower applicant Madhav Bairagi and guarantor Narendra Prajapati and Suresh Prajapati cheated the Bank and embezzled the public money and caused loss of Rs.532,19,818.74 to the bank.On that CBI registered Crime No.RC0082018A0010 for the offence punishable under Sections 120B r/w 420 & 471 of IPC and Section 13 (1)(d) r/w 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and investigated the matter.After investigation, CBI filed charge sheet against the applicant Madhav Bairagi and co-accused Rajesh Chutani, Narendra Prajapati, Suresh Prajapati, Sanjay Agrawal and other co-accused persons before the Special Judge, CBI, Bhopal.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has not committed any offence and has falsely been implicated in the offence.The applicant was the servant of co-accused Narendra Prajapati and worked with Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 04/03/2020 12:46:45 3 MCRC-6146-2020 him only for a period of three months.At that time co-accused Narendra Prajapati took applicants photo and identity card i.e. Aadhar Card and Passport and thereafter co-accused Narendra Prajapati by misusing those documents get C.C. limit of Rs.400 lacs sanctioned from the Bank in the name of M/s Swastik Enterprises, which was operated by co-accused Narendra Prajapati and there is no evidence on record to show that applicant used any amount from the loan sanctioned by the co-accused Rajesh Chutani to the M/s Swastik Enterprises.The said loan amount was transferred from the firms account to the accounts of relatives of co-accused Narendra Chutani, which clearly shows that co-accused Narendra Prajapati in connivance with co-accused Rajesh Chutani the then Chief Manager of PNB Bank get loan sanctioned from the bank and embezzled that amount.Police falsely implicated the applicant in the crime.The charge-sheet has been filed and the conclusion of trial will take time, hence prayed for release of the applicant on bail.Learned counsel for the respondent/CBI opposed the prayer and submitted that from the evidence collected by the prosecution, it is clear that it was the applicant who filed an application before the Bank for getting C.C. limit of Rs.400 lacs and in connivance with co-accused Rajesh Chutani then the Chief Manager of the Bank got the CC limit of Rs.400 lacs sanctioned.Thereafter, the applicant and co-accused embezzled that amount, so he should not be released on bail.It is alleged that the applicant got loan from the bank and the application and other documents submitted for taking loans in the bank have the photo of the applicant and they are signed by the applicant.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
136,114,214 |
This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.410 of 2019 registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 294(b), 406, 420, 506(i) of IPC, as against the petitioners.http://www.judis.nic.in 1/8 CRL.O.P.No.11510 of 2020 and CRL.M.P.No.4638 of 2020The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the 1st respondent police registered a case in Crime No. 410 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 406, 420, 506(i) of IPC, as against the petitioners.Hence, he prayed to quash the same.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.Heard Mr.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that already the matter was compromised between the petitioners and the defacto complainant.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners also involved in another case in Crime Nos.888 of 2019 and 913 of 2019 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Selaiyur, Chennai.In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined tohttp://www.judis.nic.in 5/8 CRL.O.P.No.11510 of 2020 and CRL.M.P.No.4638 of 2020 quash the First Information Report on the ground of compromise for the reasons that the petitioners involved in another case.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.However, considering the crime is of the year 2019, the 1st respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.410 of 2019 and file a final report within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.04.08.2020 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order ssnhttp://www.judis.nic.in 6/8 CRL.O.P.No.11510 of 2020 and CRL.M.P.No.4638 of 2020The Inspector of Police, B-1, North Police Station (Crime), Chennai.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 7/8 CRL.O.P.No.11510 of 2020 and CRL.M.P.No.4638 of 2020 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J., ssn CRL.O.P.No.11510 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.No.4638 of 2020 04.08.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 8/8
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
136,117,769 |
The case of the prosecution is that FIR Ex.PW5/A was registered on the statement Ex.PW 3/A of Rajesh Kumar, PW-3 made to SI Rajender Sharma, PW-12 wherein he had stated that he was working in a shoe factory in Udyog Nagar Peeragarhi, Delhi and was living in a rented accommodation at D-10, Extension II-D, Nangloi.The name of the owner of said house was Jagdish @ Dhori Lal.The appellant was the servant of Jagdish @ Dhori Lal and was working in his dairy and lived in a courtyard outside their rented accommodation.Rajesh Kumar, PW-3 had alleged that prior to 4-5 days of the occurrence, appellant had purchased a 'deck' which he used to play on a high volume due to which disturbance was being caused to them.Despite being asked not to play the same on high volume, appellant did not desist.On 20th December, 2008 in the evening he was again playing music at a very high volume.At about 9.30 pm complainant PW3 requested him not to play the music in high volume.Hearing that appellant got angry and started abusing him.Thereupon, their owner i.e. Jagdish @ Dhori Lal came and on his intervention, appellant had switched off the 'deck'.Thereafter, they went for sleep.In the morning i.e. on 21st December, 2008 at about 6.30 am when he was taking a stroll in the 'Gali', his sister Laxmi i.e. deceased had gone to ease herself in a nearby house i.e. bearing no.D-6 Extension-II, Nangloi which was the house of Jagdish @ Dhori Lal.He had alleged that appellant was present there and was giving Bhusa (fodder) to the buffaloes.Thereafter he returned Crl.A.1359/2010 Page 2 of 9 back to his house.Immediately, thereafter deceased came crying in the house and told that appellant had stabbed her with a knife in her breast.She was bleeding from the right side of breast portion and fell down in the court yard.He along with his brother Mukesh, PW-2 took her to Deep Charitable Dispensary where the doctor gave some stitches on the wound and advised them to take her to Satya Bhama Hospital.While they were taking her to said hospital, Laxmi died on the way.They brought her back to their house and arranged for her cremation and thereafter took her to cremation ground at Kamruddin Nagar where police came and took the dead body in their possession.A.1359/2010 Page 2 of 9The police machinery had come up in action on receipt of DD no.12A which was recorded at Police Station Nangloi and copy of same was given to SI Rajender Sharma, PW-11 and Constable Shaadi Lal who reached Shamshan Ghat Kamruddin Nagar where dead body of Laxmi was lying having a cut injury which was stitched.Inquiry was made from the father and brothers of the deceased who did not disclose anything at that time.After post-mortem, dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased.On inquiry, Rajesh Kumar, PW-3, brother of the deceased made statement Ex.PW 3/A on the basis of which aforesaid FIR Ex. PW5/A was registered.During investigation, clothes of the deceased were seized by preparing necessary memo in this regard.Rajesh Kumar, PW-3 has categorically deposed that appellant was the servant of their landlord Jagdish @ Dhori Lal and was working in his dairy.At Crl.A.1359/2010 Page 4 of 9 the relevant time appellant was residing in a courtyard.He has deposed that the appellant had purchased a 'deck' 4-5 days prior to the date of occurrence and he used to play music at a high volume.On 20th December, 2008 in the evening he was again playing music at a very high volume.At about 9.30 pm he requested him not to play the music in high volume on which appellant became angry and started abusing him.Thereupon, their owner Dhori Lal came and on his intervention appellant had switched off the deck.Thereafter, they went for sleep.In the morning on 21st December, 2008 at about 6.15 am, his sister Laxmi had gone for easing out outside the house in another house no.D-6 Extension-II, Nangloi which also belonged to Dhori Lal where appellant was giving Bhusa (fodder) to the buffaloes and he had seen him doing so.After taking walk he came back to his house.After some time, at about 6.30 am, Laxmi came crying and told that appellant had stabbed her with a knife in her breast.He has deposed about taking her to hospital and has also deposed the time when deceased expired.He also deposed about arrival of the police.Rajesh Kumar, PW-3 has deposed that initially he did not tell anything to police as they never wanted to get involved with police/court.However, on enquires made by the police, he had made the statement Ex.The police had apprehended the appellant on his pointing out vide memo Ex.PW 3/B. The personal search of the appellant was conducted vide memo Ex.PW 3/C. The appellant also pointed out the place of occurrence vide memo Ex.PW 3/D. Appellant also got recovered knife Ex.P1 vide memo Ex.PW 3/F in his presence which was seized by the police after completing the formalities.The Crl.A.1359/2010 Page 5 of 9 clothes of his deceased sister were also seized vide memo Ex.P2 (1 to 4 colly).A.1359/2010 Page 4 of 9A.1359/2010 Page 5 of 9Mukesh, PW-2 has deposed in the same manner as has been deposed by his brother Rajesh.The material deposition was also not demolished in cross-examination.Om Parkash, PW-4 father of the deceased has also deposed that the dead body of his daughter was identified by him vide statement Ex.A.1359/2010 Page 9 of 9A.1359/2010 Page 9 of 9This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23 rd December, 2009 passed in SC No.19/3/09 arising from FIR No.711/08, P.S.Nangloi under section 302 IPC whereby the appellant has been held guilty for the offence punishable u/s 304 Part II IPC and the order of sentence dated 7th January, 2010 whereby the appellant has been sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years with fine of Rs.10000/- and in default to further undergo SI for one year.At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions from appellant who is present in J.C, has submitted that appellant is not challenging Crl.A.1359/2010 Page 1 of 9 his conviction u/s 304 Part II IPC.It is submitted that appellant has already undergone sentence of six years and three months and he be released on the sentence already undergone by him.A.1359/2010 Page 1 of 9The statement of other witnesses were also recorded.The appellant was also arrested during the course of investigation who made disclosure statement Ex.PW 3/G and got recovered Crl.A.1359/2010 Page 3 of 9 knife ExP1 from a heap of fodder which was seized by completing necessary formalities in this regard.A.1359/2010 Page 3 of 9After completion of investigation, a report u/s 173 Cr.P.C was filed against the appellant before the Ld.M.M. After supplying copy of documents to the appellant, the case was committed to the Sessions Courts.After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of appellant was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein the incriminating evidence was put to him.The appellant denied the same and stated that he was an innocent person and was falsely implicated in the case.However, no evidence was led in defence.After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the evidence of the prosecution, the learned Addl.Sessions Judge held that charge u/s 302 IPC is not made out against the appellant and convicted him u/s 304 Part II IPC and sentenced him as has been stated above.The benefit u/s 428 Cr.P.C. was also given to the appellant.Aggrieved with the same, present appeal is filed.In cross-examination, Rajesh Kumar, PW-3 has deposed that on the day of occurrence he woke up at 6.00 am and was taking a stroll in the street.He had seen appellant at about 6.15 am on that day when he entered H.No.D-6 for giving fodder.His sister i.e. deceased had gone at H.No.D-6 for using toilet.The appellant was also present in H.No.After taking stroll he had come back to his house.At about 6.30 am, his deceased sister had come back and was shouting that she was stabbed by the appellant with a knife.In his further cross-examination, he has deposed that their landlord Dhori Lal lives 100 sq.yd from their house in another house.He had gone to inform Dhori Lal about the incident on foot.Dhori Lal had come along with him to his house within 3/4 minutes and deceased was taken to Deep dispensary which is about half km. from their house.He had taken Laxmi in his laps on foot and his brother Mukesh, PW-2 was also with him.At about 6.45 am, they reached the said dispensary.They did not tell the doctor how she sustained injury.The doctor at the said dispensary applied some stitches on her sister and asked them to take her to Satyabhama Nursing Home.He has deposed in detail as to when his sister breathed her last.At about 7.30 am, she was brought back to the house.In cross-examination, Rajesh Kumar, PW-3 has also deposed that appellant was apprehended by the police in his presence.He has deposed having seen the appellant entering H.No.D-6 which is near to their house at about 6.15 am.Thereafter his sister had gone there.He has deposed that he had seen the appellant at H.No D-6, when his sister entered there and his sister had told him Crl.A.1359/2010 Page 6 of 9 that appellant had stabbed her with a knife.Further in his cross-examination, he has deposed that one night prior to the occurrence at about 9.30 pm, there was altercation between them as appellant was playing music in his deck on high volume and he asked him not to play music on a high volume to which the appellant abused him and with the intervention of their landlord Dhori Lal, the appellant switched off the deck.His deposition on material points was not demolished.His deposition is in consonance with statement Ex.PW3/A on the basis of which FIR was registered.PW4/A after the post-mortem.As per post-mortem report Ex.PW 14/A proved on record by Dr.Manoj Dhingra, PW-14, the cause of death was haemorrhage and shock and consequent to penetrating injury to the chest caused by single edged sharp weapon and the injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.A.1359/2010 Page 7 of 9The evidence of Rajesh Kumar PW-3 clearly establishes that he had seen deceased going to ease herself on the day of occurrence at about 6.15 a.m. at House No.D-6 where appellant was already present.Immediately thereafter deceased had come back to her house with an injury on the right breast and told that she was stabbed by the appellant.The appellant was known to them as he was living in the courtyard of their house belonging to Jagdish @ Dhori Lal.The appellant has also not denied being an employee of Jagdish @ Dhori Lal.It has also come in the evidence that on the previous night there was a quarrel with appellant on the point of volume of music system.The evidence of Rajesh Kumar PW-3 and Mukesh PW-2 also establishes that immediately after the occurrence when deceased had returned back home she stated that she was stabbed by the appellant.The deceased had known the appellant.The evidence on record also establishes that deceased remained alive for some time after the incident and stitches were also given to her wound in the Deep Charitable Dispensary.In these circumstances, the learned ASJ has rightly accepted the evidence of aforesaid PWs that deceased had told them that she was stabbed by the appellant.Further the same stands corroborated with medical evidence i.e. post mortem report Ex.PW 14/A opined on cause of death Ex.PW 14/B proved on record by Dr.The arrest of appellant and recovery of knife Ex.P1, also stands established from the evidence on record.The learned ASJ has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part II of IPC.The conviction of appellant is therefore upheld.A.1359/2010 Page 8 of 9As regards sentence, learned counsel for appellant submits that appellant was 18 years of age at the time of occurrence.His age is not challenged by State.Further, there is evidence on record about his age also.The appellant has already undergone sentence of 6 years and three months.He is not involved in any other case except the present case.The appellant has got a widow mother.At the relevant time he was working in a milk dairy.Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, his substantial sentence is reduced from RI of 10 years to imprisonment already undergone by him.The sentence of fine of Rs.10,000/- is maintained.In default of payment of fine, he will undergo SI for one month.Appeal stands disposed of with aforesaid modifications in sentence.VEENA BIRBAL, J OCTOBER 28, 2013 ssb Crl.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
136,118,827 |
2- The facts of the case in short are that on 27.11.2005 at around at around 5:00 pm, the deceased Satendra who is the son of complainant Maniram, while playing, went to the house of Balram Goli to watch television.The accused Prem Singh upon finding him 2 Criminal Appeal No. 667/2016 watching television confronted the deceased Satendra and used filthy language towards him to say that he is frequently coming to the house of Balram to watch television and now he will make him watch god's television.Thereafter, the accused inflicted a forceful blow on the head of the deceased Satendra by a "sill" (a kitchen utensil made of stone).The deceased instantly died on the spot whereafter the accused ran away from the place of incident and the father of the deceased reported the incident to Police Station Dabra leading to registration of FIR bearing Crime No.839/2005 for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.The dead body of the deceased Satendra was sent for postmortem, Dr. R.K. Singh performed the postmortem and gave a report.He found the injury as mentioned by the witnesses and deceased Satendra died due to the injury.The investigation was initiated by Sub Inspector Shailendra Bhargava.The accused Prem Singh was arrested and on the information given by the appellant Prem Singh under Section 27 of Evidence Act, a "sill" was recovered from the house of Balram.The postmortem report of deceased Satendra shows that the injury was fatal and sufficient to cause of his death in natural course of his life.7- Maniram (PW-1) stated in his examination in chief that his son Satendra was playing in the vicinity around four months back and went inside the house of Balarm.(12/05/2017) Per Justice S.K. Awasthi :The First Additional Sessions Judge Dabra, district Gwalior in Sessions Trial No.22/2006 vide judgment dated 10.07.2006, recorded the conviction of appellant under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.200/-, in default to suffer further imprisonment of one month.Being aggrieved, appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C.After due investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Dabra, District Gwalior who committed the case to the Court of Sessions and ultimately it was transferred to First Additional Sessions Judge Dabra, district Gwalior.3- The appellant abjured his guilt, he took a plea that he was innocent and was falsely implicated in the matter.No evidence was produced by the appellant in defence.4- The trial Court after considering the evidence adduced by the parties convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and 3 Criminal Appeal No. 667/2016 sentenced as mentioned in Para 1 of the judgment.5- We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.6- First of all it is to be considered as to whether the death of deceased was homicidal in nature or not? In this connection evidence given by Dr. R.K. Singh (PW-8) is important who performed the postmortem on the body of the deceased and gave a report (Exh. P-10).According to Dr. R.K. Singh there was one contusion of 8 cm to 5 cm on left frontal parietal temporal region of skull and there was a fracture on skull bone.This injury was caused by hard and blunt object and cause of death of deceased was injuries which he was sustained and bleeding.When the brother in law of Balram i.e. Prem Singh inflicted a forceful blow on the head of the deceased with the intention of causing his death, this blow was fatal and Satendra died whereafter accused ran away towards Pichore road.At the time of incident Babaulal, Govindi, Rajavati and other residents of colony were present on the spot.Thereafter, he went to Police Station to lodge an FIR (Exh. P-2).The police reached the place of incident and seized the corpus of the deceased and drew a dead body memo (Exh. P-4).These narrations relating to the incident remain uncontroverted in cross examination leaving no reason to disbelieve the story as narrated by the Maniram (PW-1).8- The prosecution also examined Govindi (PW-2) who 4 Criminal Appeal No. 667/2016 narrated that he was standing near to the house of Balram Goli.When he heard a shout, thereafter he entered the house of Balram and witnessed that the son of Maniram was lying dead on the floor and the accused Prem Singh had inflicted a blow on the head of deceased by using a "sill".He also witnessed that the accused running away from the place of incident.With regard to this witness, it can be observed that he himself has not witnessed the accused inflicting a blow on the head of the deceased.However, still his statement established the prosecution story to the extent that the son of Maniram was lying dead in the house of Balram and upon observing entry of Govindi, Prem Singh ran away from the place of incident which shows his criminal state of mind.9- Now, consideration of the statement of Babulal (PW/3) reveals that he witnessed that happening of crime which is clear from his statement that on 27.11.2005, when he went inside the house of Balram Goli after hearing the shout coming out of the house, the brother in law of Blaram i.e. the accused-Prem Singh inflicted a forceful blow by holding a "sill" by both of his hands on the head of the deceased Satendra.While shouting that he has developed a habit of coming to the house to watch television everyday and now, he will show god's television.The deceased Satendra died instantly on the spot due to such blow.The perusal of the testimony of this witness indicates that he stucked to his version of event and has not flattered in cross examination and this witness clearly established that the accused meted out a blow on the head of the deceased causing his death.5 Criminal Appeal No. 667/2016 10- Yet another witness Rajvati (PW-4) has narrated the event which confirms the prosecution story.She has stated that around four months back her son Satendra was at home when her neighbor Balram's wife, Leela Bai went to meet Rajvati and asked Satendra to see the manner in which Prem Singh is behaving, after sending Satendra, she has also gone to her house, this time Prem Singh dealt a blow on the head of the deceased causing his death.She witnessed Prem Singh running away towards Pichore road.11- The next relevant prosecution witness Ramhet (PW-5) has stated in evidence that he received an information that the son of Maniram has died whereafter the Police went to the place of incident and drew seizure memo (Exh. P-8) for seizure of soil containing blood and simple soil.In his presence the accused Prem Singh informed to the Police that he has concealed the "sill" in the house of his brother-in-law and on his statement, the same was recovered by the Police which has been deduced in writing and the seizure memo (Exh.-8) has been prepared.12- The other relevant features of the case are that the incident has been reported to have been committed on 27.11.2005 at around 5:00 pm and the information was given to the police at around 5:30 pm which shows that there is no delay in reporting the incident.The first information report clearly named the accused Prem Singh for commission of the offence mentioned herein above.The prosecution witness who is also complainant in the FIR i.e. Maniram (PW-1) and other incidental witnesses mentioned in the FIR have corroborated the prosecution story verbatim and there are no material 6 Criminal Appeal No. 667/2016 contradiction or omission in their testimonies which lends much credibility to their statements.There is no material which has come on record which indicates that the complainant had any previous enmity with the accused Prem Singh.14- Now, dealing with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the facts which have come on record do not satisfy the ingredients of Section 300 of IPC rather the act committed by the accused falls within exception of Section 300 of IPC.In order to fortify this contention, learned counsel for the appellant has invited the attention of this Court to the fact that there was no premeditation for causing the blow on the head of the deceased which is pre-condition for attracting the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,361,201 |
On 15th Baisakh 1352 B. s. (28th April 1945} the accused went to the complainant and told him that the date of the marriage ceremony of his youngest brother, Badal, was very hurriedly fixed for the next day so that there wad no time to have ornaments made for the bride, and requested the complainant to "save his prestige",, as the learned Magistrate puts it, by lending him some ornaments and promised to return those ornaments as goon as the boubhat ceremony was over.This ceremony is one which takes place after the bride has gone to her husband's house, usually some five or ten days after the marriage ceremony.The complainant gave-the accused eight gold churis (bracelets) and a. number of other ornaments all of gold, being orna.The order for compensation will stand.Harries, C.J.
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
112,011,958 |
The petitioner has contended that he is the sole earning member of the family which consists of his -2- ailing mother.In compliance to these conditions, one of the sureties issued three cheques for Rs.2 lacs each to the complainant.On presentation these cheques were dishonoured.Wife of the complainant moved Court for cancellation of the bail whereupon bail was cancelled.Appellant was sent to prison.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,120,135 |
The brief facts of the case are that; On 17.09.1991 deceased Rekha Rani Jain was admitted in Safdarjung Hospital in burnt condition.She made statement in the presence of ASI Lal Singh and the said statement was attested by Dr.Anant Sinha.The occurrence was reported by Constable Sushil Kumar on 17.09.1991, who was posted as Duty Constable at Safdarjung Hospital.He gave the information to the PCR.The said information was transmitted to police station, on receipt of the information; ASI Lal Singh went to Safdarjung Hospital, where, he recorded the statement of Smt.Rekha Rani Jain.On her statement, case was registered against both the aforesaid accused persons.During investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded.Shri HC Gaur, SDM was also contacted for recording the statement of Smt. Rekha Rani Jain.He reached Crl.Rev No.138/1996 Page 3 of 37 Safdarjung Hospital at 11:15 PM on that day, by that time Smt. Rekha Rani Jain expired at 11:00 PM on that day.Rev No.138/1996 Page 3 of 37The prosecution examined as many as 25 witnesses in support of its case.PW-14 and PW-17 were given up by the prosecution.PW-20 Ct.Sushil Kumar was posted as duty constable at Safdarjung Hospital on 17.09.1991 gave the information to the PCR.PW-13 SI Pishori Lal of PCR informed the SHO, police station Hari Nagar about the admission of the injured.PW-12 HC Surender Pal who was posted at police station Hari Nagar, on 17.09.1991, as Wireless Operator.He received the wireless message and recorded the message in DD No.22A.PW1 HC Daya Kishan, duty officer at police station Hari Nagar received wireless message at 06:05PM about the Crl.Rev No.138/1996 Page 4 of 37 information of injured Smt.Rekha Rani Jain with 95% burn injuries.He informed SHO, police station Hari Nagar, the same was recorded in DD No.22A. The same has been proved by this witness as Ex.PW1/A.Rev No.138/1996 Page 4 of 37On the same day, at night about 09:30PM, ASI Lal Singh sent rukka to the police station, through Constable Ravinder Kumar.He also recorded DD No.62B at about 11:45PM, regarding the death of Smt.Rekha Rani Jain.PW-25 ASI Lal Singh took over the investigation on receipt of DD No.22A. He reached Safdarjung Hospital and collected the MLC of the injured Smt. Rekha Rani Jain.She was declared fit to make statement by Dr. Anant Sinha, thereafter, recorded the statement of the injured which is Ex.PW19/D. He reached at the place of occurrence along with SHO at H.No.Rev No.138/1996 Page 5 of 37Site plan Ex.PW25/A was prepared at the spot.From the place of occurrence two-three burnt match sticks, one match box containing match sticks, some broken bangles, and two pieces of cloth smelling kerosene oil with the help of cotton at the spot, burnt paint from inside the door were taken into possession.They were sealed in separate parcels.Statement of Babu Lal and Joginder Lal were also recorded, which are exhibited as Ex.PW25/B and Ex.PW25/C.The inquest proceedings were conducted by the SDM on the dead body of deceased Smt. Rekha Rani.In cross-examination, by ld. counsel for accused, Mr. R. K. Naseem, he had admitted to have collected the MLC from the burn ward and not from the casualty ward.This witness has also deposed that he did not remember whether he had obtained the certificate of fitness for making statement by the deceased on the MLC or on any other document, however, he has admitted that the certificate of fitness was given by Dr. Anant Sinha.He has also admitted that the doctor who gave certificate of fitness for statement was also present at the time recording of dying declaration.He had Crl.Rev No.138/1996 Page 6 of 37 admitted that the endorsement Ex.PW25/DB was not by Dr. Anant Sinha, but by some other junior resident doctor.He has also admitted that the endorsement at point A on Ex.PW19/D was not by the doctor who had written the endorsement Ex.PW25/DB.Rev No.138/1996 Page 6 of 37PW-16 is Constable Satish Kumar, who reached at the spot with photographer and took the photographs of the place of occurrence.He stated that due to some defect in the camera, those photographs could not have been developed and the negatives were washed out.In the cross-examination, she has admitted that the house in which the occurrence took place was surrounded by other residential houses and other family members.PW-23 Shri HC Gaur, SDM, having jurisdiction of Crl.Rev No.138/1996 Page 7 of 37 police station Punjabi Bagh, received the information on 17.09.1991 from the SHO, police station Hari Nagar.He deposed that he reached at burn ward of Safdarjung Hospital at 11:15 PM, but the patient had already expired at about 11:00PM.22. PW-19 is Shri Narinder Pal Singh, Record Clerk of Safdarjung Hospital New Delhi.He brought the record of MLC Ex.PW19/C, which he has identified to be in the handwriting of Dr. Anant Sinha along with the death summary Ex.PW19/B and death report Ex.PW19/C. He also testified the statement Ex.PW19/D attested by Dr. Anant Sinha.In cross-examination, he has denied that all these documents were signed or attested in his presence.He interrogated accused Kalawati and he gave directions to SI Dharampal for investigation under his supervision.PW-21 SI Dharam Pal, who interrogated accused Kalawati in the presence of SHO and W/ASI Rajinder Kaur.Accused Kalawati made disclosure statement, wherein she admitted that she was not happy with her Devrani Smt.Rekha Rani Jain.Dermo epidermal burns, superficial toe deep in nature present all over the body except front of lower abdomen and pubic region.The total percentage of burn area was about 95%.The area of blackening of skin was present on fact and front of chest.The area of redness was present on front of thighs and front of both fore-arms.Hair brunt and singed on scalp eye brows, eye lashes and axillae.The pubic hairs were intact.Blisters were seen on front of thighs.The smell of kerosene was present on Crl.Rev No.138/1996 Page 10 of 37 scalp hair and were preserved and sent for CFSL examination.No marks of violence/signs of struggle were seen on the body.Rev No.138/1996 Page 10 of 37Scalp, skull and brain, no effusion of blood was seen the scalp.Skull, vault and base show no fracture.Brain was congested.Neck and thorax trachea showed soot particles, neck structures were intact.Lungs were congested.Heard N.A.D. Abdomen and pelvis stomach was empty.Liver, spleen, kidneys all were congested.The doctor who conducted the post mortem has opined the death was due to shock consequent upon about 95% ante-mortem burns.Time of death was about 13 hours.He proved his report as Ex.PW9/A.PW-22 is Inspector Devender Singh of Crime Branch, who proved the scaled site plan Ex.They are married and are living with their children.Mahipal has one younger brother, whose, name is Satish.In cross-examination, she admitted that she visited the in-laws house of Rekha Rani only once, i.e., after 7-8 months of her marriage.PW4/A was not read over to her by the SDM.The statement got confronted by ld. counsel for the accused that the fact of demand for dowry has not been stated in the statement Ex.Rev No.138/1996 Page 14 of 37PW-6 Ram Niawas Jain was the mediator in the marriage of deceased Rekha Rani and accused Mahipal.He stated that marriage was performed with pomp and show and everything was given in the marriage.He stated that PW-5 Naresh Kumar told him that accused Mahipal was in criminal alliance with his Bhabi and it was also told to him that accused Mahipal had demanded Rs.10,000/-.He advised Naresh Kumar that by paying Rs.10,000/- Rekha could live a happy life.On 14.10.2009 he was called by Naresh Kumar at Crl.Rev No.138/1996 Page 15 of 37 his house at Rohini where accused Mahipal was also present there and in his presence Rs.10,000/- were paid to him by Naresh Kumar.Accused Mahipal had promised that he would now keep Rekha Rani happy.During December 1990, PW-5 Naresh Kumar again told him that Mahipal had demanded Rs.10,000/- more.During February 1991, accused Mahipal asked him to get Rs.10,000/- from Naresh Kumar to which he refused.Mahipal continued his demands and he used to harass deceased Rekha Rani.Rev No.138/1996 Page 15 of 37He had admitted that he was the brother-in-law of PW-5 Naresh Kumar.After coming to know about burning of deceased, on 18.09.1991, he and his wife did not visit the hospital but they went to Rohini to PW-5 Naresh Kumar.He had also asserted that PW-5 Naresh Kumar paid Rs.10,000/- in his presence to accused Mahipal at the house of PW-4 Smt. Chander Kali.When payment of Rs.10,000/- was made to accused Mahipal, PW-4 Smt. Chander Kali was also present.He had admitted that deceased Rekha Rani used to make complaints about the illicit relations of Mahipal and Kalawati.Rev No.138/1996 Page 16 of 37 Due to this she was mentally perplexed.He had admitted that he never visited the in-laws of Rekha Rani nor had made any inquiry about the criminal alliance between accused persons.He had admitted that he did not witness this incident with his own eyes and that this information was given to him by others.Rev No.138/1996 Page 16 of 3737. PW-5 is Shri Naresh Kumkar, who received the information on 17.09.1991, and along with his sister PW-4 Smt. Chander Kali reached Safdarjung Hospital.He deposed that they had spent more than their capacity in the marriage of deceased and that his sister used to make complains that her husband Mahipal was having illicit relations with the wife of his (Mahipal) elder brother and on making/raising objections; she used to get beaten up.It was also told that she was harassed for dowry and the demand of money was usually raised by accused persons.He further stated that his sister told him that she was a hurdle between both the accused persons and she had overheard talks between the accused persons that hurdle must be removed.His sister was burnt by the accused persons.On reaching the hospital, his sister told him before her death that she went to Crl.Rev No.138/1996 Page 17 of 37 kitchen for preparing tea for the accused Kalawati and she poured kerosene oil upon her which was thrown from behind.The doors of the kitchen were closed from outside, therefore, she got seriously burnt.She raised an alarm, but the doors were shut tight.His statement Ex.PW5/A was recorded.Even after the marriage of his sister, accused Mahipal demanded Rs.10,000/- as dowry which was paid to him in the presence of PW-6 Shri Ram Niwas Jain.Thereafter, Rs.10,000/- were again demanded, which was denied.On 14.10.1990, Rs.10,000/- were paid to accused Mahipal.He has stated that he is a partner in the business with his brother-in-law Mahabir Prasad Jain, at Delhi.Rev No.138/1996 Page 17 of 37On 17.09.1991, when, he reached the house of his sister Chander Kali, he came to know about this incident.He along with his brother-in-law Mahabir Prasad Jain went to the house where he met with the police.He and his sister PW-4 Smt. Chander Kali remained in the Safdarjung Hospital till 11:00 PM.He came to know about the relationship of accused Mahipal and accused Kalawati by his Crl.Rev No.138/1996 Page 18 of 37 sister after 1 month of marriage of deceased Rekha Rani Jain.He has ascertained in his cross-examination that this complaint was made to him by his sister Rekha Rani since the date of marriage and continued till her death.He did not lodge any complaint with the police about the harassment to his sister and demand of more dowry.He has also stated that his elder sister PW-4 Smt. Chander Kali Jain had no child of her own and also admitted that till the death of his sister Rekha Rani, she did not get impregnated.He had denied that his sister was examined by Vohra Nursing Home for pregnancy test or for test of some muscle piece for not being able to conceive.1. Vide the instant petitioner the petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 30.11.1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby, both the accused persons were acquitted for the offence under Section 498A/302/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860, in case FIR No.439/1991, Police Station Hari Nagar, by giving them benefit of doubt.Rev No.138/1996 Page 1 of 372. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the Trial Court, petitioner has filed the instant revision petition before this Court.The same was disposed-of vide order dated 12.09.2001 without going into any of the grounds because of the fact that none appeared on behalf of the petitioner.With the help of ld. amicus curie, the instant petition was dismissed.The Supreme Court vide its order dated 25.02.2009 had set aside the order passed by this Court and remitted the matter back for a fresh disposal in accordance with law.I note that in the matter, before the Trial Court, there were two accused persons, one was Jethani (sister in law) of the deceased and another was the husband of the deceased.The present revision petition has been filed by brother of the deceased, on whose complaint the FIR was registered.Rev No.138/1996 Page 2 of 37After the investigation and completion of the formalities, challan against the accused persons under Section 498A/302/34 IPC was filed.On the basis of which formal FIR Ex.PW1/C was got recorded by him.BE-253, Hari Nagar, New Delhi.Crime team and the photographer were found present; at the place of occurrence photographs and the statement of Smt. Rekha Rani Jain was sent to the police station with endorsement Ex.PW1/B.Rev No.138/1996 Page 5 of 3719. PW-10 W/ASI Rajender Kaur had associated with the IO of the case.She went along with the SHO to the house of accused Kalawati, wherefrom, she was arrested.On interrogation and she made disclosure statement Ex.PW10/B. They recovered canni Ex.P10 containing the kerosene oil on the instance of accused Kalawati.He had testified that Smt. Rekha Rani had given the statement to the doctor on duty and the doctor examined the dead body physically in ward No.22, Bed No.20 of Safdarjung Hospital.He conducted the inquest proceedings and proved the facts given by him as Ex.PW23/A. He recorded the statement of Smt. Chander Kali Jain, elder sister of the deceased, which is Ex.PW4/A. The same was endorsed by him as Ex.PW23/B, so the case was ordered to be converted to Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and direction was given to the SHO to investigate the case further.Rev No.138/1996 Page 7 of 37In the cross-examination, he has specifically denied that the statement of the deceased was not recorded by Dr. Anant Sinha in his presence, but it was told to him that Dr. Anant Sinha had recorded the statement of the deceased, which might have told by Smt. Chander Kala Jain and Naresh Jain.On 17.09.1991 when Rekha was preparing tea in the kitchen, she poured kerosene oil on her and lit fire with a matchstick and closed the door thereafter.Rev No.138/1996 Page 9 of 37 She further disclosed that she could get recovered the 'canni from which the kerosene oil was thrown from the 'perchhatti of the house.Rev No.138/1996 Page 9 of 37In the cross-examination, he had denied the suggestion that the 'canni containing the kerosene oil was planted upon the accused during investigation.PW-9 was Dr. Arvind Thergaonkar, Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, who conducted the post mortem on the dead body of Smt. Rekha Rani Jain on 18.09.1991 and found the following injures on her person:-"1. Cut down wound (surgical) was present on lower end of right leg;Bladder, pelvis, NA.D. Uterus was empty."PW22/A.PW-7 Shri Babu Lal & PW-8 Shri Jogender Pal are the neighbours of accused Kalawati and Mahipal.The both the aforesaid witness have not been supported the case of the prosecution.They were declared hostile by the Crl.Rev No.138/1996 Page 11 of 37 Additional Public Prosecutor.Their evidences are of no use either to the prosecution or to the accused persons.Rev No.138/1996 Page 11 of 37Now, I shall discuss the relevant witnesses.PW-3 Smt. Kamla Devi, who is the mother of the deceased Rekha Rani, has deposed that her daughter was married to accused Mahipal about 03 years ago.Whenever her daughter came to her house, she complained about her husband Mahipal having illicit relations with his Bhabi, but every time her daughter was advised that everything would be settled in due course.Further stated that the accused Mahipal, husband of the deceased used to taunt and demand for more dowry.Her daughter used to tell her that she had been given beatings several times at the instance of her Jethani.Her daughter was treated as obstacle between the relationship of Mahipal and Kalawati.Her daughter was killed by pouring kerosene oil by accused Kalawati, the Jethani of deceased.In cross-examination of this witness it was revealed that deceased Rekha was the sister of PW-4 Smt. Chander Kali and had graduated from Delhi University; PW-4 Crl.Rev No.138/1996 Page 12 of 37 was issue-less, so the deceased Rekha Rani was brought up by her.She also admitted that Rekha Rani was married of by her at Delhi, she also testified that her daughter was tensed due to the suspicion that the accused persons had illicit relations with each other.Her daughter had written letters about the relationship between the accused persons many a times, but no such letter was handed over to the police.She did not lodge any report to the police station or before any Court about the sexual relations of the accused persons.Rev No.138/1996 Page 12 of 37PW-4 Smt.Chander Kali, who is the sister of Rekha Rani Jain (deceased), states that before marriage, Rekha Rani was living with her.This witness had deposed that deceased Rekha Rani used to complain about her Jethani accused Kalawati who used to abuse her and also complain about her husband Mahipal.Due to the behaviour of accused Kalawati, Rekha Rani was meted out bad behaviour and she was harassed.Rekha Rani was not happy with her in-laws and she used to tell her about the incidents in her in-laws house as and when she used to come to her.Further deposed that the statement of PW-4 Smt. Chander Kali was recorded in the hospital by the SDM which is Ex.PW4/A. This Crl.Rev No.138/1996 Page 13 of 37 witness has also stated that when she came to hospital to see her burnt daughter, she was told by gestures and by raising of her hands that she was burnt by her Jethani.Further stated that her Jethani had asked Rekha Rani to prepare tea and when she was doing that the accused Kalawati poured kerosene oil on her and lit a match stick, set her ablaze and closed the door of the kitchen.Further she deposed that she was informed about the burning of her sister by some neighbours on telephone.Rev No.138/1996 Page 13 of 37This witness further stated that the accused Kalawati as well as accused Mahipal, husband of deceased used to make demand for dowry.It is stated that accused Mahipal had four brothers, whose names are Jai Kanwar, Maman Chand, who are elder to him.Rekha Rani did not lodge any complaint about the ill-treatment received from the Crl.Rev No.138/1996 Page 14 of 37 accused persons.She made only one complaint that accused Mahipal had illicit relationships with accused Kalawati and further made demand of dowry which made her sister mentally depressed.The statement made by her before the SDM Ex.The suggestion has been denied by this witness that he was not present at Delhi on 17.09.1991 or 18.09.1991 and that fact of illicit relationship or demand of dowry or money is false.Rev No.138/1996 Page 18 of 37PW-14 Inspector VPS Rana has conducted the investigation of the present case.He had deposed that on 17.09.1991 this case was registered under Section 307 IPC by PW-25 ASI Lal Singh and when the injured succumbed to her injuries at Safdarjung Hospital it was converted to Section 302 IPC.Accused Kalawati made disclosure Crl.Rev No.138/1996 Page 19 of 37 statement Ex.PW10/B in which she stated about the occurrence and the 'canni containing kerosene oil was admitted by her and the 'canni admitted to have been kept on 'Perchatti of her house near latrine.She pointed out the perchatti and the canni which was recovered and taken into possession by the police vide memo Ex.Rev No.138/1996 Page 19 of 37This witness had admitted that he did not collect any additional evidence except the disclosure statement given by the accused.In fact he did not find any evidence.The kerosene oil canni was lying on the perchatti and was visible while standing in front of perchatti and the same was taken out by the accused herself.There was no other article on the perchatti.As regards to the harassment and demand of dowry, he inquired about 10-12 persons from the locality, but nobody came forward to support the allegations.Rev No.138/1996 Page 20 of 37Rev No.138/1996 Page 20 of 37The statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They have stated themselves to be innocent and falsely implicated by the police, but have not led any defence evidence.Ld. counsel for accused argued before the Trial Court that the case of the prosecution was that Smt. Rekha Rani died of burn injuries caused by pouring kerosene oil by the accused Kalawati.Accused have taken a stand that Smt. Rekha Rani committed suicide.There is no witness to the occurrence.The case of the prosecution rests only on circumstantial evidence.It is admitted by both the sides that deceased Smt. Rekha Rani was tensed due to the illicit relations between the accused persons, but so far as the demand of dowry and more money is concerned, the same has been denied by the accused persons.Further argued, the circumstances showing that deceased Smt. Rekha Rani might have committed suicide for the reason that she was tensed and depressed due to the illicit relationship between the accused persons, which has been admitted by PW-3 Smt. Kamla Devi, PW-4 Smt. Crl.Rev No.138/1996 Page 21 of 37 Chander Kail, PW-5 Naresh Kumar Jain and PW-6 Ram Niwas Jain.It was also admitted that PW-4 Smt. Chander Kali was issueless, same was the fate with deceased Rekha Rani that she was medically examined for pregnancy test, but she could not get pregnant.Rev No.138/1996 Page 21 of 37On this account, ld. counsel for accused has further argued that because of this fact, deceased Smt. Rekha Rani was depressed and committed suicide.She was obsessed with the idea that there was no charm for her in this world.So it can be safely said that she had committed suicide.Further, ld. counsel for accused persons argued before the Trial Court that the entire case depends upon the declarations made by the deceased to the witnesses, before the Investigating Officer and before the doctor.The statement Ex.PW1/A is an information received from duty constable posted at Safdarjung Hospital, wherein, it was stated that Smt. Rekha Rani had received burnt injuries to the extent of 95% and was admitted to Safdarjung Hospital.She made statement that she was burnt by her husband.In Crl.Rev No.138/1996 Page 22 of 37 this statement, there is no demand of dowry or harassment by her husband.This statement cannot be considered as a declaration by the deceased, so the same cannot be relied upon.Rev No.138/1996 Page 22 of 37Ld. counsel for accused persons has further pointed out that another statement as per argument of Additional Public Prosecutor is MLC Ex.PW19/A. In this MLC it is stated that the patient Smt.Rekha Rani was preparing tea and her husband's elder brother's wife came from behind, threw kerosene oil over her and closed the door of the room, the patient has been married for the last 17 months.This MLC has neither been signed nor is there any thumb impression marked by Smt. Rekha Rani, so there is a contradiction in the statement as per the MLC and as per Ex.PW1/A. In the MLC Ex.PW19/A, the husband has not been involved.In the statement Ex.PW1/A accused Kalawati has not been involved.In this MLC it was nowhere stated that patient was fit to make statement.Reliance has been placed on another statement Ex.In this statement, Smt.Rekha Rani Jain had involved her Jethani Kalawati.She Crl.Rev No.138/1996 Page 23 of 37 has not named her husband or husband's brother.No fitness certificate was given before taking her statement; no time was mentioned at which this statement was recorded.This statement is also contrary with the earlier statements.The doctor in question has not been examined in Court; therefore, no reliance can be placed on his evidence.Rev No.138/1996 Page 23 of 37ASI Lal Singh had recorded statement of Smt. Rekha Rani in the Safdarjung Hospital which is Ex.PW19/D and is only attested by Dr. Anant Sinha with no certificate in regard to her being fit to make a statement or not.PW-5 ASI Lal Singh has admitted in his cross-examination that the endorsement at point A on Ex.PW19/D is not by the doctor who had written endorsement Ex.PW25/DB as "the patient was fit to make statement was made by Dr. R. Chandra".The endorsement is dated 17.09.1991 at 07:55 PM.Even the statement Ex.Ordinarily a document as valuable as a dying declaration is supposed to be foolproof and is to incorporate the particulars which it is supposed to contain.No justifying reason has been given as to why the time was not noted.The summary of History sheet Ex.The declarations suffered from material discrepancies.She was issueless; she was also tense and depressed for the same reason, she suspecting illicit relations of her husband with her jethani.Her elder sister Smt. Chander Kali was also issueless.This circumstance may also be in her mind to be in the state of as oppressed, suppressed and depressed.The accused are entitled to acquittal when the accused have brought reasonable and probable defence against the evidence of the prosecution.They are not required to prove their innocence, but they have had probable and reasonable defence.The doubts in the prosecution story about dying declarations recorded have not been removed.Dr. Anant Sinha was not examined to prove his endorsement as fit to make statement.Even with the opportunities given to the prosecution side through complainant, when the application was filed for this purpose to re-summon Dr. Anant Sinha.The complainant failed to Crl.Rev No.138/1996 Page 30 of 37 disclose the correct address of Dr. Anant Sinha, accordingly it was held that it will serve no purpose.Rev No.138/1996 Page 30 of 37Keeping the above discussion into view, the Trial Judge has acquitted both the accused persons giving them benefit of doubt.Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued on the following points:On the application Ex.25/DA moved by the IO for furnishing the address of Dr. Anant Sinha who recorded the statement of the deceased.The ld. counsel for the respondent has drawn the attention of this Court to order dated 25.11.1995 passed by the trial judge which is re- produced as under:-Present: Addl.P.P. for State.Both the accused on bail with counsel Shri.From the complainant side application for summoning the Crl.Rev No.138/1996 Page 32 of 37 prosecution witness Dr. Anant Sinha filed stating therein that Dr. Anant Sinha is available.Earlier on the summons sent to Dr. Anant Sinha received back with the report that Dr. Anant Sinha has left the services of the hospital and is not traceable.Now the applicant through this application has pressed that he will produce Dr. Anant Sinha.The prosecution has already closed the prosecution evidence.In the interest of justice, it is necessary that best evidence available should be examined.If at any stage the prosecution has neglected to produce the said witness Dr. Anant Sinha, then the court is not expected to follow the prosecution as it is, when the court has to be effective at its own level.So Dr. Anant Sinha is hereby ordered to be summoned.Dasti summons be given to the applicant through the prosecution.It may be clear that if the witness is not produced on the said date it shall be presumed that the applicant is trying to prolong the matter and in the absence of the witness the statement of the accused shall be recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C."Rev No.138/1996 Page 32 of 37The ld. counsel for the respondent has drawn the attention of this Court to page 393 of the trial court record wherein the application dated 25.11.1995 was forwarded by the learned trial judge and on that date Naresh Kumar Jain, brother of the deceased, had given an undertaking in writing that if he could not produce Dr. Anant Sinha in the Court on 28.11.1995 then he would not move any application for the Crl.Rev No.138/1996 Page 33 of 37 evidence of Dr. Anant Sinha.However, thereafter another application dated 28.11.1995 was moved and the same was not forwarded by APP and the same was dealt with by the learned trial judge by its order dated 28.11.1995 as under:-Rev No.138/1996 Page 33 of 37"28.11.1995 Present:Addl.P.P. for State with Naresh Kumar, sister of the deceased.Both the accused on bail with counsel Shri R.K. Naseem.Summons of Dr. Anant Sinha received back un-served.Naresh Kumar again moved an application for summoning of Dr. Anant Sinha, i.e., the attesting witness of the dying declaration.There is no mention of the place of posting of Dr. Anant Sinha and the applicant is trying to prolong the matter by moving such application.Hence the application is rejected.Statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. recorded.No defence.Arguments heard for about four hours.Now to come up for arguments on behalf of Addl.P.P. and order on 30.11.1995."The ld. counsel for the respondent has drawn the attention of this Court towards the MLC, wherein, on the extreme right of the MLC, Dr. Anant Sinha is written but there is no signature of Dr. Anant Sinha and the prosecution could not produce any record with regard to Dr. Anant Sinha Crl.Rev No.138/1996 Page 34 of 37 declaring the injured fit for statement, therefore, the statement recorded by the police officer, declaring the injured fit for statement is not relevant at all.Rev No.138/1996 Page 34 of 37Further ld. counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to Ex.PW12/A whereby duty constable Sushil Kumar at Safdarjung Hospital informed SI Pishori Lal on telephone that Rekha Rani w/o Mahipal, age 21 years, r/o BE-253, Hari Nagar, New Delhi has been got admitted by her husband in 95% burnt condition.Therefore, aforesaid interpolation from July to November has no relevance.Additionally, PW-24 Insp.V.P.S. Rana stated in his cross-examination that the message contained in DD No.22A Crl.Rev No.138/1996 Page 35 of 37 dated 17.09.1991 was received by him through wireless.He has admitted that D.D. No.20A speaks that deceased was burnt by husband.He has denied that he collected any evidence to test DD No.22A as false or true.Rev No.138/1996 Page 35 of 37About the harassment or demand of dowry articles PW-24 Insp.VPS Rana has admitted in the cross- examination that he enquired 10-12 persons from the locality but nobody came forward in support of allegations.In addition, in hospital, if presumed, stated that she was burnt by her husband.There was no allegation f demand of dowry or harassment by her husband.PW-20 Sushil Kumar, also supported this version.On MLC Ex.PW- 19/A, no signature or thumb impression of deceased Rekha Rani obtained.In MLC, husband has not been named.In the statement Ex.PW19/A, accused Kalawati has not been involved.In statement recorded by ASI Lal Singh, the deceased has involved her Jethani accused Kalawati.She has not named her husband.No where is it recorded in the MLC that the patient was fit to make a statement.No one has certified anywhere that the patient was fit for making Crl.Rev No.138/1996 Page 36 of 37 statement all that the medical records show is the 95% of burnt injuries.PW-5 ASI Lal Singh has admitted in his cross- examination that the endorsement at point 'A' on Ex.PW19/D is not by doctor who had written endorsement Ex.PW25/DB.Rev No.138/1996 Page 36 of 37I find no discrepancy in the judgment passed by the learned trial judge.I concur with the same.No order as to costs.SURESH KAIT, J August 25, 2011 Mk/RS Crl.
|
['Section 302 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']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
112,017,302 |
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present:The Hon'ble Justice Md. Mumtaz Khan & The Hon'ble Justice Jay Sengupta CRA 119 of 2010 Nepal Bouri Vs.By the impugned judgment appellant was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2 5,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months more for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC), rigorous imprisonment for 03 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 02 months for the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act and rigorous imprisonment for 07 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 03 months for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act with a direction that all the sentences shall run concurrently and the period of detention undergone during investigation, inquiry and trial be set off as per provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) On December 29, 2006 at 18.15 hours P.W.18 received one telephonic information from one Kariram Das of village Mohuda that the appellant entered the house of P.W.1 and opened fire killing the minor child of P.W.1 aged about 3 years on the spot.On getting the said information P.W.18 diarized the same in the P.S. GDE book and proceeded to the place of occurrence.On reaching at the spot P.W.18 found a small boy lying on a cot and in a pool of blood on the floor of the courtyard.P.W.18 held inquest over the dead body of the child in presence of the witnesses and prepared the inquest report (Ext.2).During inquest he found bullet injury on the occipital region of the deceased and 3 also found one 8 mm empty cartridge lying beside the body.The name of the appellant surfaced during inquest as the assailant.P.W.1 submitted one written complaint (Ext.1) to P.W.18 at the place of occurrence alleging that on that date at about 4.30/4.45 hours appellant, over a previous grudge and quarrel over the incident of eating of paddy by a cow, entered into his house and while threatening him and his wife, brought out one revolver and suddenly opened fired.As a result, a bullet pierced into the mouth of his son Samir Kisku aged about 3 years standing in front of his wife and got out from back side of his head.As a result, his son died in the courtyard.P.W.18 sent the complaint to the P.S. through P.W.7 for starting a case and accordingly, on receipt of that complaint, P.W.8 started Neturia P.S. Case No. 33/06 dated December 30, 2006 under Section 302 IPC and under Sections 25/27 Arms Act against the appellant and informed him about starting of the case.On December 30, 2006, P.W.4 conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the victim and during postmortem examination he found one entry wound, just lateral to right angle of mouth, exit wound middle of occipital region, intra cerebral hemorrhage and opined that death was due to shock and hemorrhage due to the above injury caused by a firearm, ante mortem and homicidal in nature.P.W.18 who had already taken up investigation of the case after completion of the same submitted charge against the appellant under Sections 302 of the IPC and 25/27 of the Arms Act.On August 21, 2007 charges under Sections 302 IPC and 25/27 of the Arms Act were framed against the appellant and on his pleading not guilty to the charges, trial commenced.Prosecution in order to prove its case examined 18 witnesses namely the defacto complainant (P.W.1), scribe of the complaint (P.W.2), co-villager (P.W.3), Autopsy surgeon (P.W.4) who conducted P.M. examination, mother of the victim (P.W.5),an eye witness, defacto complainant's brother's wife (P.W.6) also an eye witness, the constable (P.W.7)who took the written complaint to the P.S., the recording officer (P.W.8), neighbours (P.W.9 and P.W.10), witnesses to the seizure of the weapon of offence (P.W.11, P.W. 12 and P.W.16), Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W.13) who accompanied the investigating officer to the place of occurrence, clerk of the office of District Magistrate, Purulia (P.W.14) who produced and proved the order of the District Magistrate according sanction for prosecution, Arms Expert (P.W.15), the Judicial Magistrate(P.W.17) who recorded the statement of the witnesses under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the investigating officer(P.W.18) who submitted the charge sheet and also produced and proved the Written Complaint (Ext.1), Formal FIR (Ext.7), Rough sketch map with index (Exts.14, 14/1, 16, 16/1), Inquest report (Ext.2), PM report (Ext.5), Seizure lists (Ext.3 & 58), Order according sanction for prosecution (Ext.9), Statements recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. (Exts. 4, 6, 11, 12, and 13), opinion of the expert (Ext.10) as also seized articles (Mat.His evidence remained unshaken during cross-examination.As such there was no reason to disbelieve him.P.W.1, father of the victim and the FIR maker has corroborated the FIR and specifically stated on oath that on December 29, 2006 at about 4.35 p.m. while he was working in his cow-shed and his minor son, the victim, was playing in the courtyard, appellant came in the courtyard 7 and started threatening his wife (P.W.5) and his elder brother's wife (P.W.6) uttering "tora khub mostan hoyechis, barabari korchis, toder guli kore mere debo".He was hearing the voice of the appellant from the cow-shed.He then heard the sound of firing and at once came out of his cow-shed and saw the victim child sustained bullet injury lying in the courtyard with bleeding injury and saw the appellant having firearm in his hand.Appellant also attempted to kill him also but somehow he managed to escape from the place.P.W.5, mother of the victim, has specifically stated that on the relevant date and time while she was gossiping with her sister-in-law (P.W.6) in the courtyard of her house and her youngest son was on her lap and the victim was playing in the courtyard and her husband (P.W.1) was in the cow-shed then at that time appellant came to their courtyard and started quarreling with her and P.W.6 over the issue of altercation which took place few days back and threatened to kill her and her child.Appellant then took out a pistol from his waist and opened fire to her minor son (victim) as a result victim sustained bullet injury on his head and fell on the ground.Her husband (P.W.1) then came out from the cow-shed, then appellant also threatened her husband to kill by showing that pistol.She and her sister-in-law (P.W.6) then started crying, appellant then fled away therefrom.She identified the appellant in course on her examination before court.She also made statement before the Magistrate (Ext.6) and clearly stated that appellant killed her son by firing.P.W.6, sister-in-law of P.W.5, has also stated that on the relevant date and time while she and P.W.5 were gossiping in the courtyard then appellant came in the courtyard and charged them why then picked up quarrel with his elder brother and then took out one pistol and fired at the victim as a result victim sustained bullet injury in his cheek and fell on the ground.P.W.1 who was in the cow-shed rushed there then appellant fled away therefrom.They have given vivid description of the entire incident which remained unshaken during cross-examination.Their evidence on oath appears to be trustworthy and reliable and nothing was brought out by the defence to discredit them.The injuries found on the person of the deceased by the doctor P.W.4 supports their claim.P.W.9 and P.W.10, the neighbours of the defacto-complainant, have also deposed that on the relevant date and time while they were thrashing paddy in their house they heard a sound of firing from the house of P.W.1 and also noises therefrom.They rushed there and saw the appellant having a small gun in his hand and also saw the victim lying on the ground with bleeding injury.On being asked about why he killed the child, the appellant threatened them.As such, out of fear they left the place.They too made statements before the Judicial Magistrate (Exts.12, 13) and clearly stated about the involvement of the appellant in killing the victim.They also identified the appellant in course of trial.They too were cross-examined by the defence at length but nothing came out contrary to their statements-in-chief.P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.13 are witnesses to the seizure of the blood- stained earth, controlled earth, an empty cartridge from the place of occurrence by a seizure list.P.W.11, P.W.12, P.W.13 and P.W.16 are the witnesses to the seizure of the firearm namely, the weapon of offence.P.W.11 has deposed that on the relevant date at about 7 p.m. he visited the house of P.W.1 and saw the dead body of the victim lying in the courtyard and learnt from P.W.5 that the victim sustained bullet injury on being fired by the appellant.He saw the injury on the right cheek of the victim.He identified the appellant in court.He also deposed that on December 30, 2006 15.45 hours police officer recovered one revolver from the house of the appellant and seized the same by a seizure list on which he put his signature.He identified his signature (Ext. 8/1) on the seizure list.he went there and saw the dead body of the victim in the courtyard and then learnt from P.W.1 that the appellant murdered the victim by a small gun.On the following day at about 3.30 a.m. police arrested the appellant and in their presence appellant confessed that he committed murder of the victim and had hid the gun in his house.Thereafter, appellant brought out the offending gun from inside his house in their presence and handed over the said to the police.Police then seized the said gun by a seizure list and he put his signature (Ext. 8/2) in the seizure list.He identified the firearm namely, the pistol and also the appellant in course of his examination before court.He was cross-examined by the defence and during cross-examination he affirmed his statement made during his examination in chief and specifically stated that appellant in their presence brought out the firearm from a hole of the south side wall of 11 his house and handed over the same to the police in his presence.He also specifically stated that the shirt of the appellant was stained with blood.The above statement of P.W.12 also found corroboration from P.W.13 and P.W.16 other witnesses to the seizure.They too have specifically stated that on the relevant night appellant was arrested and he confessed before the villagers and the police that he committed murder of the victim and that he would bring out the offending gun which he had hidden and thereafter the appellant brought out the said gun (Mat Ext.II) from the hole of the south side wall of his house and handed over the same to the police which the police seized by the seizure list on which they signed.They identified the Mat.I, Mat.II and Mat.III namely, pink coloured shirt, firearm and empty cartridge.They also identified the appellant during trial before court.P.W.11 too identified his signature on the seizure list.I to IV) and thereafter on completion of trial and after examination of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the learned trial judge passed the impugned judgment.Mr. Moinak Bakshi, learned advocate appearing for the appellant in all his fairness submitted that appellant is not a habitual offender and the height of the victim and the appellant and the distance itself suggest that it was an accidental fire and there was no intention to kill the child.Mr. Ranabir Roy Chowdhury, learned advocate appearing for the State submitted that the incident occurred in broad day light in presence of P.W.5, mother of the child and her sister-in-law P.W.6 who fully corroborated the prosecution case and their evidence remained unshaken during cross-examination and the above statement of the eye witnesses also found corroboration from the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the medical evidence.He further submitted that no suggestion was put by the defence to the witnesses during trial that it was an accidental fire.According to Mr. Roy Chowdhury prosecution has been able to prove the charges against the appellant and the learned trial judge was quite justified in passing the order of conviction and sentence against the appellant.We have considered the submissions of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and have gone through the evidence and the documents on record to consider the propriety of the impugned judgment.According to him two days before the incident an altercation took place with the appellant over the issue of eating of their paddy by the cow of the elder brother of the appellant and in connection with the said altercation appellant came to their courtyard for taking revenge.He is also witness to the inquest (Ext.2) and seizure of blood stained earth, controlled earth and the empty cartridge by a seizure list (Ext.3).He also made statement before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ext.4) and before the Magistrate also he stated that appellant killed his son by firing.He was cross-examined by the defence and during cross also he stated that his cowshed is attached to his dwelling room and he heard sound of firing while he was inside the cowshed.He denied the defence suggestion that someone had killed his son by inflicting bullet injury by a fire arm.The above statements of P.W.1 also found corroboration from the eye witnesses (P.W.5 and P.W.6), the post occurrence witnesses (P.W.9 and P.W.10) and the medical evidence.P.W. 14, clerk of the office of D.M., Murshidabad, proved the sanction order for prosecution (Ext.9) accorded by the District Magistrate.P.W.15, the arm expert who examined the firearm and empty cartridge, on examination found it was an improvised firearm, 12 endangering to human life which falls under the preview of Arms Act. He found the said firearm in working condition and on testing he found the said cartridge was used by the said fired arm and it matched.Now to sum up the entire evidence on record, we find that on December 29, 2006 in the evening on getting information of the incident when P.W.18 along with P.W.13 and force went to the house of P.W.1 he found dead body of the victim having bullet injuries on the head was lying in the court yard and one empty cartridge was also lying near the dead body.Inquest was held in presence of the witnesses and during inquest the name of the appellant surfaced to be the assailant.One written complaint (Ext.1) was submitted by P.W.1 which was forwarded to the P.S. through P.W.7 for starting a case.P.W.18 took up investigation of the case and during investigation seized the empty cartridge (Mat.III), blood-stained earth, controlled earth etc. from the place of occurrence by a seizure list (Ext. 3) in presence of P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.13 and sent the dead body for postmortem examination.During postmortem examination, the autopsy surgeon(P.W.4) found one entry wound, just lateral to right angle of mouth, exit wound middle of occipital region, intra cerebral hemorrhage and opined that death was due to shock and hemorrhage due to the above injury caused by a firearm, ante mortem and homicidal in nature.P.W.5 and P.W.6, the eye witnesses, have vividly narrated the entire incident leading to the death of the victim and clearly stated that appellant came to their courtyard 13 and started quarreling with them over the issue of altercation which took place few days back and while threatening to kill P.W.5 and her child took out a pistol from his waist and fired at victim as a result victim sustained bullet injury on his head and died on the spot.When P.W.1, father of the victim, P.W.9 and P.W.10, the neighbours, on hearing the cries and sound of firing came there, they saw the appellant having firearm standing there and the victim was lying dead having sustained bullet injury.Appellant also threatened them to kill and thereafter fled away from the place.P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.11 and P.W.12 also came to the place of the occurrence on getting the news and saw the dead body of the victim and heard about the commission of the offence by the appellant.Appellant was absconding and only on the basis of the source information he was apprehended by P.W.18 on the next day of the incident and the fire arm (Mat.P.W.12, P.W.13 and P.W.16 have duly narrated the recovery and seizure of the fire arm (Mat.II) etc. The said firearm (Mat.II) on examination by the Arms Expert (P.W.15), was found to be an improvised firearm, in working condition, endangering to human life, if fired and the empty cartridge (Mat.III) was used by Mat.II some days before examination and it matched with Mat.No valid document or licence for possession of the said firearm was produced from the side of the defence.Even during examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. 14 appellant did not put forth any defence or anything else save and except taking the only plea of 'false' to each and every questions put to him.Regarding the plea that appellant is not a habitual offender and it was accidental fire, we find from the evidence on record that incident took place in the courtyard of P.W.1 where appellant came with an unlicensed firearm over previous grudge and while threatening to kill fired at the child on the head causing instant death.We, therefore, dismiss the appeal and affirm the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
112,020,945 |
Applicant has filed the present applications under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime Nos.448/2019, 449/2019 and 450/19 registered at Police Station Shahpura, District Bhopal for commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 427, 452, 323, 506 , 353, 332, 333, 186, 307 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act.Counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that for the same incident three FIRs have been registered by Police, which is illegal.Since there only one incident, therefore, on receiving subsequent information, separate FIR could not have been registered against applicant.It is prayed that no role has been ascribed to the present applicant Leela Kishan S/o Malthuram.In the circumstances, he made a prayer that applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.Counsel appearing for the State opposed the application for anticipatory bail application.It is submitted that applicant has been named in the FIR and applicant alongwith other persons had damaged public property and had done rioting in the area and also interfered in the administration of work by public servant.Offence under Section 307 of IPC is also registered against the applicant.Looking to the allegations made against the applicant, I am of the view that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to him.Anticipatory bail applications are rejected.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
112,024,510 |
These are :-CLP 368/2010 Page 1 of 9On 15.6.2005 ACP Rajbir Singh of P.S. Special Cell was called by Sh.Lalit Prasad, Joint Commissioner, Import Shed, IGIA, Delhi at import shed.ACP Rajbir Singh alongwith Inspector Lalit Mohan and other staff went to Import Shed, IGIA where Sh.Lalit Prasad, Joint Commissioner, Import Shed briefed that one Mohd. Amin Khan came to clear his consignment declared as personal effects through Import Shed, Air Cargo, New Delhi which was sent by one Sajjad Sheikh (since not arrested) from Jeddah.The profile and movement of the importer Mohd. Amin Khan invoked suspicion to them and on thorough examination 40 wireless handsets, one satellite phone, 60 antennas, one solar charger and 6 sets of headphones were recovered.Since the matter was sensitive in nature, hence accused Mohd. Amin Khan was brought in the office of Special Cell for interrogation.Accused Mohd. Amin Khan was not disclosing anything and the phone calls of Sajjad were coming on the mobile of Vijay, the phone of Vijay was taken on interception immediately so that precious information is not lost.Accused Mohd. Amin Khan was directed to keep on talking to Sajjad in normal manner.He stated that the consignment was sent by Sajjad from Saudi Arabia but he was not aware of the use.On 16.6.2005, accused Mohd. Amin came to the office of Special Cell alongwith said Vijay.In the meantime, Sajjad called up accused Amin Khan and stated that Obaid would be coming to Delhi through flight on 16.6.2005 to take consignment to Srinagar.On 16.6.2005 accused Obaid whose description was given by Sajjad to accused Mohd. Amin Khan came to the house of Amin Khan and he was also joined in the inquiry.Sajjad also talked to Obaid regarding taking the consignment to Srinagar.In the meantime watch was kept over their activities and phones of Vijay and Sajjad were intercepted.On 17.6.2005, Sh.Lalit Prasad, Joint Commissioner, Import Shed made a complaint to DCP Special Cell, Delhi regarding seizure of wireless handsets, satellite phones etc. which was marked to ACP Rajbir Singh for inquiry.On receipt of the complaint, prima facie case U/s. 40 of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act was registered at P.S. Special Cell and investigation was taken up by ACP Rajbir Singh.During further investigation on 17.6.2005, accused Mohd. Amin Khan and Obaid-Ul-Ahad were interrogated separately who disclosed about their involvement and stated that they are the members of banned terrorist outfit "Al-Badr".They further disclosed that they have been working for "Al-Badr" alongwith one Sajjad Hussain Sheikh and Gulam Hassan @ Bilal @ Billa (since not arrested).The consignment of satellite phone and wireless set was sent by Sajjad Hussain Sheikh from Riyadh.Both the accused persons were arrested and their disclosure statements were recorded.They disclosed that the consignment after clearance was to be taken away to Srinagar by Obaid which was to be further delivered to Bilal in Srinagar.Bilal would have taken the consignment to Tariq @ Tipu, a Pak National and the area commander of "Al-Badr" in Bandipora, Baramula, J&K. Since the consignment was meant to carry out the CLP 368/2010 Page 2 of 9 terrorist activities in India with an intent to wage war against the Government of India, therefore, section 121/121A/122/123/120-B IPC was added.Since accused Sajjad was living in Riyadh, his LOC was got opened.As per the disclosure statement of accused Mohd. Amin Khan, DVD was also recovered which was taken into police possession.Amin Wani, a room mate of accused Mohd. Amin Khan also stated in his statement about the DVD given to accused Mohd. Amin Khan.The study of the mobile phone of Sajjad revealed that he was in touch with accused Amin Khan and accused Obaid alongwith one Pakistan number.G.P. MITTAL, J.There is a delay of 111 days in filing the petition.Learned counsel for the Respondent has no objection to the condonation of delay.The delay is accordingly condoned for the reasons as mentioned in the application.The State seeks leave to file an Appeal against the judgment and order dated 18.02.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) whereby the Respondent Obaid-ul-Ahad was acquitted of the charges under Section 121/121- A/122/123/120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)The facts of the case can be extracted from Para 1 of the impugned judgment.The study of interception of mobile calls of Vijay also made it clear that accused Amin Khan was directed by Sajjad to get the consignment cleared from Cargo and simultaneously accused Obaid-ul-Ahad was directed to collect the consignment from accused Amin Khan and carry it to Srinagar, J&K. The transcript and recording of conversation of accused Amin and Obaid with accused Sajjad on the mobile phone of Vijay were also taken into police possession.The voice samples of both the accused persons were also obtained and taken into police possession and cassettes were sent to CFSL for expert opinion.All the accused persons entered into criminal conspiracy, collected large quantity of restrict satellite phones, solar chargers and wireless sets which were meant to be used for terrorist activities against India.After completion of investigation, charge sheet against accused Mohd. Amin Khan and Obaid-Ul-Ahad was filed and NBWs were taken against accused Sajjad Hussain Sheikh and Gulam Hassan @ Bilal (since not arrested)."CLP 368/2010 Page 2 of 9On Respondent's and co-accused Mohd. Amin Khan pleading not guilty to the charge, the prosecution examined 27 witnesses.The co-accused Mohd. Amin Khan was convicted by the impugned judgment primarily on the ground that he had approached the Custom department on 15.06.2005 to collect the consignment which, as stated above, was found to be consisting of articles which were to be used for terrorist activities and to wage war against the Government of India and also on the ground that the conversation between Sajjad Hussain Sheikh and co-accused Mohd. Amin Khan regarding dispatch of the consignment was proved to be in Mohd. Amin's voice.The Respondent was acquitted by the Trial Court on the ground that the call records of the Respondent would show that there was a talk of just one second on the mobile number 9419061643 of the Respondent with the purported cell number of Sajjad Hussain Sheikh.It was observed that as per the call details many calls were made on the landline number of the Respondent from Sajjad Hussain Sheikh, but there was no evidence on record that the Respondent had himself answered the calls.The Trial Court observed that no satisfactory evidence was produced as to how the Respondent CLP 368/2010 Page 3 of 9 was joined in the inquiry/investigation.PW-17 SI Umesh Barthwal and PW-23 Inspector Lalit Mohan were silent about the service of the notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. on the Respondent on 16.06.2005 (when the Respondent is alleged to have reached Delhi from Srinagar).The Trial Court further held that the prosecution had failed to prove the conversation between Sajjad Hussain Sheikh and the Respondent as PW-20 Deepak Kumar Tanwar from CFSL New Delhi had declined to give any report on the ground that the questioned conversation and specimen voice of the Respondent was in Kashmiri (language) and since he was not conversant with the language, he was unable to give any opinion.The Trial Court noticed that PW-24 Dr. C.P. Singh found the conversation and the specimen voice in Hindi which was contrary to the prosecution version and thus, the report given by PW-24 Dr. C.P.Singh, another expert could not be relied upon.The Trial Court thus concluded that merely because the Respondent had arrived from Srinagar to Delhi, no inference of the Respondent's carrying the consignment to Kashmir for handing it over for terrorist activities to other persons could be drawn.Thus, the Respondent was acquitted giving him the benefit of doubt.CLP 368/2010 Page 3 of 9We have heard Ms. Richa Kapoor, learned counsel for the State, Mr. M.S. Khan, learned counsel for the Respondent and have carefully perused the record.It is argued by the learned APP that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence of PW-17 SI Umesh Barthwal who had deposed that the Respondent made a disclosure statement that he was a part of the terrorist organization 'Al-Badr' and was to take the consignment to Srinagar.It is contended that the Trial Court disbelieved the date of Respondent's arrest without any reasonable ground.The documents proved on record clearly established that the Respondent was arrested on 17.06.2005 along with co-accused Mohd. Amin Khan.The Trail Court disbelieved the prosecution version that the Respondent was joined for inquiry/investigation on 16.05.2005 and was later on arrested on 17.06.2005 along with co-accused Mohd. Amin Khan.The reasoning given by the Trial Court is extracted hereunder:-CLP 368/2010 Page 4 of 9Now coming to the testimony of PW17 SI Umesh Barthwal and PW23 Inspector Lalit Mohan who accompanied the initial IO ACP Rajbir Singh during the investigation of the whole case.Neither from the testimony of PW17 nor from the testimony of PW 23, it is clear as to how accused Obaid-Ul-Ahad came into the picture.During the investigation of this case, according to PW17 and PW23 as well as in the report U/s 173 Cr.P.C. after thorough interrogation accused Mohd. Amin Khan and Vijay Kumar were set freed on 15.6.2005 by the police officials of Special Cell.In the report U/s.173 Cr.P.C., it is mentioned that on 16.6.2005, accused Obaid-Ul-Ahad came to the house of accused Mohd. Amin Khan to collect the consignment and he was also joined in the inquiry.Both PW17 and PW23 have failed to explain that if any notice was served upon the accused Obaid-Ul-Ahad and he joined the investigation, then where that notice was served.Both these witnesses have not stated how accused Obaid-Ul-Ahad was arrested, where and when he was called and on what basis he was called.They both have stated in parrot like manner that he was joined in the investigation.It is hard to believe that when one of the accused was already under interrogation by the police officials of P.S. Special Cell then other accused Obaid-Ul-Ahad himself would come in P.S. Special Cell and would join the investigation.If as per the charge sheet, accused Obaid-Ul-Ahad had come to the house of accused Mohd. Amin Khan, then neither PW17 nor PW23 have deposed that he was arrested from the house of accused Mohd. Amin Khan or was served any notice there to join the investigation.Though, the prosecution wanted the Court to believe that on 16.06.2005 after his disembarkment at IGI Airport, the Respondent reached the house of co-accused Mohd. Amin Khan.He (the Respondent) was served with a notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. at Mohd. Amin Khan's house to join the investigation on the same day.However, the prosecution did not produce any evidence to prove that the Respondent was found at the house of co-accused Mohd. Amin Khan or that he was served with the notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C.The other important piece of evidence against the Respondent was his alleged conversation with Sajjad Hussain Sheikh at Jeddah.The Trial Court found that there CLP 368/2010 Page 5 of 9 was just one phone call to the cell phone number of the Respondent from the alleged mobile number of Sajjad Hussain Sheikh for one second and there was no evidence that the calls on the landline telephone installed at the Respondent's residence could not have been attended by anyone else.It was further found that the Respondent's specimen voice S2 could not be said to have matched with the questioned conversation Q2 as PW-24 did not know Kashmiri (language) and he, like PW-20, had also admitted that an expert cannot compare the disputed and admitted speech unless he is aware of the language spoken in the conversation.The discussion and the finding of the Trial Court are extracted hereunder:-CLP 368/2010 Page 5 of 9"50.............. So far as the interception order dated 25.10.2006 Ex.PW22/D is concerned, then same pertains to the mobile numbers of accused Sajjad, Mohd. Amin Khan and of Vijay and this interception order was not for phone numbers of accused Obaid-Ul-Ahad.PW22/F proves on record that mobile number 9419061643 belong to accused Obaid-Ul-Ahad and the copy of bill of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited is duly proved on record as Ex.PW22/F. So far as Ex.So far as the Ex.PW22/J is concerned, then it depicts the call details of international mobile no.96551145725 for the period from 4.4.2005 to 14.6.2005 as Ex.PW22/J, but most of these call details shows that generally the calls have been made on the mobile of accused Mohd. Amin Khan.So far as the calls made on the land line number of accused Obaid-Ul- Ahad is concerned, then the mobile phone can be under the personal possession of one person but if the land line is installed at the house of a person, then any member of the family can receive the same and on the basis of this only no inference can be drawn that these calls were made to accused Obaid-Ul-Ahad in the absence of any corroborative evidence.Even Ex.PW22/K only proves the calls made by Sajjad on the mobile phone of Vijay on 15.6.2005 and 16.6.2005 which further fortifies the case of prosecution and corroborates the testimony of PW Vijay Kumar wherein he has stated that his mobile phone remained with accused Mohd. Amin Khan during the days 15.6.2005 and 16.6.2005.........XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX52......................So far as the accused Obaid-Ul-Ahad is concerned, then since no opinion could be given by PW20, therefore his voice sample as well as the questioned voice was sent to CFSL, Chandigarh and PW24 Dr. C.P.Singh is the witness of the same.It may be mentioned that PW24 submits that questioned CLP 368/2010 Page 6 of 9 cassette starts with the sentence "Uska Ticket Kar Dena" however the transcript of the cassette which were sent to CFSL, Chandigarh does not have these words.The entire transcript dated 16.6.2005 at 21.01 hrs.The transcripts of the call details of accused Mohd. Amin Khan and Sajjad for the dates 15.6.2005 and 16.6.2005 which took place about five times have been placed on record but it seems that between accused Mohd. Amin Khan and Sajjad and Obaid-Ul-Ahad there is only one transcript on record for conversation dated 16.6.2005 at 21:01 hrs.He has stated that "Uska Ticket Kar Dena" is the opening words of Q2 but the transcripts filed on record and sent to CFSL, Chandigarh does not have these words.Thus, so far as the voice sample is concerned, then prosecution has been able to prove that the recorded conversation between accused Mohd.CLP 368/2010 Page 7 of 9Amin Khan and Sajjad is of accused Mohd. Amin Khan but for accused Obaid-Ul-Ahad they have failed to prove the same."Once PW-20 Deepak Kumar Tanwar gave the findings that he was unable to compare the questioned conversation with the specimen voice (with the Respondent's specimen voice) as the same were in Kashmiri language, the IO was under an obligation to give specific instructions to CFSL Chandigarh that the comparison of the voices must be done by an expert who is aware of the Kashmiri language.That was, however, not done and PW-24 Dr. C.P. Singh who did not understand Kashmiri undertook the task of comparison of the conversation.To save himself from embarrassment, PW-24 stated that the questioned conversation Q2 and the specimen voice were in Hindi which is contrary to the prosecution case.In this view of the matter, the Trial Court rightly rejected the testimony of PW-24 Dr. C.P.Singh.Of course, there is a disclosure statement Ex.The leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
112,024,762 |
of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of : Julfikkar Sk. & Others.... Petitioners Mr. Rabiul Islam Mr. Indradeep Pal For the Petitioners Mr. Subrata Roy For the State Apprehending arrest in connection with Rejinagar Police Station Case No. 390 of 2011 dated 5.12.2011 under Sections 364/302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, this application for anticipatory bail has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.They have been falsely implicated.The date of incident was 30th November, 2011 whereas the F.I.R. has been filed on 5th December, 2012 which is nothing but an afterthought. 2Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Samapti Chatterjee, J. ) 3
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
111,777,878 |
By drawing presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act inserted in the Statute Book in 1983 presumption was drawn against the appellants that they had abetted the deceased to commit suicide and thus were guilty also under Section 306/34 of the Penal Code.It would be of relevance to note that both the deceased as well as the first appellant were/are Doctors by profession.364/1997 & 345/1997 Page 2 of 34It is the case of the prosecution, that on 23.08.1988 at about 2.30 p.m police received information on telephone that deceased Suman Narula was brought to the AIIMS in the state of un- conciousness.In this regard DD No.9A was recorded at PS Saraswati Vihar.SI Jagjit singh was then deputed for investigation who went to the hospital and collected MLC No.55817 whereby the deceased was declared brought dead'.The said SI then went to the house of the parents of the deceased in Nanakpura where the deceased had been residing at that time and met PW-2 Shri S.D. Malhotra, who made the following statement to the Police;In her marriage the complainant had given enough dowry in accordance with his status.From the date of the marriage, Rajiv, his father and mother started harassing his daughter saying that her parents had given less dowry.They also started giving beating to her.He further stated that they tortured her to such an extent that her daughter left her in-laws' house within one month of her marriage and came to him.In the meanwhile, his son had come to the house of Rajiv to inquire as to why they were harassing Suman.They have also taunted the parents of Suman as to what they have given in the marriage.They also told the parents of the deceased that they have been humiliated in the society.They also asked the parents of Suman to give fridge, to which the complainant told that he is not in a position to give the same.After that his daughter told him that they asked for the gold jewelleries.The Crl.364/1997 & 345/1997 Page 3 of 34 complainant further stated that Rajiv used to meet Suman in his office and used to demand fridge and gold jewelleries and used to tell Suman that he would keep her with love in case she brings these items.He immediately removed Suman to the AIIMS, where the doctor declared her brought dead.The complainant further stated to the police that after one month of the marriage of his dather-Suman, Rajiv and his parents used to demand costly items of golden jewellery and refrigerator and on her not bringing the same, they used to harass her.The complainant also stated to the police that from the writings of Suman, it is apparent that Rajiv has remarried.He has further stated that on account of harassment and mistreatment by her husband and her in-laws, Suman has committed suicide by taking some poisonous injection.The complainant has also handed over to the police syringe containing some medicine, rubber pipe and needle cover.364/1997 & 345/1997 Page 4 of 34364/1997 & 345/1997 Page 4 of 34Appellants have raised number of grounds to contend that the Judgment of conviction is liable to be set aside and that they are entitled to acquittal.However during the course of arguments they have confined their case only on the point that there was no evidence to hold that the appellants have abetted or instigated the deceased for committing suicide taking into consideration all the facts and surrounding circumstance of the case and as such, no presumption should have been drawn against them under Section 113A of the Evidence Act. In this regard, Shri K.K. Sud, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, has referred to a number of judgments including the judgment delivered in the case of Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda Vs.It is further argued that the evidence of Dr. Sunita Kalra, PW3, friend of the deceased is of no help to the prosecution as letter Mark A, stated to be received by her from accused-Rattan Lal Narula, has not been sent for comparison.Moreover, it is submitted that letter Mark A only bears the initials of accused-Rattan Lal and the prosecution has not been able to prove that the letter Mark A was sent by accused-Rattan Lal to Dr. Sunita Kalra in response to the matrimonial advertisement.Referring to the suicide note Ex. PW2/B, it is contended that even as per the suicide note, the cause of death is not harassment on account of inadequate dowry, but is apprehension in the mind of the deceased regarding second marriage of accused-Rajiv Narula.It has come in the evidence of this witness that accused-Rattan Lal had demanded Rs.7,000/- for purchase of Sony T.V. which was paid to him, but the witness had told accused- Rattan Lal that it was not in his capacity to give money for purchasing the clinic for the fridge.According to this witness, accused-Sunita had made a demand of 50 garden siffon sarees for the relatives, who had come on the chunni ceremony and five safari suits.Immediately after the marriage, all the accused persons had started maltreating and harassing Suman and taunted that she had come from a poor family and she has brought only a light weight gold set, whereas she should have been three gold sets as she has three brothers.This harassment and taunting continued for a months and Suman was fed up by the constant taunting to her Crl.364/1997 & 345/1997 Page 9 of 34 parents' house.On 3.1.1988, Suman had told her father that accused-Rajiv wanted her to bring heavy gold set, otherwise the accused persons would not keep her and when she along with her father went to the market to purchase the gold set, she broke into tears and told her father that her husband had obtained a writing from her that she was committing suicide and there is no need to purchase the gold set.On coming back to the house, Suman showed a draft affidavit on plain papers written in the hand-writing of accused-Rajiv and she further told that accused-Rajiv wanted her to copy this affidavit on stamp paper.The draft affidavit (on three sheet) is ex.PW2/A1, A2 and A3, which has been proved by an Expert to be in the handwriting of accused-Rajiv.364/1997 & 345/1997 Page 9 of 34It has further come in the evidence of S.D.Malhotra, PW2, that on 5.12.1987, he had his wife had gone to the house of the accused persons and had asked them why they had sent back Suman, and the accused persons stated that they do not want to talk on this matter anymore and accused-Rajiv told them that he would talk about it later on.Again on 17.1.1988, this witness along with his wife went to the accused persons and accused-Rattan Lal and Sunita told them that they have been insulted in their biradari as everybody was taunting them that they have married their only doctor son in a family of poor persons and they would like to have divorce.You humiliated me and you Crl.364/1997 & 345/1997 Page 25 of 34 tried to blackmail me.You wanted my parents to come to you with folded hands with lots and lots of precious things for you and your family.This judgment shall dispose of the aforesaid two appeals, filed by Rajiv Narula (hereinafter referred to as the first appellant) and by his Crl.364/1997 & 345/1997 Page 1 of 34The appellants have assailed the impugned judgment dated 6.9.1997 and the order of sentence dated 9.9.97 whereby the Additional Sessions Judge has convicted both of them under Section 498A/306/34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 5 years besides payment of fine of Rs. 2000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for 3 months under Section 306/34 IPC.Under Section 498A they have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years besides payment of fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for 2 months with benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. Both the appellants are on bail.According to them they have been falsely implicated in this case by the parents of the deceased as there is no evidence against them.While delivering the Judgment, the appellants and their father Rattan Lal Narula, who was also arrayed as an co-accused in this case, were acquitted under Section 304B IPC which was a charge framed in the alternative.Shri Rattan Lal Narula was also acquitted u/s 498A IPC.In this regard the trial Court held that the evidence of the prosecution was not sufficient to hold that the deceased was harrased for demand of dowry soon before her death.The deposition of PW-2 Shri S.D. Malhotra father of the deceased and who is also the complainant in this case, and that of PW-4 Smt. Santosh Malhotra, mother of the deceased, was not believed to that extent.However it Crl.364/1997 & 345/1997 Page 2 of 34 was held that the appellants certainly treated the deceased with mental cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.Suman also complained to her father that Rajiv had obtained a writing from her on the stamp paper by showing knife that she was having relations with one boy and it was because of all this that she was committing suicide.She further told her father that Rajiv used to keep the knife in the seat of the car.364/1997 & 345/1997 Page 3 of 34He also stated that on 23.08.1988, when he returned to his house after getting the chapattis from the Tandoor, Suman was not present in the house.He searched Suman here and there in the house but was not traceable.Suman was puzzled for the last 3-4 days and was not eating food.Then he went to the roof of the house and saw her lying there by the side of water tanki.In her left arm, one syringe was inserted and rubber pipe and needle cover were lying there nearby her.He was accompanied by his wife to the roof.When Suman was lifted, then syringe fell down.On the basis of this statement, a case under Section 498A/304B IPC was registered against the appellants and Shri Rattan Law Narula, father of the first appellant.All the three accused persons were arrested and after completion of the investigation, challan was sent to the court of concerned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, who in turn committed this case to the court of sessions, it being exclusively triable as such.All the accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them under Section 498A/304B/34 IPC.Alternative charge under Section 306/34 IPC was also framed against the accused persons to which also they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.To prove their case, prosecution examined 23 witnesses including PW2 Shri S.D. Malhotra, father of the deceased PW4 Smt. Santosh Malhotra, mother of the deceased, PW-6 A.K.Arora, Senior Scientific Officer CFSL PW-7 Dr. V.G.Dattar besides other witnesses, some of whom are formal, some are doctors and PW-21 Mr.T.R.Nehra, a handwriting expert, who proved the hand writing of the deceased on the suicide note and on various letters and handwriting of the first appellant on some of those documents which were handed over to the police by the father of the deceased.These letters and handwritings explains the reasons as to why the deceased committed suicide besides detailing the cruelty imposed upon her by the appellants.In view of that, the Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellants for the offences u/s 306/498A/34 IPC as aforesaid while acquitting them under Section 304B IPC.As stated above the father of the appellant was also acquitted for the offence under Section 498A IPC.The other Crl.364/1997 & 345/1997 Page 5 of 34 judgments cited by him are:-364/1997 & 345/1997 Page 5 of 34(iii) Ramesh Kumar Vs.(iv) State of West Bengal Vs.(vii) E. Balakrishnama Naidu Vs.State of Punjab, 1992 Suppl.(viii) Mehro W/o Tara Singh Vs.State of Punjab, 1992(2) CC Cases HC 27 (P.H.).(ix) Kishori Lal Vs.It has been argued that Section 113A of the Evidence Act has not diluted the onus of the prosecution to prove the abetment to commit suicide in accordance with the provisions contained under Section 107 IPC.It is submitted that for that purpose the prosecution was obliged to have led evidence to establish those facts beyond reasonable doubt.Additionally, the trial court was also required to have taken into consideration all the facts of the case before returning the findings that the appellants were guilty of Section 107 of the Penal Code, such as, separation of the deceased from the appellants for a period of more than eight months before the commission of suicide and just after one Crl.364/1997 & 345/1997 Page 6 of 34 month of the marriage and also the fact that she was a Doctor by profession and had been going to her Job till the day she committed suicide.It has also been urged that there is no evidence available on record to prove abetment as defined under Section 107 IPC against either of the appellants.Regarding this, the learned senior counsel has not contested the portion of the judgment convicting the appellants U/s 498A IPC subject to the condition that his clients are released with punishment already undergone by them.In this regard, he had also submitted that the second appellant is an old lady of 75 years and is suffering from various ailments and that the incident has occurred 20 years earlier.He has also cited the following Crl.364/1997 & 345/1997 Page 7 of 34 judgments on the quantum of sentence;P.P. further submits that as per the evidence of Dr. A.K. Tripathi, PW8, who couducted the post mortem on the dead body of Suman-deceased, the cause of death is methyl alcohol poisoning.It is also submitted that the legal presumption of dowry death under Section 113(B) of Evidence Act comes into operation and the same has not been refuted by the accused persons.Therefore, in the light of the evidence on record, offence under Section 304-B/498-A IPC is proved against all the accused persons.Lastly, it has been submitted by the learned Addl.P.P. that in any case, offence under Section 306/498-A read with Section 34 IPC stands proved against all the accused persons.364/1997 & 345/1997 Page 8 of 34After analyzing the entire evidence on record and upon consideration of the arguments advanced by the learned Addl.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel for the accused persons, I proceed to decide this case as under:-DEATH OF SUMAN WITHIN SEVEN YEARS OF HER MARRIAGE:-It is not in dispute that Suman-deceased was married to accused-Rajiv Narula on 22.11.1987 and she died on 23.8.1988....DOWRY DEATH/ABETMENT OF SUICIDE:In February, 1988, this witness again contacted the accused persons, but they put off the matter.Accused- Rajiv had been meeting Suman at her place of work and had been persisting her that it would better for her to commit suicide.A bare reading of pages Ex.PW2/E and F from the diary of Suman-deceased shows that she was subjected to mental cruelty by accused-Rajiv and her mother, accused-Sunita.It has come in the evidence that accused-Rajiv had been meeting Suman-deceased upto her death and the writings of the deceased Ex.Pw2/E and F speaks volume of mental torture and humiliation, which she suffered at the hands of accused-Rajiv and at behest of accused-Sunita.PW2/E and F has no where alleged anything against accused-Rattan Lal, which shows that she had no grievance against her father-in-law.Moreover, S.D. Malhotra, PW2 father of the deceased made improvement in his statement before this Court regarding the demand of money for purchase of clinic and demand of fridge and he has been duly confronted with his earlier statement made to the police, where there is no mention of such demand.In taking this view, Crl.364/1997 & 345/1997 Page 10 of 34 I am fortified by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Sharad Birdi Chand Vs.State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 wherein it has been held that in such like cases, near relations of the deceased have tendency to exaggerate and add facts, which may not have been stated to them at all.364/1997 & 345/1997 Page 10 of 34As a result, I give benefit of doubt to accused Rattan Lal Narula and acquit him of the charge framed against him under Section 498-A IPCLearned counsel for the accused persons has forcefully contended that to prove the charge under Section 304 B IPC, it is first to be proved that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relations in connection with any demand of dowry soon before her death and in the present case, Suman-deceased was subjected to such harassment and cruelty.It is pointed out that deceased-Suman was living at her parents' house at the time of her death.However, Learned Addl.P.P. has drawn my attention to the testimony of Dr. V.G. Dattar, PW7 to show that just one day before the death of Suman, accused Rajiv had met her and Dr. Dattar had overheard accused-Rajiv telling Suman that he was going to remarry and she should commit suicide.Upon perusal of the aforecited judgments, I find merit in the contentions of the learned counsel for the accused persons that the prosecution has to first show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demand soon before her death and that there is no evidence on record in the present case to show that Suman-deceased was subjected to cruelty on account of dowry demand soon before her death.Although, it has come on record in the form of evidence of Dr. V.C. Dattar, PW7 that accused- Rajiv had told Suman that she should commit suicide, but by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the suggestion to commit suicide was on account of dowry demand, because as per the evidence of Dr. V.C. Dattar, accused-Rajiv had told that he was going to remarry.This fact also finds corroboration from the suicide note Ex.PW2/B, which is addressed to accused- Rajiv.In this situation, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the essential ingredients that Suman deceased was subjected to cruelty on account of dowry demand soon before her death.Accordingly, I give benefit of doubt to accused- Rajiv Narula, Rattan Lal Nrula and Sunita Narula and acquit them of the charges framed against them under Section 304B/34 IPC.However, there is unimpeachable evidence in the form of suicide note Ex.PW2/B, writings of Suman- deceased, Ex.PW2/E and F, testimony of Dr. V.G. Dattar, Crl.However, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. accused Rajiv has tendered in evidence greeting cards, letter and photo copies of some documents Ex.DX-1 to DX-Neither in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. nor at the time of arguments, relevance of documents tendered at the time of recording statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has been explained.However, on perusal of the documents Ex.PW2/B is corroborated by the evidence of parents of the deceased, who have stated before this Court that when they went to meet the accused-Rajiv and his parents, they were told that the accused persons have been insulted in their biradari as every body was taunting that the accused have married only doctor son in a poor family and they would like to have a divorce.Dr. Sunita Kalra, PW3, friend of the deceased, has also deposed that in second week of March, 1988, in response to her matrimonial advertisement, she received letter from accused- Rattan Lal, stating that his doctor son was married three months before and marriage was nullified immediately and on the letter, the address of Janak Puri was given which was matching with the address of in-laws of Suman and she concluded that this letter was sent by the in-laws of Suman.Thus, the Additional Sessions Judge held that the deceased was treated with cruelty though the cruelty was not on account of dowry demand soon before her death.Relying upon the suicide note Ex.PW2/B, statement made by PW-3 & PW-7 V.G.Dattar and other writings which Crl.364/1997 & 345/1997 Page 12 of 34 came on record in the form of the extract from the diary maintained by the deceased i.e. Ex.The Additional Sessions Judge has also noted the conduct of the appellants who have not rebutted the allegations made by the deceased in the suicide note and her writings against them.He also observed that the appellants were not even able to rebut the evidence led by PW-3 regarding efforts made by the father of the first appellant to marry his son for the second time despite existence of his marriage with the deceased.However they have still not examined him in this regard as a defence witness.364/1997 & 345/1997 Page 12 of 34Now we shall examine Ext. 32 which is a letter dated 8.6.82 written by Manju to her sister Anju.These allegations have been made at the trial for the first time.In the aforesaid letter Ex.PW2/E she also mentions:-364/1997 & 345/1997 Page 25 of 34After all these things when you saw that my parents are not giving up and not fulfilling you demands then you thought its just useless to keep me at your place.You sent me to my parents place.I had to come here alone.Just after 1 month of my marriage.You didn't even drop me here.You didn't even care to knew whether I have kept enough dresses with me or not.You didn't care for my emotions.You deliberately said those sentences again and again which you knew had pricked deep into my heart.You never came to see me.If you thought I was a very bad person, that I couldn't satisfy your demands, then would have gone to the court (instead of humiliating me, hurting my ego) for divorce.Ex. PW2/F mentions about the dilemma which had been caused by the first appellant and also talks about the instances that the deceased was instigated to commit suicide.In this letter, she writes:Rajiv, I didn't want to commit suicide.You got those statements written on a piece of paper forcible by me.You exploited me blackmail me.And then you told me very casually the ways to commit suicide you always felt that you can buy anything by money.You employed detectives against me.How can a husband be so cruel to ones wife.Your mother oh how can a women be so much against another woman.She filled your ears against me.I always wanted to respect you all but what have you given me in return humiliations and humiliations there's a limit of everything.Kisi ki khusian cheen kar tum aise rehte hoo jaise ki kuch hua hi nahin.The deceased could have probably lived with harassment but she could not bear the fact that the first appellant contracted second marriage as is apparent from the document Ex.PW2/B i.e. the suicide note, which reads as under:Since she and her mother and brother were not able to meet this demand she was subjected to considerable torture.However a condition was imposed on appellant to deposit the fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to serve out remaining part of his sentence.364/1997 & 345/1997 Page 33 of 34With these observations the appeals are partly allowed.TCR be sent back forthwith along with a copy of this judgment to the trial court.MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
111,781,115 |
Respondent No.1 herein are the original complainants who havefiled separate complaints against the Petitioners in the Court of Chief JudicialMagistrate, Nashik.It is submitted across the bar that the facts involved in allthe above Writ Petitions are similar.Therefore the Petitioners who are seeking discharge have to point out beforethe Court that there is no ground to frame charge against them and thematerial produced by the complainants is not sufficient to rope the Petitionersinto the case.Therefore the Petitioners have filed application before thelearned Magistrate for discharge on the ground that Accused No.5 has givenundertaking to the complainants that he has accepted the money from thecomplainants and utilized the same for his personal use, and therefore, in viewof the said undertaking given by Accused No.5, Petitioner No.1 Company andits office bearers need to be absolved from the responsibility of the amount ofcomplainants.::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2019 02:31:05 :::12 A question that is posed by way of the above Writ Petitions beforethis Court is, whether the Petitioners are entitled for discharge, firstly on theground that at the time of alleged incident Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were notoffice bearers of Petitioner No.1 Company and therefore they cannot be heldresponsible for the activity of the company, and secondly, whether AccusedNos.1 to 4 can be held equally liable for the alleged offence oflgc 13 of 23 ::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2019 02:31:05 ::: wp-845.04&ors.odtmisappropriation of amount and cheating committed by Accused No.5.13 In the context of the aforesaid question, it is necessary to revisitthe facts of the case.It appears that Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 werethe chairman and director of Petitioner No.1 company when the process ofdepositing the money under the said Scheme run by Petitioner No.1, wasstarted.As indicated herein above, the fact that Accused No.5 was appointedby Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 as the Branch Manager of Petitioner No.1, and thework assigned to Accused No.5 was to solicit and promote the deposits schemeconducted by Petitioner No.1 Company, was not disputed by the Petitioners.ALONG WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.846 OF 20041] Manipal Soubhagya Nidhi Ltd. ] Manipal House, Manipal-576 119, ] State of Karnataka. ] ]2] Shri K. K. Pai, aged about 83 years ] Manipal House, Manipal, ] Karnataka ] ]3] Mr. T. Narayan Pai, ] aged about 64 years, ] Manipal House, Manipal ] Karnataka. ]..... Petitioners.::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2019 02:31:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2019 02:31:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2019 02:31:05 :::Mr. M K Kocharekar for the Petitioners in all the Petitions.A R Patil, APP for the Respondent/State.Reserved on : 18th June 2019 Pronounced on : 10th October 2019COMMON JUDGMENT :1 The above group of Petitions have been filed by the Petitioners,who are original Accused Nos.1 to 3, challenging the order of issuance ofprocess dated 17/12/1999, order dated 11/09/2001 rejecting their dischargeapplications and, the order dated 17/01/2003 dismissing their RevisionApplications.In all the Writ Petitions the Petitioners aresame and, Respondent No.1 - original complainants are different who havefiled separate Criminal Complaints against the Petitioners.Respondent No.1 -original complainants have filed separate Criminal Complaints against thePetitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 405, 406, 419, 420,425, 426 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Therefore, by consent of thelearned counsel for the parties, all the Writ Petitions are heard together andbeing disposed of by this common judgment, and Writ Petition No.845 of 2004is treated a s a lead matter.::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2019 02:31:05 :::2 This Court (Coram : A S Aguiar, J) by order dated 03/09/2004 hasalready issued Rule in all the Writ Petitions.3 All the Writ Petitions take an exception to the order of issuance ofprocess dated 17/12/1999 passed by the learned Magistrate, 3 rd Court, Nashikin the aforesaid criminal cases and, the order dated 17/12/2003 passed by thelearned IInd Ad-hoc Addl.District Judge, Nashik in the Revision Applicationsfiled by the Petitioners against the order dated 11/09/2001 passed by 5 th Jt.Civil Judge, Junior Division & JMFC Nashik rejecting their dischargeapplications.4 The facts giving rise to filing of Writ Petitions, can in brief, bestated as under :-The Complainants are employed with M/s. Polymer Products,Satpur, Nashik.The Petitioners are arraigned as Accused Nos. 1 to 3 alonglgc 5 of 23 ::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2019 02:31:05 ::: wp-845.04&ors.odtwith other accused in the Criminal Cases filed by the Complainants.Petitioner No.1 is a public limitedcompany.Petitioner No.1 Company is conducting and running various types ofdeposit schemes while Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were the Chairman andManaging Director of Petitioner No.1 Company respectively.It is alleged in theComplaints that the whole affairs of Petitioner No.1 company are controlled,supervised and regulated by Petitioner Nos.2, as also the appointments,terminations, settlements and other police decisions are taken by the PetitionerNos.2 and 3 for and on behalf of Petitioner No.1 company.Original AccusedNo.4 is the present Branch Manager who is looking after the business activitiesand all other financial activities of Nashik Branch of Petitioner No.1 Company.Thecomplainants learnt that the proprietor of M/s. Polymer Products have alsoinvested and deposited huge amount with Accused No.1 Company.It is allegedby the complainants that original accused No.5 used to visit their premises forsoliciting and promoting deposit scheme of Accused No.1 Company.Thecomplainants deposited an amount of Rs.19,000/- each by cash with accusedNo.5 for fixed deposit in Sowbhagya Nidhi Cash Certificate Scheme.AccusedNo.5 after receiving the cash issued acknowledgment receipt of Rs.19,000/-,lgc 6 of 23 ::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2019 02:31:05 ::: wp-845.04&ors.odtand assured that the original certificates will be issued after receipt of the samefrom the Head Office.The complainants thereafter continuously followed upthe matter with Accused No.5, however, on every occasion Accused No.5 hasgiven some excuses.In the month of March 1998, Accused No.5 in thecapacity of Branch Manager of Accused No.1 Company, has given in writingthat he has received Rs.95,000/- in total from the complainants, however, hehas failed to deposit the said amount in the books of account of the Company.Thereafter on 16/03/1998 the Complainants issued letter to Accused No.1Company.In spite of the said letter, Accused No.1 Company neither initiatedaction against Accused No.5 nor did it issued certificates to the complainants.Even Accused No.1 Company did not reply the letters, reminders, fax,messages sent by the complainants.Thereafter on 02/04/1999 thecomplainants issued legal notice to all the Accused.According to thecomplainants, it was the duty of Accused Nos.1 to 4 to verify the records of theCompany and issue certificates to the complainants and to recover the amountfrom Accused No.5 who has falsely misappropriated the amounts and cheatedthe complainants.Therefore the Complainants have filed theCriminal Complaints against all the accused for the offences punishable underSections 403, 405, 406, 419, 420, 425 and 426 r/w 34 of the Indian PenalCode.::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2019 02:31:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2019 02:31:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2019 02:31:05 :::5 It appears that on the basis of the allegations made in theaforesaid complaints and after recording statements of complainants, thelearned Magistrate by order dated 17/12/1999 issued a process against thePetitioners and other Accused.The Revision Applications filed against the saidorder came to be dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Nashik, by order dated14/09/2000 and confirmed the order of issuance of process against theAccused.::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2019 02:31:05 :::Section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking discharge before thelearned Magistrate.Accused No.5, by letter dated 07/02/2001 addressed to the Complainants,admitted that Accused No.5 utilized the said amount for his personal purposeand requested time to refund the amounts.According to the Petitioners, by thesaid letter Accused No.5 has admitted his guilt.It is stated that thecomplainant did not make out a prima facie case against the Petitioners.Therefore Petitioners prayed for their discharge from the offences.7 The learned Magistrate after hearing the learned counsel for theparties and perusing the material on record, found that all the Accused areliable for the affairs of the Company, and prima facie case is made out againstAccused Nos. 1 to 3 i.e. the Petitioners herein.The learned Magistrate,therefore, by order dated 11/09/2001 rejected the discharge applications ofthe Petitioners.8 The Petitioners, being aggrieved by the order dated 11/09/2001passed by the learned Magistrate, preferred Revision Applications before theCourt of 2nd Ad-hoc Additional District & Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik.::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2019 02:31:05 :::The learned Additional Sessions Judge, by order dated 17/01/2003 dismissedthe Revision Applications of the Petitioners.Hence these Petitions.9 Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned APPfor the Respondent/State.The learned counsel for the Petitioners submits thatthe charge against the Petitioner is groundless and the material produced bythe complainants discloses that the Petitioners are unnecessarily roped into thecase.He submits that, Accused No.5, by letter dated 07/02/2001 addressed tothe complainants, has admitted to have accepted the money from thecomplainants and utilized the said amount for his personal use, and he hasgiven undertaking to that effect.It is submitted that the said undertakinggiven by Accused No.5 absolves Accused No.1 Company and its office bearersfrom any responsibility about the money of the complainants.It is furthersubmitted that Petitioner Nos.2 and 3, being the office bearers of Accused No.1Company, cannot be held responsible for the activity when they were not theoffice bearers of the company at the relevant time.It is also submitted that thePetitioners nowhere connected for the alleged offences and no role isattributed to them.Petitioner No.2 has resigned on 25/06/1998 from theChairmanship of Accused No.1 Company and, in the year 1999 thecomplainants have filed the complaints.The reply sent to the legal notice dated03/04/1999, the Petitioners informed the complainants that Petitioner Nos.2and 3 are no more chairman or director of Accused No.1 company, and,lgc 10 of 23 ::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2019 02:31:05 ::: wp-845.04&ors.odtAccused No.5 has not deposited any amount collected from the complainantswith the Accused No.1 company.He therefore prays that the writ petitionsmay be rejected.::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2019 02:31:05 :::(2) The Magistrate may, on the application of the prosecution, issue a summons to any of its witnesses directing him to attend or to produce any document or other thing.When accused shall be discharged.(1) If, upon taking all the evidence referred to in section 244, the Magistrate considers, for reasons to be recorded, that no case against the accused has been made out which, if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction, the Magistrate shall discharge him.Considering the aforesaid provision, the stage of discharge comes after theprosecution leads evidence on the complaint filed against the accused.Itis also not in dispute that Accused No.5 in the capacity of Branch Managercollected amount of Rs.19,000/- from each of the five Complainants i.e. totalamount of Rs.95,000/- as and by way of fixed deposit in Sowbhagya NidhiCash Certificate Scheme.Accused No.5 also passed and acknowledge thereceipt of Rs.19,000/- in favour of the complainants.However, Accused No.5did not issue the certificates on the pretext that the said certificates will beissued after receipt of the same from the Head Office of Petitioner No.1Company.Accused No.5 gave in writing that in the capacity of the BranchManager of Petitioner No.1 Company he has received Rs.95,000/- from theComplainants and he has failed to deposit the said amount in the cash book oflgc 14 of 23 ::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2019 02:31:05 ::: wp-845.04&ors.odtthe Petitioner No.1 Company.Thereafter complainants sent reminders andlegal notice to all the Accused.The complainants also requested Accused Nos.1to 4 to verify the records of the company and issue certificates.Accused No.5being an employee of Petitioner No.1, the complainants also requested thePetitioners to take action against him for his wrongful acts done during thecourse of his employment.It is clear from theaverments of the complaints that the amount handed over to Accused No.5 bythe complainants not in his personal capacity but as an employee of PetitionerNo.1 Company.It can be said that the undertaking given by Accused No.5 hasbeen given on behalf of Petitioner No.1 and its office bearers in the capacity ofits employee, and not in his personal capacity, and therefore, Petitioner No.1and its officer bearers cannot be absolved from penal liability because AccusedNo.5 collected the amount in the name of Company.The learned Additional Sessions Judge hasrightly come to a conclusion that the allegations against the accused companyand its office bearers cannot be said to be groundless, and therefore, theundertaking given by Accused No.5 is required to be tested on basis ofevidence that has to be produced during trial to find out its evidentiary value.The learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly recorded the finding that atthis stage it cannot be said that Accused Nos. 1 to 3 are not concerned with theactivity of Accused No.1 in view of the said undertaking.14 Now coming to the next submission of the learned counsel for thePetitioners that Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were not the office bearers of PetitionerNo.1 Company and therefore they cannot be held responsible for the activity ofthe company.The complainants have specifically alleged that Petitioner Nos.2and 3 i.e. original Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were made party to the complaints inthe capacity of Chairman and Managing Director of the company respectively.Accused Nos.4 and 5 were made party in the capacity of Branch Manager andEx-Branch manager respectively of Manipal Finance corporation Limited.The learned AdditionalSessions Judge therefore did not deem it appropriate to interfere with theorder passed by the learned JMFC and accordingly dismissed the Revision filedby the Petitioners.::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2019 02:31:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2019 02:31:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2019 02:31:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2019 02:31:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2019 02:31:05 :::15 A useful reference could be made to the recent judgment of theSupreme Court in the matter of Sau Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar 2 wherein theSupreme Court has taken a view that quashing the criminal proceedings iscalled for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence, oris frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive.Paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 9 of the said2 AIR 2019 SC 847lgc 18 of 23 ::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2019 02:31:05 ::: wp-845.04&ors.odtJudgment are relevant and the same are reproduced herein under for the sakeof ready reference :-::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2019 02:31:05 :::
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
111,785,088 |
Prosecution story in short is that on 01/07/1999 at about 6.00 am when complainant-Gangabai was alone in her house at that time appellants Ranchhod, Rama, Mohan and Gangaram armed with latti, dariya, iron rod and gupti entered into her house, knocked her down and shut her mouth.When complainant tried to escape then appellants Gangaram assaulted Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 29/02/2020 14:38:40 Cr.A. No.261/2002 2 her with gupti as a result she sustained injury on her leg.Other accused persons also started assaulting Gangabai with their weapons and caused injuries to her.Complainant's daughter who was present there witnessed the incident and her aunt-in-law (mousi saas) came there and rescued her.Gangabai narrated the incident to the watchman and Sarpanch of the village.Thereafter, she along with the watchman went to Police Station Deplapur and lodged a complaint.(Passed on 29/02/2020) This criminal appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "The Code") is directed against the judgment dated 22/01/2002 passed by Ninth Additional Sessions, District-Indore, in Sessions Trial No.01/2000, whereby each of the appellants has been convicted for offence punishable under Sections 324 of IPC, 1860 and sentenced to undergo 2 years R.I, with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and usual default stipulation.Injured Gangabai was sent for medical examination.Cr.A. No.261/2002 2During investigation Police visited the spot, prepared spot map and recorded the statement of the witnesses.The appellants were arrested.Complainant in her statement has deposed that the appellants committed rape upon her therefore, offence under Section 147, 148, 149 and 376 of IPC has been added.The appellants were sent for medical treatment.After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellants for offence under Section 147, 148, 324/149, 354, 376(2)(g) and 506-II of IPC before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, District Indore, who committed the case to the Sessions Court and ultimately it was transferred to the Court of Ninth Additional Sessions Judge, Indore.Appellants abjured their guilt and took a plea that they have been falsely implicated in the present case.However, they have not examined any witnesses in their defence.Trial Court, after considering the submissions advance by the learned counsel for the parties and scrutinizing the entire evidence on record, acquitted the appellants for offence under Sections 147, 148, 354, 376(2)(g) and 506-II of IPC, 1860, Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 29/02/2020 14:38:40 Cr.A. No.261/2002 3 however, convicted them for offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC, 1860 and sentenced to undergo 2 years R.I, with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and usual default stipulation.Cr.A. No.261/2002 3It is also submitted that having regard to all circumstances which resulted in appellants' conviction and further keeping in view the fact that the appellants were facing the trial for more than 20 years, appellant No.1-Ranchhod has already served more than 7 months of his jail sentence whereas appellant No.2-Rama, appellant No.3-Mohan and appellant No.4-Gangaram have served approximately 6 months of their jail sentence, respectively, therefore the term of imprisonment be reduced suitably and the fine amount may be enhanced.On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the appeal and argued that guilt of the appellants have been proved beyond reasonable doubt by overwhelming evidence, therefore, he prayed that the appeal of the accused/appellants be dismissed and judgment passed by the trial court be confirmed.08. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of entire record of the case.Appellant-Ranchhod was again in custody since 26/12/2019 and he has approximately completed 8 months period in jail.The appellants did not have any criminal background and they have not been involved in any crime.Cr.A. No.261/2002 5Appellant No.1- Ranchhod is in jail, he be released subject to depositing the enhanced fine amount.Appellant No.2 to 4 Rama, Mohan and Gangaram are in bail, their bail bonds are discharged, they are directed to deposit the enhanced fine amount before the trial Court within a period of 30 days from today.Registry is directed to make arrangements for issuance of suppression warrant against appellants.A copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court along with record for information and compliance.With the aforesaid modifications the criminal appeal No.261/2002 stands partly allowed and disposed of.Certified copy as per Rules.(S. K. AWASTHI) JUDGE sumathi Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 29/02/2020
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 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', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
111,787,477 |
Heard Sri Raza Ullah Khan, learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA and perused the record.Contention raised at the Bar that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case.It has been further submitted that the FIR has been lodged by father of the victim against Mohsin, Titu alias Javed Khan, Aslam Khan, Smt. Hazra Bano, Shamshul, Mahmood Khan, Akram and Guddu Khan, out of whom Mohsin Khan, has been claimed to be the prime accused.The instant FIR was initially registered as Case Crime No. 157 of 2011, under sections 363, 366 and 120-B IPC.The present applicants, who are four in numbers, were admitted on bail vide orders dated 26.07.2011 and 21.07.2011 passed in Criminal Misc.Bail Application Nos. 18742 of 2011 and 18447 of 2011 passed by coordinate Bench of this Court.Both the aforesaid bail applications were filed by the applicants under sections 363, 366 and 120-B IPC, P.s.Nigohi, District Shahjahanpur.Next contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicants was that later on section 376 IPC has been slapped against the applicants and for the purpose of bail in the aforesaid section also, they have filed the instant bail application.He argued that in fact there is without mentioning substantial material in the form of evidence against the applicants, the concerned police has added section 376 IPC against the applicants and filed the charge sheet in the aforesaid section also, which is bad in law.This Court, after carefully perusing the material evidence on record, has reached to the conclusion that the claimed victim in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. has candidly conceded that she established physical relationship with Mohsin (who has been made prime accused of the case) and joined his company, visited number of places, stayed in hotel with him at Bareilly for a week, without raising any alarm/resistance.The aforesaid statement of the claimed victim is a mirror to establish that no substantial evidence was available against the applicants but the police is trying to crucify them tagging them for the offence under section 376 IPC also.It was lastly urged that the applicants are in jail since 27.08.2019 without any criminal antecedent to their credit.Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicants.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
111,790,727 |
On 8th August, 2014, petitioners and the complainant have entered into a compromise; the terms of which has been reduced into writing, copy whereof is also annexed with this petition, whereby, the petitioners have agreed to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant.Out of this amount complainant is stated to have already paid a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- and the remaining amount of Rs.60,000/- has been handed over to the complainant in the court today by way of bankers cheque bearing No.252358 dated 16th September, 2014 drawn on Bank of Baroda, which amount is to be kept in a fixed deposit for the benefit of her minor son, namely, master Krish.The complainant, who is present in person, approbates the aforesaid settlement with the receipt of the said amount of Rs.60,000/- She also undertakes to keep the said amount of Rs.60,000/- in FDR CRL.M.C. 3839/2014 Page 2 of 8 for the benefit of the minor son as agreed.Through: Ms. Nishi Jain, APP for the State with ASI Jai Parkash, PS Badli and SI Santosh Kumar, PS Alipur.Mr. Arun Gaur, Advocate for R-2 with R-2 in person.HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA % SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(Oral) This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 132/2009 under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Samaipur Badli on 17th June, 2009 on the ground that the parties have amicably settled the matter.Issue notice.Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr. Arun Gaur, Advocate enter appearance and accept notice on behalf of the State and respondent No.2/complainant, respectively.Petitioner as well as complainant/respondent No.2 are present in person, and are identified by IO/ ASI Jai Parkash, Police Station CRL.M.C. 3839/2014 Page 1 of 8 Badli.CRL.M.C. 3839/2014 Page 1 of 8Before the death of husband of the complainant, both the parties had obtained divorce by mutual consent under Section 13 B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in H.M.A. No. 95/2012 on 24th February, 2014, whereby the marriage between the parties was dissolved.A copy of the judgment dated 24th February, 2012 has been annexed with this petition.If the parties ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law, in order to do complete justice in the matrimonial matters, the courts should be less hesitant in exercising their extraordinary jurisdiction.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 CRL.M.C. 3839/2014 Page 7 of 8 of process of court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed...."CRL.M.C. 3839/2014 Page 7 of 8I am of the opinion that this matter deserves to be given a quietus since the parties have resolved their differences and have decided to live together; and since the complainant is no longer interested in supporting the prosecution, the chances of success in the matter are now greatly diminished.Consequently, FIR No. 132/2009 under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Samaipur Badli on 17th June, 2009 and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.The petition is disposed off.SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J SEPTEMBER 24, 2014/AK CRL.M.C. 3839/2014 Page 8 of 8
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,117,926 |
The Appellant/Accused is directed to be released forthwith if his custody is not required in any other case.vks/pbToThe District & Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai.2. - Do through the Principal Disit.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by C. NAGAPPAN, J.) Appellant Velu is the sole accused in Sessions Case No.123 of 2003 on the file of District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai and he has preferred this appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on him by judgment dated 26.7.2006 in the case.For the sake of convenience, in this Judgment, the appellant will be referred to as accused.2. Charges under Sections 366, 376(1) and 302 IPC were framed against the accused.The learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 376 (1) IPC and convicted and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and convicted him for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and at the same time found the accused not guilty of the charge under Section 366 IPC and acquitted him of the said charge.The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the testimonies of P.W.4 Santhi, P.W.5 Vijayalakshmi and P.W.6 Sakthivel are not trustworthy and the body was found out only on 24.10.2001 and thereafter, P.W.2 Arumugham, father of Vennila, lodged the complaint and there is a long gap and possibility of other persons coming in between exists and the accused cannot be held liable for the offence of having caused the death.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that P.W.4 Santhi and P.W.5 Vijayalakshmi are the schoolmates of deceased Vennila and they had seen Vennila coming with accused Velu in the bi-cycle and Vennila had taken the school bag of P.W.4 Santhi in order to help her to board the crowded bus and that bag has been recovered near the dead body of Vennila and their testimonies are natural and convincing and P.W.6 Sakthivel is also an independent witness and his testimony is also credible and thus, there is positive evidence to conclude that the deceased was last seen along with accused Velu.It is true that P.W.4 Santhi and P.W.5 Vijayalakshmi being schoolmates of deceased Vennila had every chance to meet Vennila in the bus stop while going to school.Their testimonies that when they were in the bus stop, Vennila came along with accused Velu in his bi-cycle and she asked P.W.4 Santhi to give her school bag for being carried in the bi-cycle and obtained the same and went away in the bi-cycle of accused Velu and their further testimonies that they saw accused Velu going into Edhumedu Forest Area along with Vennila when the bus halted in Edhumedu bus stop, appear to be natural and convincing.In the same way, the testimony of P.W.6 Sakthivel that he saw accused Velu carrying Vennila in his bi-cycle in the morning on the occurrence day is also infusing confidence since he is an independent witness.P1 Statement and P.W.1 V.A.O. Vediappan prepared Ex.P2 Report and took P.W.2 Arumugham along with him to Melsengam Police Station to lodge the complaint.The body of Vennila had been recovered after five days after the date on which deceased Vennila was last seen in the company of accused Velu.In the light of the evidence available on record, can it be said that the circumstances of last seen together by itself and necessarily lead to the inference that it was the appellant who committed the crime? The High Court took the view that Accused 6 and 7 are entitled to the benefit of doubt though, PW 10 stated in her evidence that the appellant, Accused 6 and 7 took her son Yankanna on the fateful day.No motive was shown with regard to Accused 6 and 7 for their involvement in the crime.It is under those circumstances, the High Court said that the burden shifts to the appellant to show as to what happened to the deceased Yankanna.In our considered opinion, the High Court committed serious error in arriving at such conclusion.The first information report lodged by PW 10 itself is highly doubtful.In the present case also, there is nothing on record to show as to what had happened between 19.10.2001 and 24.10.2001 and even if the testimonies of P.W.4 Santhi, P.W.5 Vijayalakshmi and P.W.6 Sakthivel are to be accepted, there is no proximity of time.Further, mere non-explanation on the part of accused Velu in his statement under S.313 CrPC by itself cannot lead to proof of guilt against him.The next circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the information furnished by accused Velu in his confession statement leading to recovery of school bags of deceased Vennila and P.W.4 Santhi and the bi-cycle.The Investigation Officer P.W.19 Thangaraj has testified that he arrested accused Velu on 25.10.2001 near Melsengam Central and State Farm bus stop and enquired him in the presence of PW.1 V.A.O. Vediappan and another and recorded the confession statement, containing Ex.P3 the admissible portion, given by him and accused Velu took them to the occurrence place and took and produced from a bush nearby M.O.1 Bag belonging to the deceased Vennila containing M.O.2-series Books and Notebooks; M.O.5-series Pen and Pencil and M.O.3 Bag belonging to PW.4 Santhi containing M.O.4-series Books and Notebooks and he recovered the same under Ex.P.W.14 Narayanan has testified about the information given by accused Velu leading to recovery of M.O.11 bi-cycle from his house.The learned counsel for the appellant relying on the testimony of P.W.14 Narayanan submits that the arrest claimed by the Investigation Officer is false.P.W.14 Narayanan in his cross-examination has stated that when accused Velu gave the confession statement, the body of Vennila was lying in the occurrence place.Indisputably, the post-mortem on the body was conducted on 24.10.2001 itself and the body was cremated on the same day.The arrest is said to have been made on 25.10.2001 and on that day, the body of Vennila was not available.Further, it cannot be said that M.Os.1 to 5-series came to be recovered only on the information given by accused Velu in his statement.P.W.2 Arumugham, father of deceased Vennila, in his testimony has stated that on being informed about the lying of body of Vennila by P.W.9 Ramasamy, he along with 100 villagers went to the occurrence place and found the decomposed body of his daughter Vennila and he saw the clothes; school bags and books near the dead body.In view of the above testimony of P.W.2 Arumugham, it cannot be said that the recovery was made only on the information furnished by accused Velu.The next question is whether deceased Vennila died of homicidal violence.According to P.W.12 Dr. Kasthuri, the body was highly decomposed and facial muscles, neck muscles, thigh muscles, external genitalia, anus were not found and only skull facial bones, neck mouth ribs and upper part of chest were found.The post-mortem doctor has stated that since the body is highly decomposed and most of the parts are not found in the body, she is not able to give opinion as to cause of death and according to her, the death could have occurred 5-6 days prior to post-mortem.P8 is the Post-Mortem Certificate issued by her.In view of the above medical evidence, it is not possible to conclude that it is a homicidal death.The skull was sent for Superimposition test and according to P.W.13 Ravishankar, Scientific Assistant of Forensic Sciences Department, the skull was oriented in accordance with the posture of the face in the photograph and superimposition test was conducted and the opinion given was that the skull could very well have belonged to the female individual seen in the photograph.P17 is the Report in this regard.The learned counsel for the appellant relying on the testimony of the post-mortem doctor submits that M.O.14 Skull could not be that of deceased Vennila.The post-mortem doctor, P.W.12 Dr. Kasthuri, in the cross-examination has stated that she opened the skull at the time of autopsy with hammer and knife and it was not re-fixed and whereas M.O.14 Skull appears to be a natural skull without any breaking and it does not appear to be a re-fixed one.The above testimony of the post-mortem doctor raises a doubt as to whether M.O.14 Skull is that of Vennila.For the above said reasons, we hold that the circumstances let in by the prosecution are not proved and as such, deceased Vennila, who died in suspicious circumstances, even if held that she died due to homicidal violence, accused Velu cannot be held liable for the death as the prosecution failed to establish its case.The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court are liable to be set aside.In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellant/Accused in Sessions Case No.123 of 2003 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai, are set aside and the Appellant/Accused is acquitted of all the charges and the fine amount paid, if any, is to be refunded to him.& Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai.The Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison, Vellore.The Inspector of Police, Melchengam Police Station, Melchengam, Thiruvannamalai district.The District Collector, Thiruvannamalai.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court, Madras 104
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,117,933 |
This is the third application for regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of applicant.First application was dismissed on 05.08.2015 and the second application for regular bail was dismissed on 01.09.2015 as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh application.The applicant is in custody since 26.06.2015 in connection with Crime No.273/2014 registered at Police Station Porsa district Morena (M.P.), for the offences under Sections 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act & 420, 468, 470, 471 of IPC.It is alleged that the applicant was in possession of 405 bulk liters of illicit liquor which was being transported with the help of four other accused persons.When the applicant was apprehended he produced certain documents showing that the possession of liquor is legal.However, the documents were found to be forged.Co-accused Ajay Singh was 2 M.Cr.C.No.9909/2015 granted regular bail.Charge-sheet has been filed.Therefore, he prayed for grant of regular bail.2 M.Cr.On behalf of the State the application is opposed on the ground that three crimes have been registered against the applicant in Crime No.306/2008 registered under Section 34 (2) of Excise Act, Crime No.307/2008 registered under Section 25/27 of Arms Act and Crime No.195/2010 registered under Sections 323, 294 and 506 of IPC.Keeping in view the above circumstances and the fact that the applicant has been in custody since 26.06.2015, investigation is complete, the applicant is not required for the purpose of investigation, application for regular bail is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One lac only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial 3 M.Cr.C.No.9909/2015 Court for securing his presence before the said Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial.3 M.Cr.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant:-Applicant will help in the progress of the Trial.Applicant will not indulge in any similar offence during the course of Trial.If at all the applicant is found to breach any of the above conditions, the learned Trial Court would be at liberty to reconsider on the question of bail.Certified copy as per rules.
|
['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.
|
111,795,094 |
This is the first bail application under section 439 of Cr.P.C for an offence under Sections 420, 120-B of IPC and under Section 66-C, D of the IT Act in connection with Crime No. 106/2017 registered at Police Station Vindhyanagar District Singrauli.The applicant is in judicial custody since 09-06-2017 in the aforesaid case.The allegations against him is that he used the ATM card of the complainant and withdrew Rs. 25,000/- from his the account.The applicant has also been identified in the TIP.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he is ready to return back the alleged sum taken by him to the complainant.Be that as it may, looking at the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to allow the application and direct that the applicant herein be enlarged on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- ( Rupees Fifty Thousand ) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court subject to the applicant's herein depositing Rs. 25,000/- before the learned trial court and upon the said amount so deposited by the applicant, the learned trial court shall release the money in favour of the complainant and take a receipt for the same.C.C as per rules.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
16,198,846 |
The petitioners say that a dispute with another person selling "phuchka" has led to the complaint.The de facto complainant is also represented and says that it will be evident from the complaint that the petitioners attacked the complainant with a bottle to cause a serious injury on his head.The State produces the case diary and refers to the statement of a witness.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.Certified copies of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
161,993,919 |
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner to call for the records in the proceedings in FIR in Crime No.493 of 2018 on the file of the 1st Respondent Police, and quash the same.2.The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.493 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(i) IPC on the file of the respondent police.4.Considering the above facts and circumstances, the 1st respondent police is hereby directed to conduct enquiry of both F.I.Rs by following police standing orders under Section 588(a) and complete the investigation and file a final report within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.4.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands disposedhttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 of.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
|
['Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
161,996,251 |
Since both the applications are related to one crime, therefore both the applications are heard simultaneously and decided by common order.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicants are in custody since 13.7.2015 relating to crime No.73/2011 registered at Police Station Raneha, District Damoh for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 325/34 of the IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are reputed citizen of the locality, who have no criminal past alleged against them.Initially, it was alleged against the co-accused Makkhan that he fired from a gun causing fatal injury to the deceased Gopal and consequently Gopal died.The FIR was lodged against nine persons, however the concerned S.P. has enquired into the matter and found that the applicants were not present at the spot and therefore, no charge sheet was filed against the applicants.The concerned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the applicants under Section 190 of the Cr.P.C. Looking to the allegations made in the FIR, it would be apparent that there was no participation of the applicants established.No common intention of the applicants can be presumed with the co-accused Makkhan.No offence under Section 302 of the IPC is made out against the applicants either directly or with the help of Section 34 or 149 of IPC.The remaining offences are triable by the Court of JMFC.Applicants are in custody without any substantial reason.Under these circumstances, they pray for bail.Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstance of the case, including the gravity of offence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that applications under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants may be accepted.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K. GUPTA)
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,619,978 |
(a) P.W.1 is the younger brother of one Jothilakshmi.The deceased Duraisamy was the brother of P.W.1. A-1 who was residing in the adjacent house, was stealing electric energy from the house of Jothilakshmi.On coming to know this, P.W.1 and the deceased Duraisamy went to the house of A-1 and questioned the same.A-1 replied that he would continue to do so.P.W.1 and Jothilakshmi informed him that they would lodge a complaint before the Electricity Board.(b) On 25.12.2001, P.W.4, the wife of P.W.1, while she was returning from the grocery shop, found A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-5 talking about a plan to do away with P.W.1 and his brother Duraisamy.Immediately, P.W.4 informed to P.W.1 about the said conspiracy.(c) On 26.12.2001 at about 5.30 P.M., P.W.1 and his brother Duraisamy were returning from the tea shop.At about 7.30 P.M., when they were just crossing the house of one Mahalingam at Ramamurthy Nagar, A-1. A-2 and A-3 waylaid P.W.1 and his brother Duraisamy.A-1 uttering the words "Are you going to give complaint to the Electricity Board", took a knife from his waist.At that time, A-3 caught hold of Duraisamy, and A-1 stabbed him on his stomach.As a result, the intestine came out. A-2 stabbed him on the chest.When P.W.1 raised a distressing cry, P.Ws.2 and 3 also rushed to the spot.On seeing the crowd, the accused ran away from the place of occurrence.Then the severely injured Duraisamy was taken in an auto to the Government Hospital, Mettur.(d) P.W.7, the Doctor, attached to the Government Hospital, medically examined Duraisamy and declared him dead.An intimation was given to the respondent police station.On the strength of Ex.P1, the report, a case came to be registered in Crime No.691 of 2001 under Sections 341, 324, 307 and 302 of IPC.The printed FIR, Ex.P9, was despatched to the Court.(e) P.W.10, the Inspector of Police, attached to the respondent police station, on receipt of the copy of the FIR, took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.Life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/- and default sentenceA-4 and A-5302 r/w 109 IPCNot guiltyA-1 to A-3326 r/w 34 IPCA-2 guilty.Others not guilty.4 years RI with a fine of Rs.500/- and default sentenceA-4 and A-5326 r/w 109 IPCNot guiltyA-1 was absconding, and hence the case was split up in his regard.2.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:P3, and also a rough sketch, Ex.Then he conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex.Thereafter, a requisition, Ex.P7, was given to the hospital authorities for the purpose of postmortem.(f) P.W.8, the Doctor, attached to the Government Hospital, Mettur, on receipt of the said requisition conducted autopsy on the dead body of Duraisamy and has issued a postmortem certificate, Ex.P8, with his opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injury to vital organs.(g) Pending investigation, A-1 was arrested.He gave a confessional statement voluntarily, which was recorded.A-2 was arrested, and his confessional statement was recorded.Pursuant to the same, he produced M.O.1, knife, which was recovered under a cover of mahazar.Then the other accused were arrested.All of them were sent for judicial remand.All the material objects were sent for chemical analysis.P14 and P16 are serologist's reports.P15 is the chemical analysis report.On completion of investigation, the Investigator filed the final report.3.The case was committed to Court of Session, and necessary charges were framed.Pending trial, A-1 absconded, and in his regard, the case was split up.In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses and also relied on 16 exhibits and 7 material objects.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which they flatly denied as false.No defence witness was examined.The trial Court heard the arguments advanced and took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt in respect of the charge against A-2 under Sec.326 r/w 34 of IPC and against A-3 under Sec.302 r/w 34 IPC and hence found them guilty and awarded punishment which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.4.The learned Counsel advancing arguments on behalf of the appellants, would submit that the prosecution relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 as eyewitnesses; that they are all close relatives; that even from the evidence of P.W.1, it would be quite clear that P.Ws.2 and 3 came to the spot only subsequently; that under the circumstances, P.Ws.2 and 3 could not have witnessed the occurrence at all; that what was available for the prosecution was the evidence of P.W.1, the brother of the deceased Duraisamy; that all the alleged eyewitnesses were on inimical terms since they were under the impression that A-1 was stealing electric energy from the house of Jothilakshmi, the sister of P.W.1; that as far as A-2 and A-3, the appellants herein, were concerned, no overt act was attributed to them; that the trial Court has not believed the evidence of the same witnesses as far as A-4 and A-5 are concerned; that even the trial Court has found that A-2 had neither motive nor shared the intention with the other accused, and under the circumstances, the trial Court found him guilty under Sec.326 r/w 34 of IPC, but found A-3 guilty under Sec.302 r/w 34 IPC; that it would be quite clear that from the evidence, there is nothing to indicate that they have got any intention to share with; that further the medical opinion canvassed was not in favour of the prosecution; that as regards the alleged recovery of the weapon of crime, M.O.1, knife, from A-2 pursuant to the confessional statement, the evidence adduced was shaky and thus the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case.5.Advancing his further arguments, the learned Counsel would submit that as far as A-2 was concerned, the trial Court has found him guilty under Sec.326 r/w 34 IPC and awarded four years Rigorous Imprisonment which is excessive; that it has got to be looked into leniently; that so far as A-3 was concerned, even at the time of the occurrence, he was a juvenile; that as per the Juvenile Justice Act, he should have been sent to the forum under that enactment and enquiry should have been conducted by that forum; but, it was not done; that under the circumstances, the entire trial as against A-3 was thoroughly vitiated, and hence justice has got to be rendered by this Court.6.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions.7.It is not in controversy that in an incident that took place at 7.30 P.M. on 26.12.2001, one Duraisamy the brother of P.W.1, was done to death.He was examined by P.W.6, the Doctor, who has declared him dead.Following the inquest made by the Investigator, the dead body was subjected to postmortem by P.W.8, the Doctor.He has deposed as a witness before the Court and has given postmortem certificate, Ex.P8, to the effect that Duraisamy died out of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained.The fact that Duraisamy died out of homicidal violence was never disputed by the appellants before the trial Court, and hence it could be recorded so.P.W.1 has categorically given evidence that he went to the tea stall along with Duraisamy, and after taking tea, they were returning, and at the place of occurrence, A-1 to A-3 waylaid them, and they armed with knives, and A-3 actually caught hold of the deceased, while A-1 and A-2 stabbed him.Though P.Ws.2 and 3 have come to the spot on hearing the distressing cry, they have categorically spoken that they found all the accused persons at the spot.It is true that they are closely related to the deceased; but, that cannot be a reason to reject the testimony.The Court has to apply the test of careful scrutiny.The trial Court even after application of the test, has found their evidence cogent, convincing and acceptable.This Court is unable to see any reason why their evidence should be discarded or looked with doubt.Their evidence was rightly accepted by the trial Court.Apart from that, the trial Court has given a categorical finding that A-3 has facilitated the crime, while A-1 and A-2 stabbed him with knife.Taking into consideration the medical opinion canvassed and the injuries caused by A-2, the trial Court has recorded a finding that there is nothing to indicate that he shared the common intention with A-1 and thus, found him guilty under Sec.326 r/w 34 IPC.This Court is unable to see why the said finding has to be disturbed.Apart from that, the State has not preferred appeal challenging that part of the judgment.From the available evidence, it would be quite clear that A-3 has facilitated the crime.However, at the time, when the appeal was taken up for enquiry on the last hearing, it was informed that A-3 was a juvenile at the time of the occurrence.Under the circumstances, a report was called for from the Sessions Judge.Accordingly, the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Salem, has given his report which reads as follows:"5.By scrutinizing the documents and the evidence submitted by the witnesses the birth certificate and other particulars have been perused and the CW3 has submitted one Ex.C4, in which, before the investigation the physical examination findings found.The doctor who has given his version as,"On careful physical examination of the above individual, I am of the opinion that he is aged between 17 and 18 years."The certificate was issued by the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Mettur Dam, on 7.1.2002."In such circumstances, it is a fit case where he has got to be sent before the forum under the Juvenile Justice Act to make an enquiry on the occurrence.Since the occurrence has taken place in 2001 and as per the report of the Additional Sessions Judge, at the time of the occurrence he was 17 and not completed 18, it would be quite evident that he was a juvenile.At this juncture, no meaningful purpose would be served by ordering the matter to be placed before the forum under the Juvenile Justice Act to conduct any fresh enquiry.Under the circumstances, A-3 has got to be set free recording that he was a juvenile at the time of occurrence.Accordingly, A-3 is set at liberty.The sentence already undergone by him shall be given set off.12.Accordingly, this criminal appeal is disposed of.nsv/To:1.The Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court No. Salem.2.The Inspector of Police Karumalaikadal Police Station Salem (Dist.) (Crime No.691/2001)3.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
16,200,809 |
Heard respective counsel.2) Being aggrieved by the said order, Petitioner herein has filed Criminal Revision Application No. 25 of 2002 before Court of Additional Sessions ism ::: Uploaded on - 28/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:45:44 ::: 2 205.1046.02 wp Judge at Palghar.Learned Additional Sessions Judge Palghar vide Order dated 03/07/2002 has been pleased to dismiss Revision Application.Hence, this Writ Petition.::: Uploaded on - 28/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:45:44 :::3) Present Respondent no. 1 had filed a complaint in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dahanu on 17/01/2002, alleging therein that she is an entrepreneur.According to her, original accused no. 1 i.e. Smt. Uma Chavan was also into manufacturing of food products in the name and style of "Parle Food Products".That she had requested the complainant to sell pickles manufactured by her and create a market for her in America.She had also requested her to create market for her food products.She had given samples to her which were of high quality.Complainant had admitted to market the said food products, however, the said food products were of sub-standard quality and therefore could not be sold in the American market.It is alleged that for creating market for food products, original accused no. 1 had accepted a deposit of Rs. 4 Lakhs from the complainant.Since the goods could not be sold in the open market, complainant had allegedly requested original accused no. 1 to return the deposit given by her.It is alleged that initially original accused no. 1 had given evasive answers and had refused to return the ism ::: Uploaded on - 28/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:45:44 ::: 3 205.1046.02 wp deposit.That subsequently when the complainant persuaded the accused no. 1 to return the amount, accused no. 1 had disclosed to the complainant that the said amount has been given to present Petitioner who is in the business of production of Bisleri.She had directed the complainant to seek refund of the said amount from the present Petitioner and therefore, according to complainant, accused no. 1 had cheated her and had committed breach of trust by siphoning of the said deposit in favour of the present Petitioner.Hence, according to the complainant, both accused deserve to be prosecuted for offence punishable under section 406 & 420 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 28/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:45:44 :::The sanctity of recording the verification statement is that the contents of the complaint are reproduced on oath and the complainant stands by the contents of the complaint.It is clear that there is no whisper against present Petitioner in the verification statement.It is clear that learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate the discrepancy in the complaint and verification statement.The fact that there was material discrepancy in the complaint and the verification, learned Magistrate ought not to have issued process against present Petitioner.Issuance of process and continuance of criminal proceedings against present Petitioner, in view of the above mentioned fact would be abuse of process of Law.::: Uploaded on - 28/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:45:44 :::::: Uploaded on - 28/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:45:44 :::Thus, a complaint is the translated version or a formulated version made by the advocate on the instructions received from the complainant.During the course of such examination the complainant tells the truth.
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
162,026,863 |
This appeal has been filed by the appellant Ramesh Kumar @ Sonu under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C against the judgment of the Trial Court dated 08.7.2000 and the order of sentence dated 12.7.2000 whereby the appellant had been convicted and sentenced to undergo 7 years RI u/s 392 of IPC with a fine of Rs.3000/- and in default, to undergo further RI of one year.The appellant was further awarded RI of 7 years u/s 394 of IPC and fine of Rs.3000/-, in default to further undergo RI of one year.The appellant was further awarded RI of 7 years u/s 397 of IPC.All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the convict was entitled for the benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. Crl.A. No. 210/2001 Page 1 of 4A. No. 210/2001 Page 1 of 4I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant.The appellant is, therefore, liable to be convicted under Section 392/394 IPC only.Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant has already undergone the sentence for 4 years in jail and that he may be released for the sentence already undergone by him in jail.It is further submitted that the appellant is a patient of HIV positive and, thus, a lenient view may be taken for him in this case.On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has submitted that PW-6, Pramod Kumar Sharma in his statement has categorically stated that the accused Ramesh by showing a knife threatened the complainant/PW-6 to hand over to him whatever belongings he had, and when the complainant refused to do so, he gave a knife blow on the left thigh of the complainant and both the accused persons removed cash of Rs.2100/- and a HMT Watch by force from him.Learned counsel for the State further submits that the victim/complainant was stabbed with a knife and, therefore, Section 397 IPC is attracted.Arguments heard.I have gone through the statement of the complainant/PW-6, Crl.A. No. 210/2001 Page 2 of 4 Pramod Kumar Sharma wherein he has deposed that at about 8.30 p.m he boarded in a TSR from the bus stop Kashmere Gate.In the TSR besides him, 3-4 persons were already in the TSR.When the TSR went towards Usmanpur, accused Ramesh having a knife in his hand told the driver to stop the TSR and also told the complainant by showing a knife that whatever he had, should be handed over to him and if he failed to give the same, he would stab him with a knife.On that, the complainant told that he would not give him anything as he had brought his salary on that day and he did not give them the money.Thereafter, co-accused Anil told the accused Ramesh to give a knife blow to the complainant.On that, the accused Ramesh gave a knife blow on the left thigh of the complainant and both the accused removed cash of Rs.2100/- and also a HMT wrist watch.A. No. 210/2001 Page 2 of 4I have gone through the impugned judgment dated 08.7.2000 and the order of sentence dated 12.7.2000 passed by the learned Trial Court.The appellant is directed to surrender before the Jail authorities immediately.A copy of this judgment be sent to trial Court and Jail authorities for compliance.S.L.BHAYANA,J SEPTEMBER 09,2010 KA Crl.A. No. 210/2001 Page 4 of 4
|
['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
197,130,437 |
Shri L.S. Singh, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Luvkush Prasad Mishra, counsel for appellant.Shri Yaduvendra Dwivedi, P.L., for State.Heard arguments.Heard on I.A.No.25233/2016, an application moved under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C., for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant Pappu @ Vinod Patel.The appellant has been convicted under section 376 (1) of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I., for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine R.I., for two months, under Section 452 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine R.I., for one month and under Section 366 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I., for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine R.I., for one month and under section 342 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I., for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine R.I., for one month.This is first application for bail.She had not made any resistance, while she was taken away by the appellant.She traveled with appellant in the vehicle and stayed in his house for full night.Therefore, entire story of prosecution seems to be false and concocted.The trial Court has convicted the appellant in the aforesaid offence on wrong appreciation of evidence, therefore, the sentence may be suspended and he may be released on bail.On perusal of record and statement of prosecutrix, it is found that there is discrepancy in her statement.The incident is of the time 6:00 O'Clock in the evening.There was no independent eye witness who saw the prosecutrix making hue and cry, while she was taken away by the appellant.It is directed that subject to deposit of fine amount, the jail sentence of the appellant Pappu @ Vinod Patel shall remain suspended and he 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 of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, with a direction to remain present before the Registry of this Court on 21st September, 2017 and on such other dates as may be fixed in this regard from time to time.I.A.No.25233/2016 stands allowed and disposed of.C.C., as per rules.(ANURAG SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE VD
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
197,145,684 |
28 25.06.2015 BD.Court No.04 C.R.M. 3805 of 2015 Re : An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Crim Procedure filed on 23rd April, 2015 in connection with Entally Po Station Case No. 544 of 2014 dated 16.11.2014 under Sect 302/34/201 of the Indian Penal Code.The application for bail is, thus, allowed.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
197,158,828 |
Ka/Madurai Division/A.File/ dated07.08.2009 passed by the third respondent and quash the same and direct therespondents 1 to 3 to pay compensation at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per centfor unlawfully depriving the petitioner of his property right in 0.44.00Hectare equivalent to 1 acre and 9 cents of land comprised in SurveyNo.135/19A 2V of Kadambamkulam village, Kariapatti Taluk, VirudhunagarDistrict, with 12% interest from the date of filing of this writ petitiontill the date of realization and within the time limit fixed by this Court.!For Petitioner ... Mr.C.Dhanaseelan^For Respondents ... Mr.S.M.S.Johnny Basha, for R.1 to R.3 Mrs.S.Bharathi Govt. Advocate for R.4* * * *W.P(MD)No.5629 of 2010:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, toissue a writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondents herein from erecting anyhigh tension electric tower in S.No.538 to an extent of 8.39.5 hectares inPeriya Manjuveli village, Aravakurichi Taluk, Karur District.For Petitioner ... Mr.R.VijayakumarFor Respondents ... Mr.S.M.S.Johnny Basha, for R.1 to R.4 Mrs.S.Bharathi Govt. Advocate for R.5* * * *W.P(MD)No.6730 of 2011:(Angu Nagar Sub Station), Dindigul.... RespondentsPrayerPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, toissue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining tothe impugned order passed on 31.05.2010 in letter No.UPO/PEMIVAKA/Dindu/Ko.Under these circumstances, these writ petitionshave been filed.This line consists of 76 locations out of which locations 68 and69 are double pole structures.The operation of the double circuit line hadbeen approved by the Chief Engineer/Transmission, Chennai, vide MemoNo.The said double circuit wasinstalled nearly before 13 years and the petitioner claimed compensationafter inordinate delay.The said work is being carried out in the interest ofpublic.Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.The fourth respondent in W.P(MD)No.5629 of 2010 denied the claimof the petitioner stating that the transmission line was schemed fromSempatty-Pugalur 110 KV line to Renganathapuram 230/110KV Sub Station.Out of67 towers, 66 towers are passing through lot of land owners.The learned Counsel for the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board submittedthat almost 90% of the work had been completed and hence, no relief can begranted to the petitioners.He further submitted that it is not mandatory to give notice to theland owners for laying down the High Tension Power line and it is only forthe District Collector so as to look into the issue regarding compensation.Under such circumstances, this Court finds force in the contentionsof the Counsel for the respondent Board and hence, holds that the feasibilityof alternate route can also be considered by the District Magistrate.No costs.4.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.5.The Superintending Engineer, TNEB, GCC, K.Pudur, Madurai.6.The Executive Engineer, TNEB, TLC, Pon Nagaram, Dindigul.7.The Assistant Engineer, TNEB, TLC, Pon Nagaram, Dindigul.8.The Inspector of Police, Aravakurichi Police Station, Karur District.9.The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, (Tower Line Section), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Complex, K.Pudur, Madurai.10.The Assistant Engineer, Tower Line Section, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, (Angu Nagar Sub Station), Dindigul.(R4 impleaded as per order of this Court dated 07.02.2014 made in M.P(MD)No.1of 2012 in W.P(MD)No.10194 of 2009.)PrayerPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, toissue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in theimpugned order No.565/AEE/Pea.For Petitioner ... Mr.A.Abdul Kadhar for M/s.Eddy and Embboss Law Firm For Respondents ... Mr.S.M.S.Johnny Basha, for R.1 to R.3 * * * *:COMMON ORDER Since the issue related to the erection of high tension electric linesand payment of compensation is similar in all the writ petitions, they aretaken up for hearing together and disposed of by this common order.W.P(MD)No.10194 of 2009 has been filed seeking a writ ofCertiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in the impugned orderNo.565/AEE/Pea.Ka/Madurai Division/A.File/ dated 07.08.2009 passed bythe third respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents 1 to 3 topay compensation at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per cent for unlawfully deprivingthe petitioner of his property right in 0.44.00 Hectare equivalent to 1 acreand 9 cents of land comprised in Survey No.135/19A 2V of Kadambamkulamvillage, Kariapatti Taluk, Virudhunagar District, with 12% interest from thedate of filing of this writ petition till the date of realization and withinthe time limit fixed by this Court.W.P(MD)No.5629 of 2010 has been filed seeking a writ of Mandamus toforbear the respondents herein from erecting any high tension electric towerin S.No.538 to an extent of 8.39.5 hectares in Periya Manjuveli village,Aravakurichi Taluk, Karur District.W.P(MD)No.6730 of 2011 has been filed seeking a writ ofCertiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugnedorder passed on 31.05.2010 in letter No.UPO/PEMIVAKA/Dindu/Ko.The land owners are before this Court with the present writpetitions seeking the above relief.Brief facts of the case of the petitioners are as follows:The petitioner are all owners of their respective lands.When therespondents attempted to erect high tension towers, they have expressed theirobjections.The petitioners have contended that because of the erection oftowers, the lands have lost their fertility.The erections of towers arewithout authority and only to suit to the private parties and are not inpublic interest.Insofar as W.P.(MD)No.5629 of 2010 is concerned, no order has beenpassed on the objections.The petitionerand his family members threatened the fourth respondent, consequent to which,a complaint had been lodged.The fourth respondent also denied the allegationthat the transmission line is only for the private person or mill and statedthat it is purely for the benefit of the public.Hence, he prayed for thedismissal of the writ petition.The third respondent in W.P(MD)No.6730 of 2011 filed the counteraffidavit stating that almost 95% of the work had been completed in theentire scheme, which is being stalled by the petitioner.As per Sections 10and 16 of the Telegraph Act, 1885, no prior permission is necessary from theconcerned land owners to lay transmission line and erect the tower.On31.05.2010, a reply was sent by the petitioner to the notice issued on24.04.2010 wherein, the petitioner objected to the project nearly after fouryears of its commencement.The petitioner can claim only the crop damagesalone if he cultivated so in his land.Since it is a dry land, there is nopossibility for claiming any compensation.This transmission line isinstalled for the larger interest of public and therefore, he prayed for thedismissal of the writ petition.The petitioners have raised a specific plea for payment of compensation whichcan be agitated only before the District Collector, for which, theElectricity Board cannot have any say in the matter.The Counsel for the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.10194 of 2009 submittedthat the petitioner was in Muscat when the High Tension Towers were erectedon the land of the petitioner.The Counsel further contended that withoutacquisition, the respondents are not entitled to erect the towers and carrythe lines.The alleged oral protest relied upon by the appellant appears tous to be a made up story.The telephone lines and connections werethereafter given from time to time.Till the landlord-tenant dispute arosebetween the appellant and M/s.Thepetitioner had already filed his objections.On the other hand, even if I refuse the prayer for mandamus sought by thePetitioner, he would still have two types of remedies against theRespondents.They are (i) a remedy under Section 16(3) for determining thesufficiency of compensation and (ii) a remedy under Section 17(1) to requireSection 17(2) to apply to the District Magistrate to direct the removal ofthe line or post.In other words, the grant of the prayer for mandamus afterthe Respondents have completed the erection of towers would leave theRespondents remedyless, while the refusal of the prayer for mandamus wouldnot leave the Petitioner remedyless.Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed.There will be no order as to costs.Consequentlyconnected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed."The erection works werecommenced only just before the writ petition was filed and interim injunctionwas granted by this Court.In the result, the writ petitions in W.P(MD)Nos.5629 of 2010 and6730 of 2011, are disposed of, with a direction to the respondent Board toapproach the District Magistrate concerned within four weeks from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order.The District Magistrate shall hear both theparties and pass orders in accordance with law, within four weeks thereafter.In case, the District Magistrate concerned decides against the petitionersherein, they are entitled to get compensation as per law.Similarly, the caseof the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.10194 of 2009 shall be considered by thefourth respondent - District Collector, Virudhunagar District andcompensation shall be paid as per law within a period of eight weeks from thedate of receipt of a copy of this order.Accordingly, W.P(MD)No.10194 of 2009is disposed of.Consequently, all the connected miscellaneous petitions areclosed.R.MAHADEVAN,J.rsbPRE-DELIVERY COMMON ORDERMADE INW.P(MD)No.10194 of 2009ANDW.P(MD)No.5629 of 2010and M.P(MD)Nos.1 of 2010 & 1 of 2011ANDW.P(MD)No.6730 of 2011and M.P(MD)Nos.1 of 2011, 1 of 2012 & 1 of 201322.08.2014
|
['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
197,162 |
JUDGMENT Harries, C.J.The matter first came before a Sub-Divisional Magistrate who directed a Circle Officer to hold an enquiry.The latter submitted a report and expressed the view that this was not a criminal matter.The opposite-party thereafter filed a petition and on that a judicial enquiry was held by a learned Magistrate.The opposite-party then moved this Court in revision and a rule was issued calling upon the present petitioner and his co- accused to show cause why the orders made by the trial Court and the Additional District Magistrate should not be set aside."While this revisional application was pending the petitioner alleges that the opposite-party wrote a letter to the President of the West Bengal Pradesh Congress Committee through the Secretary.It seems that the petitioner was at that time a candidate for election in the General Election and was a candidate nominated by the Congress party."To save him and also the Congress candidate as Mr. Paul's illfame will affect them, I request you to arrange with Mr. Paul to repay our full amount with costs."
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
197,162,313 |
(Passed on 26.03.2013) Per U. C. Maheshwari J.The applicants/co-accused namely (1) Daulat Singh Vishwakarma (2) Nikhil Kumar Deshpande and (3) Narayan @ Satyanarayan have filed this revision under Section 397/401 of Criminal Procedure Code (in short "the Code") for quashment of the order dated 5.11.2011 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in S. T. No.179/2010, whereby the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 468 and 471 of IPC have been framed against each of the applicants.The facts giving rise to this revision in short are that respondent No.2 herein initially filed a private complaint (Ann. P.2) on 16.6.2008 in the Court of JMFC Sagar against the applicants No.2 and 3 herein along with other co-accused Devendra Singh Thakur, Arvind Singh and one R. K. Upadhyay for taking the cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 406, 409, 419, 420, 468, 471/34 r/w 120-B of IPC against them Subsequent to filing such complaint another complaint dated 25.11.2008 (Ann. P.3) was also filed in the same Court by the respondent No.2 against the applicants herein and aforesaid Devendra Singh Thakur, Arvind Singh Thakur and R. K. Upadhyay for taking the cognizance of the same offence of Section 406, 409, 419, 420, 468, 471/34 r/w 120-B of IPC against them.After filing the aforesaid initial first private complaint by the respondent No.2 the JMFC Sagar instead to proceed further under Section 200 and 202 of the Code vide order dated 27.6.2008 directed to call the report through Police Station Civil Lines Sagar.Both the complaints were related with the same offences but in subsequent complaint some additional accused were impleaded with some additional averments.The JMFC Sagar vide order dated 31.8.2009, directed to sent a copy of the complaint to the Police Station Civil Lines, Sagar with further direction to call the report under Section 156 (3) of the Code.Thereafter, the case was fixed for further proceeding on 9.10.2009 as stated in the order sheet of such Court.On consideration it was found that in compliance of the aforesaid direction given by the JMFC under Section 156 (3) of the Code a Crime No.187/09 (FIR) for the offence punishable under Section 406, 409, 419, 420, 468, 471/34 r/w 120-B of IPC was registered and after holding investigation of the same on establishing the ingredients of the aforesaid alleged offence against the applicants and other co-accused, they have been charges sheeted for their prosecution before the Court having territorial jurisdiction.Pursuant to it, vide order dated 30.3.2010 above mentioned private complaints were amalgamated and consolidated with the case of aforesaid charge sheet filed along with the police report under Section 173 of the Code.2 Cr. R. No.06/2013After filing the aforesaid charge sheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sagar for the offence of Section 406, 409, 419, 420, 468, 471/34 r/w 120-B of IPC against the applicants the same was registered as criminal case No.1211/10 and the alleged offence being triable by Sessions Court was committed to such Court along with all the papers of the private complaints.After committal of the case on evaluation of the charge sheet along with the police report filed under Section 173 of the Code by impugned order the charges of the above mentioned offence were framed against the applicants.The same is under challenge in this revision.3 Cr. R. No.06/2013
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
197,164,540 |
aav Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16010 of 2019 and Crl.M.P(MD) Nos.9508 and 9509 of 2019 06.11.2019http://www.judis.nic.in 6/6This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in S.C No.735 of 2016 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Tirunelveli, as against this petitioner.http://www.judis.nic.in 1/6 Crl.Hence he prayed to quash the same.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) submitted that there are materials available to proceed with the case as against the petitioner herein and at the threshold, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed and the charges framed against the petitioner has to be gone into a full-fledged trial.Further, he would submit that the trial has also been commenced and hence, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.Heard Mr.Side) appearing for the first respondent.13.In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the aforementioned complaint case to its original file for being proceeded with on merits in accordance with law.Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held in respect of the very same issue in Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 - Central Bureau of Invstigation Vs.Arvind Khanna, wherein, it has been held as follows:“19.After perusing the impugned order and on hearing the submissions made by the learned senior counsels on both sides, we are of the view that the impugned order passed by the High Court is not sustainable.In a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the High Court has recorded findings on several disputed facts and allowed the petition.Defence of the accused is to be tested after appreciating the evidence during trial.20.In our view, the assessment made by the High Court at this stage, when the matter has been taken cognizance by the Competent Court, is completely incorrect and uncalled for.” The above judgment is squarely applicable to this case and as such, the points raised by the petitioner cannot be considered by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in S.C No.735 of 2016 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Tirunelveli.Hence this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.Further the trial court is directed to complete the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.06.11.2019 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order aavhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4/6 Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16056 of 2019The III Additional District and Sessions Court, TirunelveliThe Inspector of Police Thalaiyuthu Police Station Tirunelveli DistrictThe Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Courthttp://www.judis.nic.in 5/6 Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16056 of 2019 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
|
['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
197,165,613 |
Judgement reserved on: 27th September, 2017 Judgement pronounced on: 13th November, 2017 + CRL.A. 816/2017 KRIPA SHANKAR SHARMA .....Appellant Through: Mr. P. Kumar and Mr. Abhih Kumar, Advocates.CRL.A.825/2017,849/2017,816/2017 Page 1 of 23HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGALCrime Branch, whereby all the three appellants were convicted under Section 489B/489C/120B/75/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years and fine of Rs.3000/- each and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a period of one month.Briefly stated, facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the three appeals are that, a secret information was received by SI Sharad Kohli that one Ram Prasad was involved in circulating fake Indian currency notes in the area of Delhi and NCR.On receipt of the said information, a team constituting SI Sharad Kohli, ASI Harcharan Singh, ASI Ajmer, HC Kanwar Pal, Ct.Atul, Ct.Neeraj and Ct.Kaushal was formed that reached the spot where a deal was struck with Ram Prasad through a decoy customer/ASI Harcharan Singh.Ram Prasad agreed to give a total of Rs. 2.10 Lakhs fake Indian currency notes of the denominations of Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/-in lieu of Rs. 1.5 Lakhs original currency notes.On 05.08.2010 at around 05:20 p.m., accused Ram Prasad was apprehended while he was circulating fake Indian currency notes of the denominations of Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/-and a total of Rs.2.10 CRL.A.825/2017,849/2017,816/2017 Page 2 of 23 Lakhs were recovered from his possession which were seized vide seizure memos.Thereafter the present case was registered vide FIR No.117/2010 and investigation was taken up by Inspector Rajesh Sharma.CRL.A.825/2017,849/2017,816/2017 Page 2 of 23During investigation, a rough site plan was prepared by the IO at the instance of SI Sharad Kohli and statements of the witnesses were recorded.Accused Ram Prasad was arrested and upon interrogation he disclosed that he procured fake currency notes from one Vikas Chaudhary of Mathura who alongwith Panditji of Noida further procured fake Indian Currency notes from Kolkata.Thereafter on 06.08.2010,Vikas Chaudhary was apprehended at the instance of accused Ram Prasad from old Cantt Sadar Bazaar, Mathura and a total of Rs.2.99 Lakhs of fake Indian currency notes were recovered from his possession.Accused Vikas Chaudhary was arrested and upon interrogation he further revealed that he alongwith one Kripa Shankar Sharma of Noida, UP used to procure fake Indian currency notes from Muklesh and Mossarraf Hossain of Malda, West Bengal.Further, Rs.1 Lakh original currency notes, which was paid by accused Ram Prasad to accused Vikas Chaudhary on 05.08.2010 in lieu of Rs.2.5 Lakhs fake Indian currency notes, were also recovered from the house of Vikas Chaudhary and the same were seized vide seizure memo.On 07.08.2010, accused Kripa Shankar Sharma was apprehended at the instance of Vikas Chaudhary from the main road in front of Lajpat Rai Market, Delhi and a total of Rs.3 Lakhs of fake Indian currency notes were recovered from his possession.Accused Kripa CRL.A.825/2017,849/2017,816/2017 Page 3 of 23 Shankar Sharma was arrested and upon interrogation he further revealed that he alongwith Vikas Chaudhary used to procure the fake Indian currency notes from Muklesh and Mossarraf Hossain of Malda, West Bengal.He also disclosed that at times, advance money was given to Mossaraf Hossain by depositing the amount in Axis Bank account in the name of Mohd. Amirul Sheikh.Raids were conducted in Kolkata and Malda, West Bengal to apprehend Muklesh, Mossarraf Hossain and Mohd. Amirul Sheikh.On 20.08.2010 accused Mohd. Amirul Sheikh was arrested from Kalia Chak Malda, West Bengal.The evidence of the prosecution is to the effect that fake Indian currency notes were in possession of the three appellants and these were recovered by a team of police officials constituted by SI Sharad Kohli/PW-4, comprising of HC Kanwar Pal/PW-2, Ct.Kaushal/PW-3, ASI Harcharan Singh/PW-6, ASI Ajmer/PW-9, Ct.Atul, Ct. Neeraj and himself.Hence as regards the alleged recovery of fake currency notes, the case of the prosecution solely rests upon the testimony of police officials who had intercepted appellants and deposed about the recovery of fake currency notes from them.PW-3/Ct Kaushal deposed as under:"On 05.08.2010, I was posted at SIT, Crime Branch.On that day, I joined investigation of the present case with SI Sharat Kohli.Raiding party was formed to apprehend the suppliers of fake currency notes.Raiding party was comprising ASI Harcharan, ASI Ajmer, Ct.Neeraj, Ct.Suresh, myself, HC Kanwar and myself with informer.We all had left in two private vehicles at 01:15p.m.from the office of SIT and reached at T-point, Rohini, Near CNG Petrol Pump, Sector-11 at 01:30 p.m. SI Sharat Kohli was leading our raiding party.He had instructed ASI Harcharan to become decoy customer and informer was directed to remain with him.They were sent with the instructions to fix the deal with accused and they were deputed near CNG Petrol Pump, Sector-11, CRL.A.825/2017,849/2017,816/2017 Page 8 of 23 Rohini and remaining members of the raiding party took their position there.CRL.A.825/2017,849/2017,816/2017 Page 8 of 23At 2 p.m., from the side of Rithala Metro Station, one person came from Rithala Metro Station and stopped near decoy customer ASI Harcharan and after conversing with them, he left from there on the same way from where he had come....... ASI Harcharan was given Rs.1,05,000 for the deal and he was instructed to reach at the fixed place for deal and to make signal by waiving hand on his head.Secret informer was also with him at that time.........ASI Harcharan was instructed to fix deal for genuine Rs.1,05,000/- in exchange of Rs.2,10,000/- fake currency notes....At 5:15p.m.,accused Ram Prasad present in court, correctly identified, again came on same motorcycle No.DL11SA4731 Bajaj, black colour, and he had removed his helmet and started conversing with ASI Harcharan who was with informer at that time..... Accused Ram Prasad was apprehended at 05:20 PM and after that, informer had left the spot.....All the notes in all bundles were apparently fake.All the four bundles were kept in transparent polythene sheet and with the help of doctor tape, pullanda was prepared and it was sealed with seal of SK.Seal after use was handed over to ASI Harcharan Singh.SI Sharat Kohli prepared rukka.Rukka is already Ex.PW4/C and handed over to me for being taken to PS Crime Branch Nehru Place, for registration of FIR.I left the spot at 8:15 PM with the rukka and reached at PS Crime Branch at about 9.15 PM and handed over the rukka to the DO and got the FIR No.117/10 registered.I left the PS Crime Branch, Nehru Place with the copy of the FIR and reached at the office at SIT, crime Branch, sector-18, Rohini at about 12 midnight.I handed over copy of FIR and rukka to inspt.Rajesh Sharma for the further investigation of the case."CRL.A.825/2017,849/2017,816/2017 Page 9 of 23PW-4/SI Sharad Kohli, deposed on similar lines and further stated that:-"On 06.08.2010, I had accompanied the raiding team to Mathura with accused Ram Prasad.Rajesh was leading the team and all aforesaid raiding party members except informer were also wits us.At about 8.30 A.M., we had made arrival entry at PS Sadar at Mathura, U.P......SO, SI Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal of PS Sadar was also informed as per disclosure statement of accused Ram Prasad that for that day, accused Ram Prasad had to take Rs.3 lacs fake currency notes from some Vikas Chaudhary between 9-10 A.M. at Cant area, Sadar, Mathura.He also joined the raiding party.When we were going in the cant area of PS Sadar, one person aged about 40 years (He is accused in this case and not present today for identification.There on the road one Swift Dzire car No. HR-99FPT3741, colour white was parked.Accused, Kripa Shankar, present in court, correctly identified was standing near that car and was carrying polythene in his left hand.At 3.20 PM accused Kripa Shankar was apprehended at the instance of accused Vikas Chaudhary.Both PW-4 and PW-7 have categorically stated that the seal after use was handed over to ASI Harcharan Singh/PW-6 who has also deposed the same.CRL.A.825/2017,849/2017,816/2017 Page 16 of 23One pullanda was having seal of SK and two pullandas were having seal of RS.As long as pullandas remained with me, there was no tampering with the same by anyone and I deposited the sealed pullandas with Nasik Press and acknowledgement given by Nasik Press was brought to Delhi and handed over to MHC(M)."PW-8/Sh.By this common judgement, I shall dispose of the above three appeals preferred against the common judgement dated 31.07.2017 and order on sentence dated 05.08.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in case FIR No. 117/2010 registered under Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') at PS.During interrogation he revealed that he had used his Axis Bank Account No. 389010100029467 on the instruction of Mossarraf Hossain for the purpose of transaction of money, which was used by Mossarraf Hossain for purchase/supply of fake Indian Currency notes.Efforts were also made to arrest Mossarraf Hussain and Muklesh of Malda, which however failed.CRL.A.825/2017,849/2017,816/2017 Page 3 of 23The FIR No. 117/2010 was registered under Sections 489B/489C/120B/75/34 of IPC, however on 28.03.2011, a charge under Section 489C IPC was framed against accused/appellants Ram Prasad, Vikas Chaudhary and Kripa Shankar Sharma and a common charge under Section 120-B IPC was framed against all the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.The prosecution, to substantiate the charges levelled against the appellant, examined 10 witnesses, in all.After meticulously examining the evidence led by the parties, the Trial Court CRL.A.825/2017,849/2017,816/2017 Page 4 of 23 convicted the appellants under Section 489C IPC and sentenced them as mentioned hereinbefore.Co-accused Mohd. Amirul Sheikh was granted benefit of doubt and was acquitted of charges framed against him.CRL.A.825/2017,849/2017,816/2017 Page 4 of 23By the appeal at hand, the appellant Kripa Shankar Sharma impugns not only his conviction but also the order on sentence.Arguments addressed on behalf of the appellant Kripa Shankar SharmaAddressing arguments on the present appeal, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment suffers from several infirmities and the Trial Court had gravely erred in convicting and sentencing the appellant; that the entire story of the prosecution has been cooked up in the office of the Crime Branch and no senior office or independent witness has been associated at any stage of investigation; that perusal of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses reveals that the secret informer has been a part of the investigation team throughout, until the recovery of the fake currency notes and hence his identity was revealed to the accused persons; that the secret informer has not been cited as a witness; that non joinder of independent witness makes the alleged recovery totally unbelievable; that perusal of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses reveals that there are material contradictions and severe infirmities going to the root of the matter; that the falsity of the prosecution story is also apparent from the fact that the FIR number was written on the top left side of the seizure memos which are in the same handwriting and in the same flow, CRL.A.825/2017,849/2017,816/2017 Page 5 of 23 though the rukka was not even sent to the police station for registration of the case at the time the seizure memos were prepared; that the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged recovery from the accused persons as no CFSL Form was filled as alleged by the first and second IO, as nothing has come in evidence that the same was deposited alongwith case property in the Malkhana; that neither the Malkhana Moharer has been examined by the prosecution nor an affidavit has been filed to testify the safe custody of the recovered currency notes; that the official vehicle was not used by the raiding team during investigation even though the crime branch is the unit of Delhi police and is well equipped with all instruments including the vehicles; that the defence witnesses examined by the accused/appellant have clearly proved that the accused persons were lifted by the police and that their depositions carry equal weight to that of the prosecution witnesses; that Section 489C IPC entails a conscious possession and the burden lies on the prosecution to prove that at the time when the accused/appellant was in possession of the currency notes, he knew that they were forged.CRL.A.825/2017,849/2017,816/2017 Page 5 of 23CRL.A.825/2017,849/2017,816/2017 Page 6 of 23Arguments addressed on behalf of the appellants Ram Prasad and Vikas ChaudharyLearned Counsels for the appellants Ram Prasad and Vikas Chaudhary, on instructions, stated that the appellants have opted not to challenge the findings on conviction under Section 489C of IPC.They however prayed to take a lenient view and to modify the sentence as the appellants have already completed substantial portion of the substantive sentence awarded to them by the Trial Court.Arguments raised on behalf of the StateCounsel further submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellants, beyond any shadow of doubt, as all the witnesses have duly supported the case of the prosecution and there were no discrepancies in their statement; that in view of the recovery of huge fake currency notes from the possession of the appellants no leniency is called for and they deserve to be convicted for the offences for which they have been charged.As per the nominal roll, the sentence undergone by the appellant Kripa Shankar as on 01.11.2017 is 1 month 28 days and that by appellant Vikas Chaudhary is 2 years 2 months 1 day.However the appellant Ram Prasad has been released from jail on 24.10.2017 CRL.A.825/2017,849/2017,816/2017 Page 7 of 23 after completion of his sentence.Hence the present appeal is rendered infructuous in respect of appellant Ram Prasad.CRL.A.825/2017,849/2017,816/2017 Page 7 of 23On the basis of evidence, it is now to be seen whether the prosecution had succeeded in proving the offence alleged against the appellants under Section 489C IPC or not.I can identify said accused Vikas Chaudhary).At the instance of accused Ram Prasad, accused Vikas Chaudhary was apprehended.Rajesh had taken the search of Vikas Chaudhary from the left dub of his pant one heavy transparent polythene was found recovered.....Total fake currency recovered was Rs.2,99,000/-/......Accused Vikas Chaudhary was arrested....On the same day accused Ram Prasad and Vikas Chaudhary were taken on 10-12 days PC remand.Supplementary disclosure statement of accused Vikas Chaudhary was recorded and next day i.e. on 07-8-10 accused led the police party to a mandir near red Fort, Lajpat Rai Market.Search of the polythene carried by accused Kripa Shankar was CRL.A.825/2017,849/2017,816/2017 Page 10 of 23 conducted by the IO Inpt.Rajesh and that polythene was found containing total Rs.3 lacs fake currency notes of Rs.500/- each denomination.................... "CRL.A.825/2017,849/2017,816/2017 Page 10 of 23PW-6/ASI Harcharan Singh, PW-7/Inspector Rajesh Sharma and PW-9/ASI Ajmer Singh also made analogous depositions, stating the entire chain of facts regarding the constitution of the raiding committee; recording of information in DD vide DD No.12 dated 05.08.2010; arrest of accused/appellant Ram Prasad; recovery of fake currency notes from his possession; subsequent arrest of the other two accused/appellants i.e. Vikas Chaudhary and Kripa Shankar Sharma and alleged recovery of fake currency notes from their possession.Upon a careful scrutiny of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, as regards the recovery of fake Indian currency notes from the possession of appellants, I do not see any reason to disbelieve the same as their testimonies well corroborate with each other and clearly point towards the involvement of the present appellants in the commission of the alleged crime.All the witnesses have materially supported the case of the prosecution.Non-Joining of Independent Witness & Material ContradictionsFirst ground raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the prosecution has neither cited secret informer as a witness nor examined any public witness, despite the alleged site of recovery being a crowded place.Further the learned counsel for the appellant has also pressed upon material contradictions and CRL.A.825/2017,849/2017,816/2017 Page 11 of 23 infirmities in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, to question the credibility of the case of the prosecution.CRL.A.825/2017,849/2017,816/2017 Page 11 of 23It is not disputed that the recovery has been effected on the basis of the secret information.Appellant Kripa Shankar was apprehended in the market, a public place.Appellant Vikas Chaudhary was also apprehended from a residential locality.So, the presence of the public witnesses cannot be disputed.Regarding non-joining of any independent witness at the time of raid, PW-4 SI/Sharad Kohli during his Examination-in-Chief had categorically stated as under:-"I asked 10-15 public persons after briefing them about the information and deal but no one agreed to join the proceedings and left the spot without disclosing their names and identification.xxxx Public persons were summoned to witness the personal search and disclosure statement but none joined.xxxx It is correct that Lajat Rai Market is a thickly populated.IO Inspector Rajesh asked to join the investigation 8-10 people but none of them agreed."Similarly PW-6/ASI Harcharan Singh, who was a part of the investigation team and present at the time the three appellants were apprehended and fake currency notes were recovered from them, deposed on similar lines which is stated as under:-"SI Sharad Kohli asked 10-15 public persons after briefing them about the information and deal but no one agreed to join the proceedings and left the spot without disclosing their names and identification.CRL.A.825/2017,849/2017,816/2017 Page 12 of 23xxxx When I was made a decoy customer nobody had taken my search.There were 8-9 persons present at the spot of CNG pump, sector-11 and the IO asked to join them.xxxx IO had asked public persons to join investigation at CNG Pump station but they refused to join the same and left.10-11 people joined investigation at Sector 11 T Point.Again said 10-11 people were asked to join the investigation but they left without disclosing their names and addresses.IO had not given any notice to those public persons.xxxx At T point IO asked 10-11 persons to join investigation but none agreed.I cannot tell their names as they left without disclosing their names."In the present case, PW-4/SI Sharad Kohli after sealing the contraband (recovered from appellant Ram Prasad) with the seal of SK, seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.Contraband recovered CRL.A.825/2017,849/2017,816/2017 Page 16 of 23 from appellants Vikas Chaudhary and Kripa Shankar were seized vide memo Ex.PW6/E and Ex.PW6/J respectively, by Inspector Rajesh Sharma/PW7 and sealed with the seal of RS.Inspector Rajesh Sharma/PW7 has deposed on similar lines during his Examination-In-Chief and further stated that the case property was thereafter deposited with the MHC(M) PS Nehru place by him.Further PW-1/Ct.Suresh deposed that "on 09.09.2010 I was deputed to go to Nasik for depositing of case property with Nasik Press.I had taken three pullandas.CRL.A.825/2017,849/2017,816/2017 Page 17 of 23Evidence on record points to the fact that no tampering took place when the sample was being handled from person to person.Further nothing has been brought on record by the appellants to establish the contrary.Hence tampering with the sample is ruled out and accordingly the ground raised by the counsel for the appellant looses significance.FIR No./Private Vehicle/Non-Examination of Malkhana MoharerLearned counsel for the appellant has also urged on certain omissions on the part of the prosecution.This Court has CRL.A.825/2017,849/2017,816/2017 Page 18 of 23 laid down that the lapses or irregularities in the investigation could be ignored subject to a rider.They can be ignored only if despite their existence, the evidence on record bears out the case of the prosecution and the evidence is of sterling quality.If the lapses or irregularities do not go to the root of the matter, if they do not dislodge the substratum of the prosecution case, they can be ignored."The defence witnesses have failed to discredit or shatter the case of the prosecution.A total of 598 fake Indian currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 500/- each were recovered from the appellant Vikas Chaudhary.Further Rs.1,10,1000/- fake currency notes were also recovered from the appellant Ram Prasad.All these currency notes were sent to Nashik Press, Maharashtra for examination.The report of the FSL is Ex.PW-7/B, which shows that all these currency notes were the counterfeit currency notes.The defence raised by the appellants is similar and the evidence so adduced appears to be an afterthought.There is no material on record to establish that the Investigating Officer was having any animosity, ill will or motive for the false implication of the appellants.Huge number of fake currency notes have been recovered in this case.It is not believable that the Investigating Officer could have planted these articles from his own sources.Thus, the defence raised by the appellants does not inspire confidence.Conscious Possession under Section 489C IPCSimilarly huge number of fake currency notes were recovered from the other two appellants.If there had been any valid explanation with the appellants that they have come in possession of these currency notes, which are found to be fake innocently, they had all the liberty to disclose the same.All the CRL.A.825/2017,849/2017,816/2017 Page 21 of 23 appellants merely pleaded their false implication.Mere possession, in the absence of explanation in that regard, would be sufficient to establish that the possession of these fake currency notes were consciously with the appellants.CRL.A.825/2017,849/2017,816/2017 Page 21 of 23For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no merit in the submissions made by the appellant, to the findings on facts returned by the Trial Court in the impugned judgment.Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for information.SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
197,178,799 |
This criminal original petition has been filed aggrieved by thedismissal of the discharge petition filed by the petitioner in Crl.Thereafter, the victim along with her family members went andapproached the petitioner asking him to marry the victim, but the petitionerrefused to marry the victim girl.Therefore, the compliant was given on04.11.2015 by the victim girl and based on the same, the respondent policehave registered an FIR in Crime No.13 of 2015 against the petitioner for theoffence under Sections 417, 376 and 294 (b) IPC.3.After investigation, the respondent police have filed a final reportagainst the petitioner for the offence under Sections 417, 376 and 294(b)IPC.4.The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of thisCourt that the age of the victim was 27 years at the timeof incident and the petitioner was 21 years.Therefore, the learned counselwould submit that there was a relationship between the parties, which hadended with a sexual intercourse between the petitioner and the victim girl.5.The learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to the notice ofthis Court, the statement given by the victim girl to the police, wherein,the victim girl has categorically stated that the petitioner was present onthe particular day with the victim girl till 04.00 p.m., in the evening andboth of them came out of the house and they were also seen by one Krishnamoorthy, who is the cousin brother of the victim and when hequestioned the victim girl, she herself has told him that she is having alove and affection with the petitioner.The learned counsel would thereforesubmit that there was a relationship between the petitioner and the victimgirl and therefore it can never attract the provision of Section 376 IPC.6.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for therespondent would submit that on a prima facie reading of the final report andalso the statement given by the witnesses before police, the offence underSection 417, 376 and 294 (b) IPC has been made out.Therefore, the Courtbelow has rightly dismissed the discharge petition filed by the petitioner.7.This Court has carefully considered the rival submission made oneither side and also the material placed on record.8.It is seen from records that the victim girl was aged about 27 yearsand the petitioner was 21 years when the alleged incident said to have beentaken place.The incident is said to have been taken place on 28.09.2015.However, the complaint was lodged only on 04.11.2015 after efforts made toget the victim girl to marry the petitioner failed.The case is now at thestage of framing charges.Section 228 Cr.P.C., gives an exclusive power tothe Sessions Court to frame charges based on the final report and also thematerials placed by the prosecution along with the final report.The Court below has to independently apply its mind on the materials placedbefore it at the time of framing of charges.The framing of charge is ajudicial act, where the Court is supposed to apply its mind on the materialsplaced on record.Therefore, this Court does not want to exercise itsrevisional jurisdiction at this stage since the Court below is given amplepowers to consider all the materials while framing the charges under Section228 Cr.P.C.,10.In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court belowis directed to complete the entire proceedings within a period of six monthsfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order and report compliance beforethis Court after completion of the proceedings.11.This criminal revision case is disposed of with the above direction.Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.1.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Manapparai, Trichy District.2.The II Additional District Judge / Mahila Judge, Trichy.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
197,199 |
The District Magistrate held an enquiry in which one Prith Singh Azad, President of the Depressed Classes, Delhi, gave evidence that the appellant was a Muslim of the name of Khaliq Sadiq, that in 1938 he applied to the Suddhi Sabha to be converted to Hinduism, that he was so converted, and that thereafter he came to be known as Virindar Kumar.JUDGMENT Venkatarama Ayyar, J.On 5-11-1951 the appellant signed two nomination papers each containing the following declaration :"I hereby declare that I am a member of the Balmiki Caste which has been declared to be a Scheduled Caste in the State of Punjab".The Balmiki Caste is one of the castes declared to be a Scheduled Caste under the "Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950".The above declaration was made on solemn affirmation before the First Class Magistrate, Karnal, and the nomination papers with the above declaration were filed before the District Magistrate, Karnal, who was the returning officer.One Jai Ram Sarup, a member of the Chamar caste, which is one of the Scheduled Castes, was also a candidate for the seat, and he raised the objection that the appellant was not a Balmiki by caste, and that he was therefore not qualified to stand for election to the reserved Constituency.Acting on the declaration aforesaid, the returning officer overruled the objection, and accepted the nomination paper of the appellant as valid.At the polling, the appellant got the majority of votes, and on 6-3-1952 he was declared duly elected.On 27-8-1952 Jai Ram Sarup filed the application out of which the present appeal arises, under sections 476 and 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the District Magistrate, who functioned as the returning officer.On the other hand, I was born in Balmiki Hindu family.I am a Hindu".
|
['Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
197,202,549 |
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 31.8.2015 relating to crime No.66/2015 registered at Police Station Chopna, District Betul for offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality, who has no criminal past alleged against him.The deceased was the wife of the applicant, who died after 17 years of her marriage.Under such circumstances, the applicant prays for bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the application.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of M.Cr.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', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
197,212,735 |
2] The scenario of the prosecution case culled out in brief is that,the ill-fated victim Shilavati was the daughter of first informant- Shri.Laxman Pundlik Suvarnkar residence of village Kawthal, Tq.Deoni, Dist.The daughter victim Shilavati was the divorcee and residing withparents i.e. first informant Laxman and his wife Vimalbai.The first ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:02 ::: {4} Crapl 239.13 F.odtinformant Laxman and appellant Ishwar Baliram Hude as well as Respondent-accused Rohidas, Nabi Jainoddin and Shivdas all were familiar with eachother and on inimical terms due to dispute of land Gut no. 164 of villageWalandi.According to first informant Laxman, he was the owner and inpossession of contentious land Gut no. 164 whereas, appellant-accusedIshwar, and respondent Rohidas were claiming the title and occupation ofland on the basis of document of registered sale deed.The first informant Laxman also castallegation against appellant Ishwar of his involvement in money lendingbusiness.He had filed complaints against appellant Ishwar and others fortheir illegal activities of money lending business.3] It has been alleged that on 20/06/2008, the first informantLaxman, his wife Vimalbai and daughter Shilavati carried out theagricultural operation in the contentious land Gut No. 164 of village Walandi.Thereafter, at about 9.00 p.m., the trio went to bed in the field.The victimShilavati and mother Vimalbai, both slept in front of the tin shed erectedtemporarily in the field.The first informant Laxman went to sleep at somedistance from daughter and wife, fearing attack on the part of moneylenders.However, in the wee hours of dawn at about 4.30 a.m., the firstinformant Laxman heard the screams of daughter Shilavati.He immediatelywoke up and saw that the appellant-accused Ishwar and respondentsRohidas, Nabi Jainoddin, Shivdas and Vishwanath assaulted his daughterShilavati with boulder, and on seeing him started running towards apercolation tank located on the eastern side of the field.His wife Vimalbai ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:02 ::: {5} Crapl 239.13 F.odtalso awaken at that time.The first informant Laxman made endeavour tochase them but they all pelted the stones towards him and inflicted injuriesto his both legs, head etc. It has been asserted that the assailants wereintending to kill Laxman, but, they attacked victim Shilavati mistakenlyunder the belief that first informant Laxman had slept there.The victimShilavati received fatal injuries on her head and face.4] The wife of Laxman - Vimalbai visited to the Police of Deonipolice station and filed the report that her daughter and husband was beatenup by the appellant Ishwar and his three accomplices on account of disputesof agricultural land.Police registered the non-cognizable case bearing No.83 of 2008 for the offences under section 323, 504 r/w 34 of IPC and referredthe informant Vimalbai to Magistrate under section 155 of Cr.P.C. However,immediately thereafter the appellant Ishwar Hude and respondent-accusedRohidas Konmare filed the report to the Police that they received theinformation that first informant Laxman, his wife and others killed theirdaughter and kept her dead body in the tin shed erected in their field.ThePolice of Deoni, Police station took the entry of the report in the stationdiary and rushed to the spot to take stock of situation.The Police personnelnoticed the victim Shilavati with bleeding injuries on her head.She was notin condition to speak.Police personnel drawn the panchanama of injuriesof victim Shilavati and escorted her to Primary Health Center, Walandi.Theconcern Medical Officer provided first aid treatment and advised to take herto the Government Hospital at Udgir for better medical treatment.Accordingly, the injured Shilavati was shifted to the District Hospital Udgir.::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:02 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:02 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:03 :::{6} Crapl 239.13 F.odtThe concerned Medical Officer took efforts to resuscitate the injuredShilavati.Unfortunately, on the very same day at about 07.30 p.m. shesuccumbed to injuries.Thereafter, the father Laxman visited to the DeoniPolice Station and filed the First Information Report.He blamed appellant-accused Ishwar and his accomplices, namely, Rohidas, Nabi-Jainnuddin,Shivdas and Vishwnath for the death of his daughter Shilavati.Pursuant toF.I.R. of first informant Laxman, Police of Deoni Police Station, District Latur,registered the crime bearing No. 56 of 2008 under section 143, 323, 302 ofthe I.P.C. and set the penal law in motion.5] I.O. visited to the scene of occurrence and drawn thepanchnama of the spot.He recovered the blood stained earth, simple earth,one boulder around 2 Kgs.The spot was located in the field abutting to road leading to Kauthalavillage.{13} Crapl 239.13 F.odt13] At the threshold, we prefer to deal with the medical evidenceof PW-7 Dr. Sambhaji Salunke.He was the Medical Officer in the PrimaryHealth Center, Hasegaon, Tahsil Ausa, District Latur.He accompanied withhis associate Dr. Ujwala Jadhav conducted the autopsy, on the mortalremains of deceased Shilavati.While external examination, they noticedcontused lacerated wounds (CLW) on the right parieto temporal region, aswell as on left eye-brow, left cheek, nose, fore-arms, etc. The MedicalExpert came across with multiple broken fracture of left maxillary bone andfracture to the skull.There were internal injuries to the skull and facecorresponding with the external injuries.The Medical Experts classified theinjuries sustain to victim Shilavati as "Grievous and sufficient to causedeath".PW-3 Laxman deposed that, victim Shilavati was hisdaughter.The incident occurred on 20-06-2008 in the field Gat No. 164 ofvillage Deoni.At the relevant time, he accompanied with his wife Vimalbaiand daughter victim Shilavati were residing in the tin-shed erected in thefield.On the day of incident, i.e. on 20-06-2008, in the night they all wentto bed in the field.The daughter victim Shilavati and wife Vimalbai slept infront of the tin-shed, whereas, he himself went to sleep at some distancefrom the wife and daughter in the field fearing the threats of appellantIshwar.First informant PW-3 Laxman further stated that, in the wee hours ofmorning at about 4.30 a.m., he heard screams of the daughter Shilavati.Therefore, he woke up and saw that five persons were assaulting hisdaughter Shilavati by stones.His wife Vimalbai also awakened from bed.According to PW-3 Laxman, on seeing him assailants started running towards ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:03 ::: {15} Crapl 239.13 F.odteastern side of his land.While running away from the spot, the assailantsflung stones towards him and inflicted injuries to his both legs and head.First informant PW-3 Laxman deposed that, the assailants were intending tokill him, but attacked his daughter Shilavati in mistake, under the beliefthat, he had slept there.His daughter Shilavati received serious bleedinginjuries on her head, face and ears, etc.,.He escorted injured daughterShilavati at Government Hospital Walandi and thereafter, she was shifted toGovernment Hospital Udgir.But, she died at about 7.30 p.m. in the hospital.She herself and daughter Shilavati slept in front of the tin shed,whereas, her husband Laxman went to sleep at some distance from them.The witness Vimalbai stated that, on the following day i.e. on 21-06-2008 atabout 4.30 a.m. after hearing screams of daughter Shilavati, she as well as ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:03 ::: {16} Crapl 239.13 F.odther husband woke up and saw that, her daughter was asleep covering herface with shawl of her husband Laxman.She also witness that, theassailants, five in number, including appellant Ishwar, respondents - Rohidas,Nabi, Vishwanath, Shivdas, all were assaulting her daughter with stones ather head and face.She watched the incident in moon light.21] The witness Vimalbai deposed that her husband PW-3 Laxmanattempted to chase the assailants / accused.But, they pelted stones andcaused injuries to him.However, PW-3 Laxman did not state about hisendeavour to chase the assailants, and, at that time they pelted stonestowards him.It is to be noted that, the accused/assailants had no grudge,rancour or malice toward victim Shilavati.There was no reasonable causefor the assailants to onslaught her.According to prosecution, the object ofunlawful assembly was to kill PW-3 Laxman.25] It is also pertinent to note that, after registration of N.C. reportof the witness Vimalbai, the appellant-accused Ishwar and Rohidas filed thereport to the police of Deoni Police Station and passed on the informationthat, while they were returning from Aurangabad to Udgir by S.T.Bus, theycame to know that PW-3 Laxman and his associate killed their daughter andbrought her dead body in their disputed land Gat No. 164 of village Deoni.The police of Deoni Police Station took the entry of the said report in theStation Diary and rushed to the scene of occurrence to take stock ofsituation.PW-5 Shri Bochare, panch witness, stated about the panchnama ofinjuries (Exh.66) to victim Shilavati, drawn by the police at the scene ofoccurrence, and thereafter, she was escorted to the hospital for medicaltreatment.26] It is worth to mention that, since occurrence of the incident, inthe morning at about 4.30 a.m. till evening at about 5.00 to 5.30 p.m. theinjured Shilavati was, lying at the alleged spot of incident, in field Gat No.However, after preparation of injury panchnama (Exh.66) by the policeshe was shifted to the hospital for medical treatment.The inaction on thepart of PW-3 Laxman to shift his injured daughter Shilavati to hospital, at theearliest caused serious dent in the prosecution case.JUDGMENT : ( Per : K.K. Sonawane, J.)1] Being dissatisfied with the judgment and order of convictionunder sections 302, 323 of Indian Penal Code and resultant sentence ofimprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default R.I. for 2months, and, R.I. for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default R.I.for 1 month; respectively, the appellant-accused Ishwar Baliram Hude hasfiled appeal bearing No. 239 of 2013, whereas, the first informant Laxmanand prosecution/State both have preferred the appeals bearing No. 463 of2013 and 664 of 2014 against the judgment and order of acquittal of accusedNo.2 to 5, under sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 323 read with 149 of the IPC.These appeals emerge from one and the same judgment and order oflearned Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir, Dist.Latur in Sessions Case No. 59of 2009, therefore, we proceed to deal with these appeals together by thiscommon judgment.weight and one Shawl, both stained with blood,broken pieces of bangles etc. from the spot of incident.He recorded thestatement of witnesses acquainted with the facts of the case.I.O.apprehended the accused for the sake of investigation.Meanwhile, Policedealt with the mortal remains of deceased Shilavati and drawn the inquestpanchnama.The dead-body of victim Shilavati was referred to MedicalOfficer for autopsy to ascertain the exact cause of death.Medical Expertsconducted the post-mortem on her dead body of victimShilavati and opined that the deceased died due to hemorrhagic shock owingto fracture of scull and nasal bone, etc. I.O. collected relevant documentsof P.M.Report.The seized muddemal, viscera and blood sample of the victimwere referred to the Forensic Lab for analysis.I.O. collected the C.A.Report.After completion of the investigation, I.O. preferred the ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:03 ::: {7} Crapl 239.13 F.odtcharge-sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under sections143, 147, 148, 302 and 323 read with 149 of the I.P.C.::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:03 :::6] The learned Magistrate after receipt of charge-sheet andinvestigation papers under section 173 of Cr.P.C. registered the proceedingsbearing R.C.C.No.63 of 2009 and transmitted the matter to the concernedSessions Court for trial of the accused within the ambit of law, as theoffences levelled against them, were exclusively triable by the Court ofSessions.7) The learned Sessions Judge, after compliance of proceduralformalities, framed the charges against the accused.The substance ofaccusation were read over and explained to each of the accused invernacular, but, they pleaded not guilty.In order to bring home guilt ofaccused, prosecution adduced the evidence of PW-1 Dr. Manoj UttamraoHude (Exh.38), PW-2 Sanjay Ramrao Dongargawe (Exh.42), PW-3 LaxmanPundlik Suvarnakar (Exh.53), PW-4 Laxman Hariba Bargalle (Exh.69), PW-5Madhav Dhondiba Bochare (Exh.65), PW-6 Govind Vithalrao Suvarnakar(Exh.67), PW-7 Dr. Smbhaji Vishwanath Salunke (Exh.71), PW-8 HonajiBhujangrao Warane (Exh.76), PW-9 Anwarkhan s/o.Umardaraj Khan (Exh.87).The learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded the statement of accusedunder sections 313 (1)(b) of Cr.P.C. The accused denied the incriminatingcircumstances and claimed their innocence and false implication in this case.Learned Additional Sessions Judge appreciated the oral and circumstantialevidence adduced on record and concluded that the appellant-accused ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:03 ::: {8} Crapl 239.13 F.odtIshwar Baliram Hude is guilty for the offence punishable under section 302,323 of the IPC and accordingly imposed the punishment as referred above.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, did not come across withsufficient evidence for adverse inference against rest of the accused.Therefore, they all were acquitted for the charges pitted against them.Thelegality and validity of the impugned judgment and order of learned trialcourt is under challenge in the present appeals.::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:03 :::8] Learned senior counsel Shri Dhorde appearing for appellant-accused Ishwar scathingly assailed that the evidence of key witnesses PW-3Laxman and court witness Vimalbai is suspicious, dubious and not believableone.There are material discrepancies in the evidence of these witnesses.Their conduct and demeanor at the relevant time appears doubtful and notfree from blemish.Learned senior counsel explained that, these witnessesdid not attribute specific overt-act or participation of each of the assailantsin the alleged incident of assault.These witnesses woke up after the allegedassault on victim Shilavati.Therefore, they did not receive any opportunityto witness the incident.The PW-3 Laxman did not state that he had chasedthe assailants and at that time he was assaulted by pelting stones.Accordingto the PW-3 Laxman, the assailants, after seeing him awakened from thebed, started running away towards eastern side of the field.The learnedsenior counsel Shri Dhorde asserted that, when the assailants came to killPW-3 Lxman, in such circumstances, there was no reason for the assailants toescape from the spot after seeing him.He submits that, the entire story of ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:03 ::: {9} Crapl 239.13 F.odtthe alleged incident propounded on behalf of PW-3 Laxman appearsfabricated and concocted one with ill-intention to implicate the accused inthis case.He harped on the circumstances that, these witnesses are relatedand interested witnesses.The prosecution did not examine any independentwitness to corroborate their version for adverse inference against accused.There were houses of adjoining land owners nearby the alleged spotof incident.It is also brought on record in cross-examination of thesewitnesses that, passer-by and on lookers were thronged at the spot, but noindependent witness came forward to support the prosecution case.9] Learned senior counsel Shri Dhorde criticized that the conductand demeanor of PW-3 Laxman and his wife Vimalbai appears to be abnormaland against the normal human behaviour at the relevant time.They didnot take any endeavour to shift the daughter victim Shilavati to hospital formedical treatment at the earliest.But, they allowed victim Shilavati remainwith serious bleeding injuries uptil 5.00 p.m., when police arrived at thespot for panchnama of her injuries.Learned senior counsel Shri Dhorde alsopointed out that first informant Laxman did not disclose about the allegedincident to the police and maintained silence uptil lodging the F.I.R. on21-06-2008 in the night hours at about 9.00 p.m. There was delay inlodging F.I.R. The circumstances created doubt about the trustworthinessand credibility of the evidence of these interested witnesses.The learnedsenior counsel Shri Dhorde explained the circumstances about litigation in ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:03 ::: {10} Crapl 239.13 F.odtbetween appellant and PW-3 Laxman on account of land dispute.He submitsthat, the PW-3 embroiled the appellant falsely in this case to derive benefitin the litigation.The spot of incident was intentionally shown located in thecontentious land Gat No. 164 with purported motivation to prove hispossession over it.In supportof his arguments, he kept reliance on the judgments in the matter of (1)Bacchu Narain Sngh Vs.Naresh Yadav and others AIR 2004 SC 3055, (2)Rajeevan and another vs. State of Kerala, AIR 2003 SC 1813 (3) HarijanaThirupala and ors vs. Public prosecutor, High Court of A.P. , Hyderabad,AIR 2002 SC 2821 (4) Ram Kumar Pande vs. State of M.P., AIR 1975 SC1026, (5) Babu ram and others Vs.::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:03 :::They were inimical to the accused on accountof land dispute.PW-3 Laxman had an apprehension of attack from theaccused who were indulged in the money lending business.The assailantswere intending to eliminate the first informant Laxman but they attackedvictim Shilavati in mistake.The assailants were under the belief that thefirst informant PW- 3 Laxman had slept there covering his face with shawl.According to learned counsel, PW-3 Laxman also sustained injuries on hisboth legs and head due to assault by the accused with stones.The injuriesreceived to PW-3 Laxman indicate his presence on the scene of occurrence.The evidence of witness Vimalbai strengthen the version of PW-3 Laxman onthe material aspect.There are minor discrepancies and contradictions intheir evidence but same are not fatal to the prosecution case.The spousesdid not seek any help from the villagers or the relatives, that does not meanthat their conduct was abnormal and it would affect the veracity of theirevidence.The evidence of PW-3 Laxman and his wife Vimalbai establish thepresence of the accused, five in number at the spot, while assaulting victimShilavati.The assailants attacked Shilavati in prosecution of common objectof unlawful assembly.Therefore, they all are guilty under section 302 readwith 149 of the I.P.C. for murder of victim Shilavati.He fervidly urged toallow the appeal and upset the impugned order of acquittal of respondent-accused.He prayed to convict all the accused for the charges pitted againstthem.State of U.P., 2002 Cri.L.J. ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:03 :::{12} Crapl 239.13 F.odt2918, (3) Mallinath Gurusiddhappa Birajdar and others Vs.State ofMaharashtra and others, 2011 (4) Bom C. R. (Cri) 1, (4) MallikarjunRagati Vs.State of Karnataka, 2006, Cri.L.J. 4298, (5) Dalip Singh Vs.State of Panjab, 1997 Cri.L.J. 3647 (S.C.), (6) Ram Gulam Chaudhury andothers Vs.State of Bihar, AIR 2001 SC 2842, (7) G. Parshwanath Vs.11] Learned APP also stepped into the shoe of learned counsel ShriShejwal and submits that the impugned findings of the learned trial court foracquittal of the accused are erroneous, illegal and contrary to the provisionsof law.Therefore, he prayed to upset the impugned judgment and orderand accused be punished according to the provisions of law.12] We have given anxious consideration to the argumentscanvassed on behalf of both sides.We have also delved into the attendingcircumstances as well as oral and circumstantial evidence adduced onrecord.We find much force in the arguments advanced on behalf of learnedsenior counsel Shri Dhorde, appearing for appellant Ishwar and others.Inview of the mode and tenor of evidence of PW-3 Laxman and his wifeVimalbai, we are unable to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the findings ofconviction against appellant Ishwar expressed by the learned trial court.Moreover, the conclusion of acquittal of rest of the accused for the chargespitted against them does not warrant any interference.::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:03 :::The evidence of Medical Expert candidly proved that, the victimShilavati met with an homicidal death.PW-7 Dr. Salunke produced the post-mortem report on record (Exh.72).In the cross-examination, PW-7 Dr.Salunke stated that in case the medical treatment would have been receivedto the victim Shilavati at the earliest, the possibility of her survival could notbe ruled out.14] The most contiguous issue to be determined in this matter is, asto whether the accused Ishwar and his accomplices were the author of theinjuries sustained to victim Shilavati resulting into her death, and therebyresponsible for her death.It is not put in dispute that the family of first ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:03 ::: {14} Crapl 239.13 F.odtinformant Laxman and the accused were familiar with each other beingresidents of same locality as well as having landed property within theneighbourhood of the village Walandi and Deoni.It is an admitted fact thatthe alleged crime of murder of victim Shilavati has an chequered history oflitigations in between first informant Laxman and the appellant-accused.Obviously, they all were on inimical terms with each other.There washostile atmosphere and animosity amongst them.In such backdrop, weproceed to evaluate the guilt of the accused as alleged by the prosecution.15] In order to bring home guilt of the accused, prosecutionprimarily kept reliance on the evidence of first informant - PW-3 Laxman andhis wife Vimalbai.Thereafter, he visited to Deoni Police Station and filed F.I.R. (Exh.54).16] The evidence of witness Vimalbai is available on record forappreciation.She was examined as court witness in this case.It is to benoted that, at the fag end of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge found thatthe examination of the Vimalbai, wife of PW-3 Laxman, was essential for thejust and proper decision of the case.Therefore, the witness Vimalbai, wifeof first informant PW-3 Laxman was summoned under section 311 of theCr.P.C. for evidence in this case.While examination on oath, the courtwitness Vimalbai deposed that, on the day of incident i.e. 20-06-2008, sheaccompanied with husband PW-3 Laxman and daughter Shilavati, carried outthe agricultural operations and in the night hours, they went to sleep in thefield.The witnessVimalbai and her husband raised hue and cry for help.Thereafter, theassailants started running towards percolation tank on eastern side of theland.Her husband Laxman attempted to chase them.But, the assailantsattacked him by pelting stones and inflected injuries on his legs and head.The court witness Vimalbai further added that, no one else came to helpthem.Her husband told her to go to the Police Station at Deoni and filecomplaint.Accordingly, she came to Deoni Police Station at about 10.00a.m.and verbalized the incident to the concerned police.However, thepolice made her to sit in the police station and at about 4.00 p.m. theyobtained her thumb impression on the blank paper.She had disclosed thenames of all five assailants in her report to the police.Thereafter, thepolice informed that her daughter Shilavati was taken to the GovernmentHospital at Udgir.Therefore, she came to Udgir and saw her daughterwrithing in agony in the hospital.She was not in a condition to speak.Atlast, Doctor declared her daughter dead at about 7.30 p.m.17] Prosecution adduced the evidence of PW-2 Sanjay Dongergaveto prove the spot panchnama.The P.W-5 Madhav Bochre was the panch forpanchnama of injuries of witness Shilavati.The PW-6 Gopal was the panch ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:03 ::: {17} Crapl 239.13 F.odtto inquest panchnama.Prosecution also examined PW-4 Laxman Bargade,Jeep Driver, who carried the injured to Government Hospital at Walandi andlater on to Udgir for medical treatment.PW-1 Dr. Hude produced the injurycertificate of first informant PW-3 Laxman.Theywere inimical to the accused, following land dispute.The prosecution wasreluctant to examine the witness Vimalbai in this case.The prosecution alsoopposed to call the witness Vimalbai under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for herexamination before the Sessions Court.But, the learned trial court found itimperative to summon the witness Vimalbai for her evidence before theCourt to ascertain the truth.In such circumstances, the evidence of thesewitnesses requires strict scrutiny.However, if the presence of thesewitnesses at the scene of occurrence cannot be doubted, and their evidenceis found consistent with surrounding circumstances and probability of thecase, it can be a good foundation for conviction of the accused for the ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:03 ::: {18} Crapl 239.13 F.odtcharges pitted against them.In short, the evidence of these witnesses isrequired to be analyzed with great care and caution.19] PW-3 Laxman was the first informant, who filed the FIR and setthe criminal law in motion against the appellant-accused.In his evidence, ithas brought on record that, in the wee hours of morning, on 21-06-2008 atabout 4.30 a.m. he heard the screams of daughter Shilavati.He woke upand saw that the assailants were attacking his daughter with stones, but onseeing him, the assailants started running away from the spot.Theassailants also pelted stones towards the first informant PW-3 Laxman andinflicted injuries on his both legs and head.If the spot panchanama (Exh.43)is taken into consideration, it would reveal that there was only one boulderaround 2 Kgs.weight smeared with blood on the spot of alleged incident.The police recovered blood stained shawl, broken pieces of bangles, earthstained with blood and simple earth, as well as boulder from the spot underpanchanama.It is discernible from the nature of injuries received to victimShilavati that the injuries caused to her were owing to impact of single blowof boulder having 2 Kg.weight recovered from the spot.There were noother injuries noticed from the dead body of victim Shilavati except at herhead and face.If she would have been attacked by five assailants at a timewith stones and boulder, the possibility of multiple serious injuries to victimShilavati including crush injuries could not be ruled out.PW-7 Dr. Salunke, inhis cross-examination, explained that the injuries to fore-arm and knees ofvictim Shilavati would possible while dragging injured from one place to ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:03 ::: {19} Crapl 239.13 F.odtanother.At this juncture, it is to be appreciated that PW-3 Laxman, in hiscross-examination stated that due to sunlight his daughter was taken insidethe shed.In such attempt, injuries to her fore-arm and knees could bepossible while shifting her in the shed for protection from the sunlight.There are no allegations that the assailants dragged his daughter at the timeof alleged incident.PW-3 Laxman also did not attribute overt act and activeparticipation of each and every assailant while assaulting his daughter at thetime of alleged incident.These circumstances are not compatible with thehypothesis that the victim Shilavati was attacked by five assailants at a timewith stones and boulder.Therefore, it is doubtful that the allegationsnurtured on behalf of PW-3 Laxman in his FIR against the accused for theincident of assault resulting into serious injuries to his daughter, aretrustworthy and believable one.::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:03 :::20] PW-3 Laxman further deposed that assailants were intending tokill him at the time of alleged incident, but by mistake, they attacked hisdaughter under the belief that he had slept there.He further added thatafter hearing the screams of his daughter, he woke up and watched thespectacle of assaulting his daughter by the assailants.But, on seeing him,the assailants made their escape good from the spot.He had also stated thatwhile running away the assailants pelted the stones towards him andinflicted injuries to his both legs and head.In view of attendingcircumstances on record, it is strange to appreciate this version of PW-3Laxman that the assailants had an intention to eliminate him, but they ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:03 ::: {20} Crapl 239.13 F.odtassaulted victim Shilavati in mistake under the belief that PW-3 Laxman hadslept there, covering his face with shawl.These circumstances do notpermit to apply doctrine of transfer of malice to bring the act of assailantswithin the purview of section 301 of the I.P.C. We are completely at ourwit's end that when the motive of assailants was to kill PW-3 Laxman, thenfor what reason the assailants started running away from the spot, on seeinghim awaken from the bed; on the contrary, it was the best opportunity forthe assailants to complete their task by attacking PW-3 Laxman in wee hoursof the morning on the day of incident.It is preposterous to appreciate theversion of PW-3 Laxman that, on seeing him the assailants made their escapegood from the spot.The circumstances also caused damage to thecredibility of the evidence of PW-3 Laxman for adverse inference against theaccused.::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:03 :::But, the members of unlawfulassembly, instead of attacking PW-3 Laxman escaped from the spot on seeinghim.It would hard to believe that the assailants had an intention to kill PW- ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:03 :::{21} Crapl 239.13 F.odt3 Laxman, but they attacked victim Shilavati in mistake.It remains aconundrum that, even after seeing PW-3 Laxman awaken from the bed, atwee hours of morning, for what reason, the assailants allow to spare himand instead of attacking him, made their escape good from the spot.Theoccurrence of alleged incident of assault as projected by PW-3 Laxmanitself found suspicious and dubious one.22] In view of attending circumstances, the conduct and demeanorof PW-3 Laxman and his wife Vimalbai seems unnatural and against thehuman behavioural pattern.PW-3 Laxman in his cross-examination, deposedthat, on the day of incident in between 11-00 a.m. to 12-00 noon, nearabout 20 persons visited to him, but they did not help him.According topanch witness PW-5 Mahadu, while preparing panchnama (Exh.64) of theinjuries of victim there were near about 200 villagers thronged at the spot.The police also arrived for panchnama, but PW-3 Laxman or his wife Vimalbaidid not disclose about the alleged incident of assault by the accused.Moreover, no one else from the vicinity came forward to depose about thealleged incident of assault on the part of accused.It is also brought onrecord that there were houses of adjoining land owners in the field nearbythe spot of incident.The road leading from village Walandi was a publicthoroughfare having traffic of auto rickshaw carrying passengers, but, theprosecution did not examine any independent witness to strengthen theversion of related and interested witnesses in this case.The prosecutionexamined PW-4 Laxman Bargale, Jeep Driver, who carried the injured ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:03 ::: {22} Crapl 239.13 F.odtShilavati from the spot of incident to Government Hospital Walandi, andthereafter, to Udgir.But, he had also not stated about the cause of injuriesto victim Shilavati, nor PW-3 Laxman disclosed him about the allegedincident.The absence of evidence of independent witness proved fatal tothe prosecution case.::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:03 :::23] The evidence of court witness Vimalbai also found suspiciousand do not inspire confidence.The court witness Vimalbai was one of theeye witness of the incident.But, the prosecution was reluctant to examineher and attempted to suppress the genesis of the crime.Eventually, theconcerned trial Court summoned her under section 311 of the Cr.P.C. as acourt witness for adducing evidence.However, while appreciating theevidence of court witness Vimalbai, it seems that, the learned trial Courtcommitted error in appreciating her evidence in it's proper prospective.Thelearned trial Judge overlooked or glossed over the serious pit-falls andinfirmities in the version of spouses i.e. court witness Vimalbai and herhusband PW-3 Laxman.The conduct and demeanor of the spouses sincebeginning appear suspicious and doubtful.The court witness Vimalbai atthe relevant time was asleep abutting to victim Shilavati.She stated that,on hearing screams of her daughter, she woke up and saw that, accused, fivein number, were assaulting her daughter with stones at her head and face.She recognized the assailants in moon light.It is evident from thesecircumstances that, the witness Vimalbai had an opportunity to recognizethe accused as assailants who were five in number.But, when Vimalbai ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:03 ::: {23} Crapl 239.13 F.odtvisited to the police station for lodging report (Exh.83) about the incident,she spill the beans that the incident occurred at about 7.00 a.m. and theaccused Ishwar as well as his three accomplices had beaten up her daughterand husband on account of land dispute.The mode and tenor of the reportconstrained the concerned police to register N.C. No. 83 of 2008 undersection 323, 504 read with 34 of the I.P.C. The report of the witnessVimalbai (Exh.83) was not relates to commission of cognizable offence andtherefore it cannot be treated as FIR under section 154 of Cr.P.C. merelybecause it was received to police first in point of time.But, the report(Exh.83) would be appreciated to corroborate or contradict the version ofwitness Vimalbai under section 157 or 145 of the Evidence Act. It hasbrought on record that she recognized the assailants in moon light and theywere five in number.Therefore, the report (Exh.83), she gave at that time,should contain details about accused, their weapon and injuries caused toher daughter.But, the alleged report does not contain all these details norshe given names of assailants and their overt-acts.24] The act of omission to disclose the detail particulars of thecrime as well as names of all assailants at the earliest to the police by theeye-witness Vimalbai, devastated the gravity of the allegations nurturedagainst the accused.It would also affect the probabilities of the allegedincident.The court witness Vimalbai ventured to make allegations that thepolice made her to sit in the police station uptill 4.00 p.m. and later-on,obtained her thumb impression on the blank paper.We find painful to ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:03 ::: {24} Crapl 239.13 F.odtaccept these allegations against public servants.There are nocircumstances on record sufficient to create doubt about the integrity of thepolice at the relevant time in this case.::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:03 :::It would smack ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:03 ::: {25} Crapl 239.13 F.odtsomething fishy about the anxiety and ill intention of the PW-3 Laxman toembroil the accused taking umbrage of land dispute.There was alsopreventive action under section 107 of the Cr.P.C. initiated against PW-3Laxman prior to alleged incident.These circumstances are not onlyconsistent with the innocence of the accused but inconsistent with theirguilt as alleged by the prosecution.::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:03 :::27] There were allegations about the delay in lodging the F.I.R. inthis case.The alleged incident occurred at about 4.30 a.m. in the morningof 21-06-2008, but PW-3 Laxman lodged the F.I.R. on the very same day atabout 9.00 p.m. and it would fatal to trustworthiness and veracity of theversion of PW-3 Laxman.It is true that, since beginning, the accused areclamouring about the suspicious conduct and demeanor of the eye witnessesPW-3 Laxman and his wife Vimalbai.They did not seek help from theneighbourers.The alleged spot of incident was located in the field Gat No.164 of village Deoni.There were houses of adjoining land-owners nearby thespot of incident.The auto-rickshaws carrying passengers usedto ply on the said road.But, there was no endeavour on the part of PW-3Laxman and his wife Vimalbai to approach to the police for lodging FIR aboutthe incident at the earliest.PW-3 Laxman remained at the alleged spot ofincident through out the day of incident.He sent his wife Vimalbai to lodgethe report of incident to the police.According to prosecution, Vimalbai wasilliterate and rustic lady.The PW-3 Laxman had an experience about court ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:03 ::: {26} Crapl 239.13 F.odtlitigation and conversant with legal provisions.He would have lodge detailFIR of the crime to set penal law in motion.There was no reason for PW-3Laxman to send his wife to the police station to lodge report.It was notunfurled that why the PW-3 Laxman did not visit to the police station at theearliest to ventilate grievances against accused and remained idle for aentire day in the field with victim Shilavati.::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:03 :::28] The court witness Vimalbai stated in her cross-examination thatwhile going to the police station, she met with police constable Shri.Rokde,who was on duty in the area of alleged spot of incident.She did not disclosehim about the incident.The police personnel arrived at the scene ofoccurrence in the evening at about 5.00 p.m. for panchnama of injuries ofvictim Shilavati, at that time also PW-3 Laxman and his wife Vimalbai did nottake efforts to ventilate grievances against the accused for the allegedassault resulting into serious injuries to their daughter Shilavati.It hasbrought on record that, the denizens thronged at the spot and they wereinsisting to take the injured to hospital prior to injury panchnama (Exh.66),but PW-3 Laxman and his wife Vimalbai did not ask the police to take injuredto the hospital.The silence and reticence on the part of PW-3 Laxman andhis wife Vimalbai found detrimental to the prosecution case.29] Undisputedly, the F.I.R. can be used to corroborate orcontradict the maker thereof under section 157 or 154 of the Evidence Act(1) to impeach the credibility of the maker if examined as witness, (2) to ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:03 ::: {27} Crapl 239.13 F.odtshow that involvement of accused was not afterthought, (3) to use it asevidence as to conduct of informant under section 8 of the Evidence Act. It isthe rule of law that, FIR is the vital and valuable piece of evidence and onaccount of delay, it would not only gets bereft of the advantage ofspontaneity, but danger creeps in of introduction of coloured version, orexaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation andconsultation.The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of F.I.R. to policein respect of commission of crime is to obtain early information regardingthe circumstances in which the offence was committed, the names of actualassailants, and the role played by each of them, etc. In case, there wasdelay in F.I.R., it should be satisfactorily explained and if it is not properlyexplained, it would be unsafe to base conviction on the basis of this delayedF.I.R. In the matter in hand, there was colossal delay of more than 10 to 12hours to lodge FIR since occurrence of alleged incident.Obviously, it wouldcreate doubt about truthfulness of the evidence of PW-3 Laxman and his wifeVimalbai.There was no plausible explanation on the part of prosecutionwitnesses for delay in lodging the FIR.The conduct and demeanor of keywitness of the prosecution appears suspicious and against the humanbehavioural pattern.If in reality the alleged incident would have takenplace in the wee hours of morning, PW-3 Laxman and his wife Vimalbaishould have ventilated the grievance against the accused to the onlookers,denizens, passerby, etc., Moreover, there were no efforts to shift theirinjured daughter Shilavati to the hospital for medical treatment at theearliest.They maintained silence uptill 9.00 p.m. and thereafter the PW-3 ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:03 ::: {28} Crapl 239.13 F.odtLaxman blamed the assailants for injuries sustained to his daughter Shilavatifor the first point of time in his FIR (Exh.54).Taking recourse of the legalguidelines delineated in the cases (1) Bacchu Narain Sngh Vs.NareshYadav and others AIR 2004 SC 3055, (2) Rajeevan and another vs. Stateof Kerala, AIR 2003 SC 1813 (3) Harijana Thirupala and ors vs. Publicprosecutor, High Court of A.P. , Hyderabad, AIR 2002 SC 2821, we are ofthe opinion that there is serious doubt about the occurrence of allegedincident of assault, resulting into fatal injuries to victim Shilavati.30] The prosecution much more gave emphasis on the legal issue ofmotive of the crime.There were litigation on account of land dispute inbetween the PW-3 Laxman and accused.Taking umbrage of the landdispute, the accused with motive to eliminate PW-3 Laxman attacked hisdaughter in mistake.It is imperative to appreciate that the motive is doubleedged weapon, which cuts both ways, helping or harming, both theprosecution and the defence.It is to be noted that the motive cannot byitself sustain a criminal charge although proof of motive may lend assistanceto the evidence with regard to the actual occurrence; nor an offender can beset free simply for want of motive in the prosecution case.Where there issome motive to commit crime but no reliable evidence is available toconnect any of the accused with the alleged crime, the accused personswould entitle to be acquitted for the charges pitted against them.Obviously, the motive is something which prompts a man to form anintention to commit offence.Motive is the reason which induces or activates ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:03 ::: {29} Crapl 239.13 F.odta man to do a certain act.In the instant case, we would reiterate that thealleged crime has an chequered history of litigation.Prior to the allegedincident of assault on victim Shilavati, there were complaint against accusedunder Money Laundering Act as well as there was a proceeding under Section107 of Cr.P.C. initiated against PW-3 Laxman at the behest of appellantIshwar.These circumstances are sufficient for drawing an inference thatthere was hostile atmosphere amongst the accused.The PW-3 Laxman andaccused were at logger-heads following the land dispute.According toprosecution, the accused with a motive to eliminate PW-3 Laxman in mistakeattacked his daughter.As mentioned supra, the motive is a double edgedweapon and when there existed serious enmity between the parties, themotive for accused to kill first informant Laxman and motive for firstinformant Laxman to implicate the accused was equally balanced; then thecourt has to look to surrounding circumstances to find out the truth.It is tobe noted that the accused came forward with a specific defence that onaccount of animosities, PW-3 Laxman embroiled them falsely in this case.Therefore, mere enmity in between the accused and PW-3 Laxman ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:03 ::: {30} Crapl 239.13 F.odtfollowing land dispute, would not be a decisive factor to draw adverseinference against the accused in this case.::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:03 :::31] In catena of cases, the Honourable Apex Court observed that,different persons react differently under given circumstances.It is difficultto lay down a hard and fast rule, as to how and in what manner a personwould react and in order to achieve his motive, he could go to what extentin the commission of crime under particular circumstances.It is not possibleto measure up the extent of his feelings, desire so as to know, whatcompelled him to commit a particular act.At this juncture, thecircumstances constrained us to appreciate the report filed on behalf ofaccused Ishwar and Rohidas to the police (Exh.84) prior to F.I.R. Pursuant towhich, the police reached to the scene of occurrence to take stock ofsituation and drawn the panchnama of the injuries of victim Shilavati.Thisreport pointed out the needle of suspicion towards PW-3 Laxman and his wifeVimalbai themselves for the injuries sustained to his daughter.Thesecircumstances also require to be considered as mitigating circumstancesfavouring the accused.32] Learned counsel Shri Shejwal, relied on the judicialpronouncement in the matter of Rajkumar and others vs. State of UP(cited supra) and submits that strained relations in between PW-3 Laxmanand accused proved the motive and evidence of prosecution witnesses alsocorroborated by medical evidence.Therefore, there is no impediment to ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:03 ::: {31} Crapl 239.13 F.odtconvict the accused for the charges pitted against them.He has also reliedupon the case of Sham @ Raju Vs.State of Maharashtra (supra) as well asthe judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of MallinathGurusiddhappa Birajdar and others Vs.State of Maharashtra andothers, (supra) and submits that the injuries received to PW-3 itselfestablish his presence on the scene of occurrence.Therefore, his evidencecannot be discarded for some discrepancies and contradictions in hisevidence.All these cases aredistinguishable on the facts as in all these cases some peculiar facts werefound which probabilies the case of the prosecution.These judicialpronouncements appear not profitable to the prosecution and seemsmisplaced in this case.It would not advance the arguments put forth onbehalf of first informant PW-3 Laxman.::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:03 :::34] At the cost of repetition, we would like to mention that sincebeginning, the conduct and demeanour of the PW-3 Laxman and his wifeVimalbai appears incredulous and dubious in nature.They did not lodge FIRabout the incident promptly at the earliest and maintained the silence forcolossal period of 10 to 12 hours till lodging the FIR at belated stage at about ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:03 ::: {32} Crapl 239.13 F.odt9.00 p.m. The behaviour of these star witnesses of the prosecution, after thealleged incident also appears unnatural and against normal human behaviour.Therefore, the mere factum of sustaining injuries to the PW-3 Laxman do notmake his evidence qualify being cogent and credible for appreciation in thiscase.It would be unsafe to fasten the guilt on the accused on the versionof injured witness PW-3 Laxman and his wife Vimalbai.The Division Bench ofthis Court at its Principal Seat at Bombay had an occasion to deal withevidence of injured witness in the case of Narayan Kanu Datavale andothers Vs.State of Maharashtra, 1997 Cri.L.J. 1788, in which, in para 9it has been observed as under :-::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:03 :::"The short question in this appeal is as to whether the testimony of the three eye-witnesses namely Tukaram, Janardhan and Laxmi who are the brother, son and the mother of the deceased respectively, inspires confidence or not ? Our answer to the same is in the negative."It is no doubt correct that if a witness is injured, then his presence on the spot at the time and place of occurrence is prima facie established but ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:03 ::: {33} Crapl 239.13 F.odt for basing conviction solely on the evidence of an injured witness, is necessary that the injured witness must be held to be a wholly reliable witness.Wherein in a case there is the sole evidence of the injured witness against the accused and if it is shown that there is material infirmity and falsity in some part of his evidence, then it will not be at all safe to convict the accused solely on the evidence of the injured witness relying upon the eye-witnesses's account given by him without independent corroboration by material evidence."::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:03 :::35] In the instant case, the evidence of injured Laxman do not inspireconfidence and found not credible.In such circumstances we are of theview that the quality of evidence of witnesses on record is not upto the markand sufficient to satisfy judicial conscience to record verdict of guilt ofaccused on such evidence slender in nature.We are not inclined to acceptthe allegations nurtured on behalf of prosecution against the accused.Thedeath of victim Shilavati was homicidal in nature, but, the prosecutionmiserably failed to prove the nexus and proximity of the appellant-accusedwith the alleged cause of death of victim Shilavati.The quality of evidenceadduced on record do not permit us to draw an inference against theaccused for the charges pitted against them.Therefore, having given dueconsideration to the evidence of prosecution witnesses on record, we do notfind any impediment to absolve the accused for the charges levelled againstthem.We are of the opinion that the findings expressed by the Trial Courtagainst the appellant Ishwar appears erroneous, illegal and not within the purviewof law.However, the conclusion drawn by the learned Trial Court in regard to ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:03 ::: {34} Crapl 239.13 F.odtacquittal of the rest of the accused for the charges against them appearsjust, proper and reasonable and it would not warrant any interference.::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:03 :::36] In the result, the Criminal Appeal No.239 of 2013 of appellantIshwar is hereby allowed and his conviction recorded by the learned TrialCourt in Sessions Case No. 59 of 2009 is quashed and set-aside.Theappellant Ishwar is acquitted of the offence under section 302, 323 of theIndian Penal Code.The fine amount, if any, paid be refunded to appellant- Ishwar.However, the other appeals, i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 463 of 2013 andCriminal Appeal No. 664 of 2014 stand dismissed and disposed of accordingly.Registrar (Judicial) to transmit copy of this judgment and order to theconcerned Jail Authority and to the appellant Ishwar, immediately, forfurther process.The appellant- Ishwar shall furnish the bail bonds of Rs.15,000/- and surety of like amount under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. before theconcerned trial court at Udgir.::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:03 :::
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
195,227,758 |
This is the first application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail, as per the affidavit submitted by the applicant Sanjeev Dhore.The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No. 140/2014 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Padav district Gwalior for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506-B/34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.As per prosecution story, the applicant is the husband of the complainant.It is alleged that the applicant, his parents, his brother and cousin brother demanded dowry of rupees five lacs and treated the complainant with cruelty.Therefore, the complainant lodged a report.It is further alleged that the applicant took the complainant to her maternal house and left there but did not come to take her.It is also alleged that he has been demanding the dowry.On behalf of the applicant, it is submitted that all other co- accused persons were released on anticipatory bail by the learned Trial Court.Applicant further submits that if the applicant is arrested and is sent to jail, the chances of settlement between the husband and wife would be remote.Therefore, the applicant be granted anticipatory bail.(Sanjeev Dhore Vs.State) 2 M.Cr.Certified copy as per rules.(S.K. Palo) Judge Abhi
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
195,235,059 |
PER COURT:The applicant - appellant has filed this application seeking suspension / stay of conviction during pendency of the appeal.Before adverting to appreciate the submissions advanced, it is necessary to consider few facts leading to filing of the present application.::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 14:37:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 14:37:09 :::On 12.8.2011 the Police personnel attached to the Police Station Ambejogai (Rural) visited the S.R.T.R. Medical College & Hospital at Ambejogai and recorded the statement of Samadhan Mahadeo Kalunke - the complainant as well as the present applicant who were lying admitted in said hospital.Mr. Gaware, learned Counsel for the applicant has strenuously contended that the applicant is the victim of political animosity in the village.He has been falsely ::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 14:37:10 ::: 6743.16crapln 9 implicated in the instant case at the behest of his rival group in the village.At the relevant time of the incident, the applicant was Up-Sarpanch of the village.The complainant in the case against him had contested the election of village panchayat and lost in that election.He belongs to rival group of the applicant.As discussed, the applicant was tried along with ::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 14:37:10 ::: 6743.16crapln 19 thirteen other accused persons for committing offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 342, 504 and 506 of IPC and section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities) Act with allegations that on the date of the incident, the applicant had abused the complainant in the name of caste and assaulted him by means of 1 Kg.Weight lying in the ration shop causing injury to the complainant.After the investigation, charge-sheet came be filed against the applicant as well as the complainant.In the complaint dated 12.8.2011 registered vide CR No.104/2011 the complainant has alleged that at about 9 a.m., he visited the fair price shop of Pandurang Jeevan Somwanshi for taking food-grains.However, Pandurang ::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 14:37:09 ::: 6743.16crapln 3 Somwanshi refused to provide him food-grains and told that the stock of the food-grains is over.The complainant noticed that though the food-grains were lying for distribution in the ration shop, the shopkeeper refused to provide him food- grains on ration.When he pointed out to him that food-grain is available in the shop for distribution, the said shopkeeper told him that the food-grain lying in the shop was already given to others.Due to this reason, the complainant took out his mobile phone to call the Talathi of the village to make enquiry about distribution of food-grain from the said fair price shop.At that time, Pandurang Somwanshi the shopkeeper made phone call to the applicant and called him in the shop.Thereafter, the applicant along with 10 to 12 persons came to said fair price shop.The applicant snatched the mobile handset from the hand of the complainant and referring him by his caste, asked him to get out of that shop.He assaulted complainant by means of 1 Kg.Weight measure lying in the shop over his head.The other accused persons too assaulted him by means of kicks and fist blows as well as waist belt.The shutter of said shop was put down.He was confined in said fair price shop.After putting down shutter, the accused persons assaulted him.After some time, ::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 14:37:10 ::: 6743.16crapln 4 they pulled him out of the shop and pushed on the platform outside the shop premises.Thereafter, the accused persons took him towards S.T. Stand.While taking him towards S.T. Stand, the accused were beating him.After investigation the, charge-sheet was filed against the applicant and 13 other accused persons in the Court of J.M.F.C., Ambejogai.In due course, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Ambejogai.::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 14:37:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 14:37:10 :::On the basis of the statement of the applicant recorded in the S.R.T.R. Hospital at Ambejogai, offences punishable under sections 307, 323, 504 r.w. 34 of IPC came to be registered against said Samadhan Kalunke and two others and investigation was conducted.In the complaint registered at the instance of the present applicant, it is alleged that on 12.8.2011, he received a phone call of Pandurang Jeevan Somwanshi.He informed him that Samadhan Kalunke has come to his shop with ration cards of some other persons and insisting to provide ration of those cardholders who were not present with him.When he refused to provide ration of other cardholders, Samadhan Kalunke started abusing him.The applicant, therefore, went to the shop of Pandurang ::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 14:37:10 ::: 6743.16crapln 5 Somwanshi to convince Samadhan Kalunke that he cannot take ration of other cardholders.When he reached the shop of Pandurang Somwanshi, Samadhan Kalunke picked up quarrel with him and assaulted by means of knife over his thigh.Mahadeo Nivrutti Kalunke and Vaijnath Tatyarao Bansode and two other persons accompanying Samadhan Kalunke also assaulted applicant by fist and kick blows.When his nephew Annasaheb Dattatraya Patil rushed to rescue him, Samadhan Kalunke also assaulted him by means of knife on his abdomen and left thigh and attempted to kill him.On the basis of the complaint lodged by the applicant, case was investigated and charge sheet came to be filed against Samadhan Kalunke and two others in the court of J.M.F.C., Ambejogai.In due course, the case was committed to the Sessions Court.::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 14:37:10 :::Since both the cases were arising out of one and the same incident and counter cases, same were assigned to one and the same court and tried as counter cases.On conclusion of trial, in Special Case No.2/2012 arising out of the CR No.104/2011 registered at the instance of Samadhan Kalunke, the learned Additional, Sessions Judge has ::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 14:37:10 ::: 6743.16crapln 6 acquitted all the accused except the applicant.The applicant has been held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act. For committing offence under Section 324 IPC, the applicant has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to suffer R.I. for one month.For committing offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act, the applicant has been sentenced to suffer R.I.. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to suffer R.I. for one month.He has been acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 342, 504 and 506 r.w. 34 of IPC.Being aggrieved, the applicant has preferred the instant appeal on various grounds as set out in detail in the memo of appeal.::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 14:37:10 :::In the counter case arising out of CR No.105/2011 registered at the instance of the applicant as against Samadhan Kalunke and two others, vide judgment and order dated 14.01.2015 passed in Sessions Case No.25/2012, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai has acquitted all the accused.Being aggrieved, the applicant has preferred appeal in the High Court which is registered as Criminal ::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 14:37:10 ::: 6743.16crapln 7 Appeal No.781/2015 and vide order dated 15th December, 2016 passed by the division Bench of this Court, the appeal has been admitted.::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 14:37:10 :::Vide order dated 12 th February, 2015, this Court has admitted the appeal and further suspended execution of the substantive sentence and the applicant has been ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.15000/-.The applicant has moved this application seeking suspension / stay of conviction for the reasons mentioned in detail in the application.In nutshell, it is the say of the applicant that he is actively involved in social and political activities.Since the year 1990, he has served as office bearer of institutions and local bodies mentioned as under:- Sr.No Tenure Office bearer/institution .1 1990-1995 Member of village level multipurpose Co-operative society, Dhanora.::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 14:37:10 :::The applicant is desirous to contest the election as a member of the Zilla Parishad, Beed from Patoda Block, District Beed.Due to his conviction under section 324 of IPC and section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act, he is unable to contest the election unless the conviction is suspended.I have heard Mr.Niteen Gaware, learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State and further perused the record and proceedings.The complainant and other persons have encroached on the Gairan land admeasuring 16 - 17 acres from the village.As the Up-sarpanch of the village, he had taken steps to evict the complainant and other encroachers from the said land.Notices were issued to the complainant and others.Due to this reason, the complainant was on cross terms with the applicant.On the earlier day of the registration of offence, the applicant had lodged a complaint against the complainant for putting lock to the Computer Room in the school premises.On the day of the incident, the applicant received a phone call from Pandurang Somwanshi.He informed him on phone that the complainant has come to his shop with ration cards of other persons and insisting to provide ration to him in the name of those persons.On his refusal, the complainant abused him.Being Up-sarpanch of the village, the applicant visited the shop and tried to convince the complainant that he cannot demand ration in ::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 14:37:10 ::: 6743.16crapln 10 the name of other ration cardholders.However, the complainant was not in a mood to listen and assaulted him by means of a knife over his thigh.When his nephew rushed to rescue him, the complainant also assaulted him by means of knife over abdomen and thigh and both of them were seriously injured and hospitalized.It is pointed out that the complaint of the applicant was recorded while he was lying admitted in the hospital.On the basis of the statement recorded in the hospital, offence came to be registered against the complainant.Out of these three stab injuries, two stab injuries were caused over abdomen and one injury over thigh.The Medical Officer has described the injuries over abdomen as grievous injuries and caused by sharp, hard and pointed weapon.On the contrary, the applicant is shown to have received simple injuries which include CLW on mid parietal region and abrasion over nose and other part of the body.All the three injuries were found to be simple in nature.::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 14:37:10 :::::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 14:37:10 :::::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 14:37:10 :::::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 14:37:10 :::::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 14:37:10 :::::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 14:37:10 :::He submits that looking to the nature of evidence and sentence awarded, the request of suspension of conviction may not be entertained.In support of the submissions advanced, the learned APP has referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shyam Narain Pandey vs. State of U.P. delivered in Criminal Appeal No.1515 of 2014 arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No.5654 of 2014 CRLMP No.8191 of 2014), and State of Punjab vs Deepak Mattu 6 and the judgment of this Court (Smt. Sadhana S. Jadhav, J) Babanrao Shankar Gholap and Anr.vs. The State of Maharashtra delivered in Criminal Application No.1039 of 3 1997(2) Mh.L.J.780;4 2012 CRI.L.J. 930;5 2010 ALL M.R.(Cri) 1880;6 2007 AIR SCW 6056;::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 14:37:10 :::::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 14:37:10 :::On conclusion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted thirteen accused persons and convicted the applicant alone.There is no dispute as to the fact that on account of the incident dated 12.8.2011 two counter cases were registered.The complainant in the case against the applicant was the accused in the counter case registered at the instance of the applicant.In the case registered at the instance of the applicant arising out of the same incident, the complainant and two other persons were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 504 r.w. 34 of IPC.The fact is also not in dispute that against the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, the applicant has preferred appeal and the same is pending for final hearing.On perusal of the judgment in both the cases, the undisputed position emerges that the applicant and the complainant belong to two rival groups in ::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 14:37:10 ::: 6743.16crapln 20 the village and they were on cross terms with each other.The complainant in the case against the applicant had contested election of village panchayat and lost the election.It also emerges that the complainant was actively involved in political activities and member of political party.::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 14:37:10 :::::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 14:37:10 :::From the medical certificate produced along with affidavit, it reveals that the complainant in the case had sustained injuries such as abrasion over the nose and multiple abrasions over certain parts of body as well as CLW over head.In the injury certificate the injuries caused to the complainant Samadhan Kalunke are described, as under:::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 14:37:10 :::::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 14:37:10 :::i) CLW over mid-parietal region 2x1x0.5 cm) by Hard & Blunt weapon .... simple in nature.ii) Multiple Abrasion on body 8x5, 11x2, 8x4 cm by Hard & Blunt weapon .. simple in nature.iii) Abrasion over nose (1x1 cm) by Hard & blunt weapon ... simple in nature.iv) On X-ray examination no evidence of fracture seen.In comparison to above mentioned injuries noted on the body of complainant the injuries caused to applicant and his nephew in same incident, appears to be comparatively serious in nature.The injuries caused to the applicant Kishan Dadarao Patil in that incident are described, as under:i) Stab injury on right thigh at middle 1/3 on medial surface ... 2 x 1 cm x deep muscle with profuse bleeding, & vascular injury (femoral) ... Grievous in nature ... by sharp, hard pointed weapon.The injuries caused to Annasaheb Dattatraya Patil -nephew of the applicant in that incident are described, as under:::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 14:37:10 :::::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 14:37:10 :::i) Stab injury on left side of abdomen at the level of umbilicus ...(2 cm x 1 cm Muscle, peritoneal deep, elliptical in shape ..grievous in nature .. by sharp, hard pointed weapon.ii) Stab injury on left side abdomen above the groin ... 3 cmx1 cm peritoneal deep omentum protruding out ... grievous in nature ... by sharp, hard pointed weapon.Iii) Stab injury on left lower 1/3 of thigh .. 8 cm x 1 cm .. muscle deep ... simple in nature... by sharp, hard pointed weapon.Thus, if we consider the injuries caused to the applicant and his nephew in the same incident in comparison with the injuries caused to the complainant, then it appears that the applicant and his nephew sustained stab injuries that too grievous in nature.As per the panchanama, the blade of the knife was recovered from the spot of the incident.The blade was found to be lying in the shop premises.The handle of the knife shown to be recovered at the instance of the complainant as per memorandum recorded u/s 27 of the Indian EvidenceIf we consider the overall allegations made in the complaint, then it appears that the complainant has alleged that he was assaulted by fourteen persons in the shop premises, that too, by means of kick and fist blows as well as ::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 14:37:10 ::: 6743.16crapln 23 waist belt.It is alleged that shutter of the ration shop was put down and he was confined in the shop and then the accused persons beat him for about 15 minutes.Later on, the door of the shop was opened and he was pushed on the platform outside the ration shop and then those accused persons took him towards S.T. Stand.While taking him towards S.T. Stand, the accused were continuously beating him.But, the injuries as noted on his body are found to be not of serious in nature.::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 14:37:10 :::It appears from evidence on record that the incident had occurred all of a sudden.As per the panchanama, few ration cards of the persons other than the complainant were found lying in the ration shop.It also emerges that the complainant had no ration card in his own name.The name of the complainant was shown in the ration card of his father.There is no corroboration to the testimony of the complainant from an independent person.The persons examined are found to be interested one.There are number of contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses to the incident.::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 14:37:10 :::::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 14:37:10 :::Thus, the grounds raised in the appeal make out an arguable case to be considered in appeal in favour of the applicant.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, though disbelieved the testimonies of the same set of witnesses against thirteen accused person and acquitted other accused but, convicted the applicant by relying testimonies of same witnesses.Nowhere it is brought on record that the injuries found on the person of the applicant and his nephew were self-inflicted.The injuries found on their person were not explained by the prosecution.It is evident from the record that the incident was not premeditated.The quarrel had taken place in the ration shop on account of demand of ration in the name of other cardholders.In the light of admitted fact that there was a political animosity between the applicant and the complainant and they were belonging to two different groups.Therefore, as contended the implication of the applicant in a false case cannot be be ruled out in the facts and circumstances of the case.The applicant has filed affidavit pursuant to directions of the Court and categorically stated that except the present case, no other case is pending against him.He has stated that one case was registered against him in the year, 2006 and the same has ended in acquittal.Thus, except the instant case, there is no other criminal case pending against the applicant.It is nowhere the case of the prosecution that the applicant invariably indulges in criminal activities and suspension of his conviction would lead to criminalization of politics.::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 14:37:10 :::The appellant - applicant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo the sentence for a term of two years.The offences for which the applicant has been convicted are not punishable with imprisonment for life or death penalty.Undisputably, the incident occurred all of a sudden.The offence for which the appellant has been convicted, cannot be termed as an offence falling under the category involving moral turpitude.::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 14:37:10 :::::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 14:37:10 :::In the appeal filed, the appellant has raised various grounds.In my view, the grounds raised in the appeal make out a case of fair chances to succeed in the appeal.The appellant was granted anticipatory bail.On conviction, the sentence of the appellant was suspended by the trial Court to enable the appellant to prefer an appeal.In appeal, this Court has already suspended the execution of the substantive sentence.There are no criminal antecedents of the appellant- applicant.In the evidence on record, there is reference to the political rivalry between the applicant and the complainant.They belong to two different political parties.The complainant had contested the village panchayat election from the rival party of the appellant and lost the election.The applicant had initiated process to evict the complainant and other encroachers from the Government land.One day prior to the incident, the appellant had lodged complaint against the complainant for his act of illegally putting lock to the computer room of the school in the village.The witnesses examined in the case are closely related to the complainant.No independent witness has been examined in the case.The applicant had sustained stab injuries in the incident.The nephew of the applicant also sustained three stab injuries in ::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 14:37:10 ::: 6743.16crapln 27 the incident.In comparison, the complainant had sustained simple minor injuries.The injuries sustained by the complainant were described as two abrasions on nose and abdomen and CLW over head.No fracture was detected on examination of the complainant.The complaints of the appellant - applicant as well as complainant were recorded by the police while they were admitted in the hospital in injured condition.It is nowhere the case of the prosecution that the applicant and his nephew have inflicted the injuries on their body and lodged false complaint against the complainant.The appeal filed by the applicant against the judgment and order of acquittal of the complainant for offences punishable under Section 307, 323 and 504 r.w. 34 of IPC is already admitted by the Division Bench of this Court.Therefore, considering the overall facts of the case and evidence on record, I am of the view that there is arguable case to be considered on merit in the appeal filed by applicant.::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 14:37:10 :::Thus, in case the request of the applicant to suspend / stay the conviction is not entertained, the applicant - appellant will not be entitled to contest the election in view of the disqualification operating under Section 16(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 and may cause injustice and irreversible damage to the appellant.::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 14:37:10 :::On due consideration of the facts of the case and the position in law discussed above, I am of the view that this is a fit case wherein the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed against the applicant - appellant by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambejogai, deserves to be stayed for a limited purpose to enable the applicant - appellant to participate in the ensuing process of election subject to the outcome of the appeal with a further direction to expedite hearing of the criminal appeal filed by the appellant.It is clarified that the observations as made above are made for limited purpose to find out the case of exceptional circumstances made out to show indulgence of court.The ::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 14:37:10 ::: 6743.16crapln 29 observations so made be not treated as observations made as to merit of the case.It shall have no bearing upon the decision of appeal on merits.::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 14:37:10 :::In the result, Criminal Application No.6743 of 2016 is allowed in terms of prayer clause (A) subject to outcome of the appeal.The record & proceedings be sent to the trial Court forthwith.The trial Court is directed to expeditiously prepare the paper-book and submit the record & proceedings with paper-book within three months from the date of its receipt.On receipt of paper- book, the appeal be listed for final hearing.The criminal application is disposed of, accordingly.[ V.L. ACHLIYA, J ] Kadam.::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 14:37:10 :::::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 14:37:10 :::
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,952,397 |
(a) P.W.1 is the son of the deceased.He is an eye witnesses to the occurrence.He had deposed that one Ravikumar was conducting Chit Transaction in which P.W.3, Ezhumalai, who is the brother's son of the deceased, the accused and others were subscribers.The said Ezhumalai did not remit the subscription of Rs.10,000/= in respect of 5 accounts.Since his deceased father was the erstwhile Panchayat President, the said Ravikumar came and requested his father to help him in collecting the defaulted amount from Ezhumalai which amount has to be paid to the accused.Thereafter a Panchayat was held in which the deceased instructed Elumazhai to subscribe the amount.Despite that, he did not pay the amount.Hence, the accused after taking drinks, very often used to come to the residence of the deceased and make ugly scenes.On 28.12.2004 at 9.00 p.m., also when P.W.1, and his family members were about to sleep, the accused entered into the house by breaking open the closed door and asked the deceased to come out.Then the deceased asked his family members to keep quiet, and was stepping towards the Veranda to see the accused.But, by that time, the accused entered inside the house and beat the deceased on his chest with his hands, due to which, the deceased fell down, and even before P.W.1 came to the rescue, again the accused with his legs kicked the deceased on the abdomen, and ran away.When P.W.1 lifted his father, he found his father breathed his last.Apprehending postmortem of the body, he did not opt to give any complaint to the police.Thereafter, only at the instance of his uncle one Mani, who was working in a Co-operative Bank, who came in the morning and advised him to give a police complaint, since it is a murder case, P.W.1 gave the complaint Ex.P.1 on the next day at 1.00 p.m.(b) P.W.2 is the daughter of the deceased.Since her husband died, she was residing with her parents.He deposed about the chit transaction and the non payment of the chit amount of Rs.10,000/= by him and the intervention by the deceased who directed him to pay the amount directly to the accused.But, he has not paid the money to the accused even after a year.On 28.12.2004, at 9.00 p.m., he came to know about the death of the deceased and when enquired with P.W.1, he told that because of the quarrel due to the non payment of the chit amount, the accused killed his father.(d) P.W.4, Mani is the Village Administrative Officer.On the date of occurrence, when he was in his Office at 9.00 a.m., the Village Assistant came and intimated about the death of the deceased Govindan.At 2.00 pm., the police came and prepared an Observation Mahazar (Ex.P.2), which was attested by him along with the Village Assistant.Thereafter at 8.00 pm., when he was present in the office along with the Village Assistant Munusamy and one Kothandam, the accused came and intimated them that he had done away with the deceased Govindan and sought protection.Thereafter the accused gave a confession statement and along with the endorsement made thereunder with attestation by the Village Assistant Munisamy and one Kothandam, along with a separate report prepared by him, the VAO produced the accused before the Police.The police also enquired the accused and obtained statement in which the VAO and Village Assistant have signed as witnesses.(e) P.W.6 is one Mani, and the deceased Govindan is his uncle.He resides in another village.(f) P.W.7 is the Sub Inspector of Police at the relevant period in the Arni Taluk Police Station and according to him, on 29.12.2004 at 1.00 pm., P.W.1 came to the Station and lodged Ex.P.1 complaint, which was registered by him as Crime No: 1006 of 2004 under Section 449 and 302 IPC and sent the FIR to the Court and copy of the FIR to the Inspector of Police.(g) P.W.8 is the Inspector of Police.On receipt of the FIR, he reached the scene of occurrence at 2.15 p.m., and prepared Observation Mahazar, Ex.He drew the Rough Sketch, Ex.He conducted inquest over the body of the deceased.P.10 is the inquest report.That apart, even according to the evidence of the eye witnesses, the second overt act of kicking of the deceased by the accused with his leg is only on the stomach or abdomen and not on the testicles.Therefore, it is clear that at the moment of commission of the crime, the accused could not have had any intention to kill the deceased or had the knowledge that his act of kicking in the lower abdomen may accidentally fall on the private parts, and in consequence of that, even accepting the medical opinion, the deceased, who was aged 65 years, would die due to neurogenic shock.As regards compensation, the sentence of fine imposed by the trial court for the two offences punishable under Sections 449 and 302 IPC is confirmed and the total fine amount of Rs.8,000/= paid by the accused is to be treated as compensation and directed to be paid to P.Ws 1 and 2 respectively in equal proportion under Section 357 (1) Cr.P.C. In addition to the above, under Section 357(4) Cr.P.C., the accused/appellant is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/= each to the Son (P.W.1) and Daughter (P.W.2) of the deceased, which shall be payable directly to the parties in the form of Demand Drafts.In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed in part modifying the conviction and sentence to the extent indicated as above.The Bail Bonds executed by the accused shall stand cancelled, and the learned Sessions Judge shall take necessary steps to secure the presence of the accused to commit him to prison, to undergo the remaining period of sentence.The Prl.District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai.The Judicial Magistrate, Arni.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore.(Delivered by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.) Challenging the conviction and sentence dated 30.11.2006 imposed on the appellant/accused in S.C.No.51 of 2005 on the file of learned District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai, convicting him for the offence under Sections 449 IPC and sentencing to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.3000/=, in default, to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment, and for the offence under Section 302 IPC to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for One year, the accused has come forward with the present appeal.The allegations in the two charges framed against the accused Panchatcharam are that (i) due to previous enmity with the deceased Govindan with respect to a chit money transaction, on 28.12.2004 at 9.00 p.m., the accused trespassed into house of the deceased, thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 449 IPC, and (ii) with the intention to commit the murder of the deceased, fisted on his chest with hands and kicked on his stomach with his leg, which caused the instantaneous death of the deceased and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC.He sent the body of the deceased for conducting autopsy, with requisition.On the same day at 9.30 pm., the VAO produced the accused with his voluntary confession statement, along with his report.The Inspector of Police recorded the voluntary confession given by the accused in the presence of the VAO and Village Assistant and thereafter sent the accused to judicial custody.(h) P.W.5, Doctor, who conducted the postmortem found the body bloated with blisters over the face, upper limbs, chest and abdomen, particularly dried blood clot was seen in the tip of urethra and penis and scrotum were swollen.On dissection of the penis, the Doctor found clotted blood in the congested urethra.Finally, the Doctor gave his opinion that with the blood clot in the urethra, and no other fatal injury, and with history of sudden blow to receptor area like penis and lower abdomen and sudden instantaneous death, the deceased would appear to have died of primary or neurogenic shock.(i) In continuation of his investigation, the Inspector of Police again went to the Mattadari Village and recorded the statements from the witnesses.The bloodstained Dhoti (M.O.1) and red colour towel (M.O.2) were recovered from the dead body after postmortem and sent for chemical analysis through Court.The Inspector of Police also recorded the statement of the Medical Officer, VAO and Village Assistant.Completed his investigation and filed the final report on 27.1.2005 against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 449 and 302, IPC.Thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and charge was framed and since the accused denied his complicity in the offence, the case was taken up for trial.After completion of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, when the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances that appeared against him, the accused denied them as false and pleaded not guilty.However, neither any witness was examined, nor any documentary evidence was produced by the accused in support of his version.The learned trial judge, on perusal of the materials, oral and documentary and after hearing both sides, convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned.Hence, the present appeal.Therefore, it is contended that the appellant could not have been attributed with the intention of causing the death of the deceased.According to the learned counsel, as already contended, the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 coupled with the medical evidence clearly shows that the deceased died not due to any injury but due to primary or neurogenic shock, as the appellant/accused had fisted with his hands on the chest and kicked with his legs on the stomach of the deceased.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also fairly conceded to the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant in bringing down the offence from Section 302 IPC to the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC.As far as the motive is concerned, the prosecution projected money dispute as the motive for the occurrence.As per the complaint Ex.P.1, given by P.W.1, son of the deceased, and the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3, it is seen that one Ravikumar had been conducting Chit transaction and P.W.3, Elumalai, who is the brother's son of the deceased, had defaulted a sum of Rs.10,000/= and at the instance of Ravikumar, the deceased, since he was the erstwhile Panchayat President, conducted a Panchayat and directed P.W.3 to directly pay the said amount to the accused.However, the said amount had not been paid by P.W.3 for nearly a year after the said Panchayat and therefore, the accused thought that the deceased was the cause for such delay and therefore very often used to come and shout against the accused.This aspect of motive is corroborated by P.Ws.1 to 3 in their evidence.This would amply prove the motive on the part of the accused in committing the crime.As far as the manner of occurrence is concerned, the occurrence took place on 28.12.2004 at about 9.00 p.m., in the night.When P.W.1, and his family members were about to sleep, the accused in an inebriated condition by breaking open the closed door, trespassed into the house and asked the deceased to come out.Then the deceased asked his family members to keep quiet, and was stepping towards the Veranda to see the accused.By that time, the accused entered into the house and beat the deceased on his chest with his hands, due to which, the deceased fell down, and even before P.W.1 came to the rescue of the deceased, the accused again with his legs kicked the deceased on the abdomen, and ran away.When P.W.1 lifted his father, he found his father breathed his last.The accused has given extra judicial confession to P.W.4, Mani, Village Administrative Officer.According to him, on the date of occurrence at 8.00 p.m., when he was present in the office along with the Village Assistant Munusamy and one Kothandam, the accused came, intimated them that he had done away with the deceased Govindan and sought protection.Thereafter, the accused voluntarily gave the extra judicial confession Ex.P.3, and along with the endorsement made thereunder, with attestation by the Village Assistant Munisamy and one Kothandam, with a separate report prepared by him, the VAO produced the accused before the Police.The police also enquired the accused and obtained a statement in which the VAO and Village Assistant have signed as witnesses.The VAO, Village Assistant and one Kothandam support the prosecution case regarding the voluntary Extra Judicial Confession made by the accused.Being independent witnesses, their testimony cannot be doubted as they have no motive to implicate the accused falsely.As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that the offence, at the most, will fall only under Section 323 I.P.C., from the evidence available on record, it is clear that there was prior enmity and quarrels between the accused and the deceased, since the accused was under the impression that it is only at the intervention by the deceased, as the erstwhile Panchayat President, P.W.3, Elumalai, his relative, was delaying the payment of the defaulted chit money to him and therefore, he used to very often come and shout against the deceased.P.Ws 1 and 2 are eye witnesses to the occurrence.As per the evidence of P.W.1, the accused is said to have fisted the deceased on his chest with the hands, due to which the deceased fell down and again the accused kicked the deceased on his abdomen.P.W.1 also categorically admitted in his cross examination that the occurrence took place for about 10 minutes which clearly shows that the accused has not attacked the deceased immediately and a wordy quarrel preceded the occurrence.The categorical statement of P.W.2, daughter of the deceased, another eye witness is to the effect that the occurrence took place outside the house.According to her, soon after the deceased came out of the house, the accused is said to have beat the deceased on his chest with his hands and kicked on his stomach.On the other hand, even according to P.W.8, the Investigation Officer, P.Ws.1 and 2 have not stated to the Police during investigation that the accused wanted to beat and kill the deceased.It is also relevant to note that though the appellant/accused is alleged to have fisted on the chest and kicked on the lower abdomen of the deceased, as seen from the post-mortem certificate, there is no external injury or corresponding internal injury found by the Doctor, namely fracture of ribs or rupture of abdominal vital parts, except blood clot in the congested urethra and bloated scrotum.It is opined by the Doctor that in the absence of any fatal injury, due to the blood clot in the urethra, which was due to the sudden blow to receptor area like penis and lower abdomen, the deceased appeared to have died of primary or neurogenic shock.It is pertinent to note that the Doctor has not stated that such internal injury sustained by the deceased is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.The accused in this case is said to have kicked the deceased on his stomach.In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, by no stretch of imagination, the accused could be imputed with intention or knowledge of causing the death of the deceased and at the worst, his act would fall only under Section 323 IPC.Therefore, we are left with the inevitable conclusion that the act of the accused would clearly fall under Section 323 IPC for the offence of voluntarily causing hurt.Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC is modified to that of the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and the appellant/accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for One Year.Further, we are of the considered view that the the accused/appellant shall pay compensation to the family members of the deceased.However, the conviction under Section 449 IPC for house trespass is confirmed.Accordingly, the accused/appellant is convicted under Sections 449 and 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo year rigorous imprisonment for the offences, which sentences shall run concurrently.3. -do- thru' the Chief Judicial Magistrate, TiruvannamalaiThe Public Prosecutor, High Court, MadrasThe District Collector, Tiruvannamalai.The Director General of Police, ChennaiThe Inspector of Police, Arni Taluk Police Station Crl.A.No:1099 of 2006P.D.DINAKARAN, J.,andK.N.BASHA, J.(Order of the Court was made by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.,) The above Criminal Appeal was already allowed in part by our judgement dated 30.6.2008, whereunder the conviction and sentence dated 30.11.2006 imposed on the appellant/accused in S.C.No.51 of 2005 by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai, convicting him for the offence under Sections 449 IPC and sentencing to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.3000/=, in default, to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment, and for the offence under Section 302 IPC to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for One year, was modified by this court as hereunder:-In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, by no stretch of imagination, the accused could be imputed with intention or knowledge of causing the death of the deceased and at the worst, his act would fall only under Section 323 IPC.Therefore, we are left with the inevitable conclusion that the act of the accused would clearly fall under Section 323 IPC for the offence of voluntarily causing hurt.Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC is modified to that of the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and the appellant/accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for One Year.Further, we are of the considered view that the the accused/appellant shall pay compensation to the family members of the deceased.However, the conviction under Section 449 IPC for house trespass is confirmed.Accordingly, the accused/appellant is convicted under Sections 449 and 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo year rigorous imprisonment for the offences, which sentences shall run concurrently.As regards compensation, the sentence of fine imposed by the trial court for the two offences punishable under Sections 449 and 302 IPC is confirmed and the total fine amount of Rs.8,000/= paid by the accused is to be treated as compensation and directed to be paid to P.Ws 1 and 2 respectively in equal proportion under Section 357 (1) Cr.P.C. In addition to the above, under Section 357(4) Cr.P.C., the accused/appellant is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/= each to the Son (P.W.1) and Daughter (P.W.2) of the deceased, which shall be payable directly to the parties in the form of Demand Drafts. "When the matter is thus posted today for reporting compliance of payment of compensation to P.Ws.1 and 2, who are the Son and Daughter of the deceased, as ordered by this court on 30.6.2008, Mr.K.S.Rajagopalan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused, with regret, submits that he could not confirm this Court whether or not the direction of this court has been duly complied with.He also expressed his inability to contact his client and report the compliance in the near future.In all other aspects, the earlier judgement, dated 30.6.2008 shall stand unaltered.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
195,242,353 |
Srimanta List - S/L Sl.No. 11 Ct. No. 25 C. O. 4054 of 2017 Vikash Kumar Bari @ Vikash Kumar BariDibya Prasad @ Dibya Kumari Prasad Mr. Ankit Agarwala, Adv., Ms. Alotriya Mukherjee, Adv., Ms. Ankita Das, Adv....for the petitioner.Mr. Syed E. Huda, Adv, Mr. A. K. Rai, Adv....for the opposite party.This application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is filed by the husband/petitioner against the wife/opposite party praying for transfer of Matrimonial Suit No. 356 of 2017 presently pending before the learned District Judge, Howrah to the 1st Court of the learned Additional District Judge at Sealdah.In his application, the petitioner has stated that he instituted Matrimonial Suit No. 356 of 2017 for dissolution of marriage against his wife, opposite party herein before the learned District Judge, Howrah.The opposite party has been contesting the suit by filing written statement and counter-claim.It is pleaded by the petitioner that he instituted the suit erroneously in the Court of the learned District Judge, Howrah though the said Court has no jurisdiction to try the said suit.Therefore, he has prayed for transfer of the said suit to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Sealdah.Mr. Ankit Agarwala, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party was solemnized at Bagbazar within the jurisdiction of Family Court, Calcutta.Presently, the wife/opposite party has been residing at Cossipore within the jurisdiction of Sealdah.The parties resided together lastly in a rented accommodation at B. T.Road which is also within the jurisdiction of Sealdaah.But the petitioner on wrong instruction has filed Matrimonial Suit No. 356 of 2017 before the learned District Judge, Howrah.It is also urged by Mr. Agarwala that the opposite party filed a criminal case under Section 498A Indian Penal Code which is pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah.She also filed a proceeding under various provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against her husband which is also pending at Sealdah.The petitioner has been attending Sealdah Court to contest the said proceedings.Therefore, for the sake of convenience of both the parties the matrimonial suit should be transferred to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Sealdah.Mr. Syed E. Huda, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party, on the other hand draws my attention to paragraph 8 of the said application where the petitioner unequivocally submits that he instituted the matrimonial suit erroneously before the learned District Judge, Howrah.Admittedly, marriage was not solemnized within the jurisdiction of Howrah District Judge's Court.The parties lastly resided in the jurisdiction of Sealdah in a rented accommodation.Presently, the wife has been 3 residing at Cossipore.Matrimonial Suit No. 356 of 2017 be transferred from the Court of the learned District Judge, Howrah to the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court at Sealdah.Office is directed to send a notice to both the Courts below for information and compliance.Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned Advocates for the parties on the usual undertakings.(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
19,524,252 |
However, in the said facts prayer is made to enlarge the applicant on bail.The application is allowed and it is directed that he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- ( fifty thousand) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of JMFC concerned or CJM for his appearance in the trial Court on the dates so fixed by that Court during the trial.Certified copy as per rules.(J.K. MAHESHWARI) JUDGE
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
195,242,556 |
C.C.as per rules.( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/Heard on the question of admission.Revision is admitted for final hearing.Requisition the record of the trial Court.Also heard on I.A.No.4918/2015 which is first application under Section 397 read with Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of applicant no.1-Majnu S/o Devaji, applicant no.2-Roopsingh S/o Anupsingh, applicant no.3-Jeeku S/o Babusingh and applicant no.4- Jiji S/o Chunnilal.The applicants suffered conviction and sentence as under:-After going through the impugned judgment and taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed.It is directed that if the present applicants furnish personal bond of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) each and a solvent surety each 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 applicants shall be suspended and they be released on bail for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 16.09.2015 and thereafter on all subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf.
|
['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
195,245,870 |
Appearing counsel for the parties heard on alleged first bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. before this Court in relation to Crime No.555/2017 registered at Police Station Civil Line, District Vidisha in reference to offences punishable under Sections 380 and 411of the IPC and the produced case diary is perused.Applicant -Vijay Ahirwar has been arrested on 03.11.2017 and his bail application under the same provision has already been dismissed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Vidisha vide order dated 08.11.2017, whose certified copy is annexed with the bail application.Appearing counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case and he is only a poor labour (Hammal) and co-accused persons Jinendra and truck driver -Chandra Prakash have been granted benefit of regular bail by the lower Court.The allegedly stolen rice and truck used for shifting rice have been seized during the investigation and the relating offences are not punishable with life imprisonment, hence, it is prayed that the benefit of regular bail be given to the applicant.Per contra, the above mentioned application has been strongly opposed by learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that Jinendra Jain was purchaser and Chandra Prakash was only the truck driver, whereas according to the prosecution case on 18.10.2017 from concerned 2 warehouse situated at Vidisha 500 bags of Government rice were loaded in a truck by the labours of Santosh Ahirwar and Manager of concerned warehouse -Amit Chaube made a wrong entry relating to the Registration of truck number at Dharmkanta (balance), hence, looking to the role of the present applicant and as during investigation, Rs.2,64,000/- has been seized from co- accused -Amit Chaubey, Rs.8,000/- has been seized from Vijay and Rs.4,000/- has been seized from Santosh, therefore, rejection of bail was prayed.Considering the rival contentions of the parties without commenting on the merits of the case, as no criminal history of the present applicant is shown by the prosecution and relating offences are not punishable with life imprisonment and sold/stolen rice and above mentioned money and truck have been seized, hence, the application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed.It is ordered that the applicant -Vijay Ahirwar be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent surety bond of same amount to the satisfaction of the concerned CJM, Vidisha for his regular appearance on fixed dates before the Court concerned.Certified copy as per rules.postalCode=474011, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=bf81a9adb1da24e4bc7b5195154 c3d4de08c6bb9303e52e2e7e728d9bac85 bd3, 2.5.4.45=032100260A9463D58324D52328 SIYA 0453E96652630D4A0378D7A885DDF9B3 66D91718C5ED, cn=ASHISH CHOURASIYA Date: 2017.12.21 10:51:28 +05'30'
|
['Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
195,246,599 |
20.7.2015gaIndex: Yes/NoInternet:YesToThis revision petition has been filed challenging the dismissal of the discharge petition filed by the petitioner under Section 227 of Cr.PC.., in C.M.P.No.1063 of 2012 in S.C.No.498 of 2011 on the file of the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai.The case of the prosecution is that one Netaji, who is the conductor of the bus bearing Registration No.TN 01 N 5649 and the bus route is from Thiruvotriyur to Thiruvanmiyur Depot Route No.1, has given complaint stating that on 26.11.2011 during the third single trip from Thiruvotriyur to Thiruvanmiyur at Royapuram bus stop the deceased got into the bus and the accused alighted the bus at clive battery bus stop and at about 8.20 p.m., when the bus stopped at Rajaji Salai Beach Station bus stop, there was a wordy quarrel between the deceased and the accused which leads to death of the deceased.The complainant Netaji and the driver Mohanavel while intervened the wordy quarrel in between the deceased and the accused herein and also tried to passify both of them, the accused kicked the deceased by his legs and beaten by his hands as such the deceased fell down from the bus and sustained head injury and thereafter, they were admitted in the hospital.Pending trial, the petitioner herein has filed petition under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., and the same was dismissed.Therefore, the petitioner has come forward with this revision.According to the learned counsel, since the Court below has not considered the above fact before dismissing the discharge petition, the petitioner may be given one more opportunity to argue this point before the Court below.The learned Government Advocate submitted that since the petitioner has not raised this point during the course of argument, the same was not considered by the Court below and the petitioner can very well approach the Court below to put forth his case.5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate and perused the records.Accordingly, without expressing any opinion with regard to the merit of the case, the order dated 02.7.2012 made in C.M.P.No.1063 of 2012 in S.C.No.498 of 2011 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Court below for fresh consideration.The petitioner is at liberty to raise the above aspect before the Court below and the Court below, after affording opportunity to the petitioner, shall pass appropriate orders on merits independently, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.It is also made clear that this Court is not expressing any opinion with regard to the case.The Criminal Revision Case is disposed of.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.The IV Additional Sessions Judge, ChennaiThe Public Prosecutor, MadrasB. RAJENDRAN,JgaCrl.R.C.No.1170 of 201220.7.2015
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
19,524,785 |
BCDFGISSSV No.2205/2014, dated 17.12.2014 whereby the detenu/the uncle of the petitioner herein, by name, Velmurugan @ Selvamurugan, son of Periyasamy, aged about 28 years, was ordered to be detained under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) branding him as a "GOONDA.2.Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, Mr.C.C.Chellappan, the learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned detention order only on the ground of non-supply of copy of the bail applications in similar cases, referred to in the grounds of detention, for arriving at the subjective satisfaction that there is likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail, which has affected the constitutional right of making an effective and purposeful representation to the authorities concerned, thereby vitiating the detention.However, he submitted that the copy of the bail applications in similar cases, referred to in the grounds of detention was not supplied to the detenu.4.We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival submissions put forward by the learned counsel on either side and thoroughly scanned through the impugned detention order and the entire materials available on record.5.It is seen from paragraph No.4 of the Grounds of Detention that in similar cases, the accused were released on bail [a] by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur in Crl.MP.No.2392/2012 for the offence u/s.341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392, 397 and 506(ii) IPC in Cr.No.1960/2012 on the file of T-1 Ambattur Police Station; and [b] by the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in Crl.MP.No.593/2009 for the offence under section 379 IPC in Cr.No.26/2009 on the file of R-1 Mambalam Police Station respectively.
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,952,567 |
Both the sentences are to run concurrently.Appellant has been found guilty of causing fatal injuries on the person of deceased Patiram and causing grievous injuries to Sukhchand (P.W. 4) by means of a "lathi" at about 9.00 a.m. on 21-4-87 at Dewardha Nala.Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this appeal are as under :--The appellant used to sell illicit liquor from his house.On 21-4-87 Sukhchand (P.W. 4) and Patiram, while returning after attending weekly market, went to the house of appellant and consumed liquor.Therefore, while both of them were proceeding towards their hutment, the appellant on way at Dewardha Nala mercilessly assaulted them by means of a "lathi" on the pretext that they had not paid him the full price of the liquor consumed.Patiram succumbed to his injuries on the spot whereas Sukhchand (P.W. 4) became unconscious.The incident was witnessed by Seram (P.W. 2) and Ram Prasad (P.W. 11) to whom the appellant had threatened with dire consequences if they dared to disclose about the incident.He, however, on their asking, disclosed that he had assaulted Patiram and Sukhchand (P.W. 4) as they had not paid him the price of liquor.The appellant also made an extra-judicial confession about assault on them before Mchtar (P.W. 7).Head Constable, Lakhanlal (P.W. 16) prepared a Dehati Nalishi, Ex. P-22, and thereafter recorded the First Information Report, Ex. P-26, against the appellant.During investigation, Head Constable, Lakhanlal (P.W. 16), prepared a Panchayatnama, Ex. P-21, of the body of Patiram and thereafter sent the body for post mortem vide Ex. P-23, He, vide Ex. P-9, also requested for the medical examination and preparation of injury report of Sukhchand (P.W. 4).Head Constable, Lakhanlal (P.W. 16) recorded the discovery statement, Ex. P-1, of the appellant on 22-4-87 and allegedly seized a "lathi" vide Ex. P-2 at his instance which was hidden in his house.sides chest wall at the level of 6th, 7th and 8th ribs.Right side congested.Haematoma of the 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th ribs on left side at the posterior aspect.JUDGMENT Ajit Singh, J.Appellant Kishan, the sole accused person in this case, has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life by IInd Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, vide impugned judgment dated 23-2-89 for causing the murder of Patiram, the deceased in the case.He has also been convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment for attempting to commit the murder of Sukhchand (P.W. 4).Head Constable, Lakhanlal (P.W. 16) also seized a blood stained "Chaddi" from the appellant vide Ex. P-5 on 22-4-87 which he was wearing.The aforesaid seized "lathi" and "Chaddi" were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar, The report of the Assistant Chemical Examiner, Ex. P-21, confirms the presence of blood on the same.Dr. P.K. Shrivastava (P.W. 17) conducted the post mortem on the body of deceased Patiram.He, in his report, Ex. P-28, found the following injuries:--(i) Lacerated wound on left fronto parietal region size 8 cm x 2 cm x bone deep.(ii) Lacerated wound on the left parietal region size 5 cm x 2 cm x bone deep.(iii) Contusion with abrasion on the left side of cheek lateral to the ext.angle of left eye (5 cm x 2 cm).(iv) Contusion on the left side of forehead (4 cm x 2 cm), (v) Black eye on both sides.(vi) Multiple (3 in no.) transverse contusions front on the outer aspect of left upper arm.(vii) Contusion with abrasion on the ulnar bone of left forearm (5 cm x 1 cm).(viii) Haematoma with contusions on the right side of forehead (5 cm x 3 cm).(ix) Contusion with abrasion on the postero lateral aspect of right elbows (2 cm x 2 cm).(x) Multiple contusions (4-5 in no.) on the left side of back (6 cm x 2 cm) scapular region.(xi) Multiple abrasions (1/2 cm x 1/2 cm) each on the outer aspect of the hip joint in an area of about 10 cm diameter.All the above injuries are ante-mortem and seems to be caused by some hard and blunt object.There is a huge haematoma on the left temporal parietal region (6 cm diameter) underlying fracture of left temporal, parietal and frontal crack fracture.Subdural haematoma on both region.Haematoma on the ant.Blood fresh in both the cavities.Both the lungs congested, Heart empty.Fracture of left radius and ulna found in mid shaft.According to Dr. P.K. Shrivastava (P.W. 17) the deceased died due to cumulative effect of haemorrhage, shock and head injury.He further opined in his report that the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and were caused by hard and blunt object.Dr. R. Sthapak (P.W. 5) had examined Sukhchand (P.W. 4).He, in his report, Ex. P-10, found the following injuries on the persons of Sukhchand :--(i) One lacerated wound of 4 cm x skin deep over right side of scalp, 4 cm above the right eye-brow.Swelling of right eye-lid present.(ii) One lacerated wound of 5 cm in length on right ear, the ear lobule had divided into two parts.(iii) Contusion two in number, 10 cm in length 2 cm apart over right side of chest, extending from right nipple to 3 cm above the epigastrium.(iv) Contusion two in number over right side of mid line 10 cm in length, 2 cm apart, caused by hard and blunt object.Head injury of Sukhchand (P.W. 4) was advised for X-ray.Dr. S.K. Dubey (P. W. 14) after examining the X-ray plate, Ex. P-18, found a fracture of right fronto parietal region of the skull of Sukhchand (P.W. 4).The appellant in his defence pleaded that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated.The Trial Court relying upon the evidence of eye-witnesses Sukhchand (P.W. 4), Seram (P.W. 2) and Ram Prasad (P.W. 11) convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of deceased Patiram and also under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code for attempting to commit the murder of Sukhchand (P.W. 4).Shri S.C. Datt, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, challenged the conviction of the appellant on the ground that the Trial Court ought to have disbelieved the evidence of Sukhchand (P.W. 4) as he had become unconscious immediately after the assault on him.It was further urged that the Trial Court ought not to have believed the evidence of eye-witnesses Seram (P.W. 2) and Ram Prasad (P.W. 11) as their conduct of not reporting the incident was unnatural and the same creates a doubt.After hearing the arguments of Shri S.C. Datt, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, and Shri A.K. Mishra, Deputy Advocate General for the State, we are of the opinion that the appeal has no merit and deserves to be dismissed.Sukhchand (P.W. 4) is an injured witness and his presence cannot be doubted at the scene of occurrence.He has deposed in his evidence that on 21-4-87 he and deceased Patiram, while returning after attending the weekly market, consumed liquor in the house of appellant and thereafter both of them left for their house.He has further deposed that as they reached near Dewardha Nala, the appellant suddenly assaulted him and deceased Patiram mercilessly with a "lathi".According to him, Patiram died on the spot whereas he became unconscious and regained his senses only in the hospital, Sukhchand (P.W. 4) has very categorically stated that the appellant while assaulting was insisting for the payment of price of liquor.In the cross-examination, Sukhchand (P.W. 4) has deposed that at the time of assault he and Patiram were unarmed and since both of them were under intoxication of liquor, they were totally helpless.He has also deposed that the ferocity of the assault was such that his right ear was divided into two parts.Nothing has come in his cross-examination to disbelieve his allegation against the appellant about the merciless assault on him and Patiram with a "lathi".His testimony has been fully corroborated by the medical evidence.Seram (P.W. 2), has deposed in his evidence that while going towards the house of appellant alongwith Ram Prasad (P.W. 11), he saw the appellant in the company of Sukhchand (P.W. 4) and deceased Patiram near Dewardha Nala.At that time appellant was carrying a "lathi" whereas Sukhchand (P.W. 4) and deceased Patiram were unarmed.Immediately, thereafter he saw the appellant assaulting Patiram with a "lathi" whereas Sukhchand (P.W. 4) was lying on the ground.He has also deposed that after assaulting Sukhchand (P.W. 4) and deceased Patiram, the appellant had threatened him that he was boiling with anger and hence he would kill him also if he would dare to give evidence against him.Seram (P.W. 2), fearing the threat given by the appellant, went to his house.According to him, at that time appellant was wearing a "Chaddi".Seram (P.W. 2) has also deposed that after assaulting Sukhchand (P.W. 4) and deceased Patiram, the appellant had exulted before some labourers at the crusher machine that he had flattened two persons and as such he had acted like a tiger.Similar is the evidence of Ram Prasad (P.W. 11).He has fully corroborated the testimony of Seram (P.W. 2).Ram Prasad (P.W. 11) has deposed that after leaving the appellant in his house, he went to Chowkidar Ramdev Pandey (P.W. 8) of the Dewardha Agro Pipe Factory and informed him about the incident.Ramdev Pandey (P.W. 8) unfortunately, because of his pre-occupation, ignored the information given to him by Ram Prasad (P.W. 11).Nothing has come on record to disbelieve the evidence of eye-witnesses, Seram (P.W. 2) and Ram Prasad (P.W. 11).We are, thus, of the firm conclusion that the Trial Court did not commit any illegality in accepting the evidence of Seram (P.W. 2) and Ram Prasad (P.W. 11) as eye-witnesses.Both of them have stood firm in their evidence in the Court as eye-witnesses.Even in their cross-examination nothing has come on record to disbelieve their evidence about the murderous assault on the deceased Patiram and Sukhchand (P.W. 4) with a "lathi".There is yet another evidence in the form of extra-judicial confession of the appellant before Mehtar (P.W. 7).He has deposed in his evidence that on the date of incident at about 9:00 p.m. the appellant visited his "dera" and disclosed in front of 7/8 persons that he had assaulted two persons at Dewardha Nala.According to him, at that time appellant was wearing a "Chaddi" and was carrying a "lathi" with him.There is nothing on record to disbelieve the evidence of Mehtar (P.W. 7).Shri S.C. Datt.learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, has argued that recovery of "lathi" as weapon of offence and "Chaddi" from the possession of appellant is of no consequence as there is nothing on record to suggest that the said articles had human blood stains on them.Ram Charan (P.W. 10) has deposed in the Court that Lakhanlal (P.W. 16) had seized a "lathi" vide Ex. P-2 and a "Chaddi" vide Ex. P-5 from the possession of appellant.Dr. P.K. Shrivastava (P.W. 17) too has supported that from the "lathi" seized, the injuries found on the deceased Patiram was possible."The Trial Court made a fallacious conclusion regarding the death of the deceased on the premise that the public prosecutor did not elicit from the doctor as to whether the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.The Sessions Judge concluded thus on the said issue :Though not an expert as P.W. 30, the Sessions Judge himself would have been an experienced judicial officer.Looking to the injuries he himself could have deduced whether those injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.It also cannot be said that the appellant has not taken undue advantage or not acted in a cruel or unusual manner.All the above circumstances would show that the offence committed by the appellant was clearly one of murder of deceased Patiram.The evidence on record further establishes that the appellant also attempted to commit the murder of Sukhchand (P.W. 4).For the above reasons, the Trial Court did not commit any illegality in convicting the appellant for offences under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,455,550 |
JUDGMENT P.K. Biswas, J.This is to consider an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed at the instance of one Jatan Lal Parekh and two others as petitioners seeking for quashing of the proceeding being Golabari P.S. Case No. 10 dated 8,1.96 under Sections 427/395/397/448/34/120B of the Indian Penal Code (G.R. 97/96) pending before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Howrah Sadar and/or setting aside the order dated 09.06.2000 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Howrah Sadar in the aforesaid case.The short facts leading to the filing of this application are as under:One complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was lodged by Gangadhar Sarkar as de facto complainant, before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah on 04.01.96 alleging, inter alia, that the complainant, namely Gangadhar Sarkar, is a monthly tenant in respect of the area of 300 sq. ft.in respect of the premises No. 35, Dr. Abani Dutta Road, Howrah and he is running a factory in the said tenanted portion under the name and style of "Jai Guru Motor Repairing Works" for the last 35 years.It was further alleged in the aforesaid complaint that the son of the de facto complainant namely Mintu Sarkar on 12.01.95, when he was sleeping in the same tenanted premises at about 12 in the midnight, heard some noises and found some persons had climbed upon the roof of the factory and those persons were engaged in throwing down the tiles of the factory.Mintu, son of the de facto complainant after coming out of the aforesaid tenanted premises found the accused persons along with some 50/60 men armed with various weapons like lathis, sword, revolver, iron etc. surrounded the workshop and they were engaged in breaking its iron windows and gates when Mintu Sarkar protested against such illegal activities and at that he was threatened with dire consequences and was ultimately locked in a room in the neighbouring building.It was further alleged that the accused persons thereafter broke down the entire workshop and also took all the materials in a truck and left the place at 3 a.m.It was further alleged that one Krishnapada Koley informed the Golabari P.S. during the time of occurrence of the incident, but no steps whatsoever was taken by the police authorities and on 13.01.95, Mintu Sarkar, son of the de facto complainant lodged one written complaint with Golabari P.S., but the police authorities failed to take any positive action.Subsequently, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah, upon receiving the complaint was pleased to direct the Officer-in-Charge of the Golabari P.S. to initiate investigation in respect of the offences disclosed in the complaint and on the basis thereafter Golabari P.S. Case No. 10 dated 08.01.96 was registered for investigation.It has been alleged by the petitioner that they are completely innocent and they are in no way connected with the commission of the offence, as alleged police in the aforesaid case after completion of investigation submitted a final report indicating therein that no case could be made out against the accused persons and that there was a mistake of facts.After submission of the aforesaid final report in connection with this case, the de facto complainant of this case submitted a 'naraji' petition and the learned Magistrate after hearing the parties directed fresh investigation by the police authorities.In terms of the aforesaid order, fresh investigation was undertaken by the police authorities and after completion of the investigation, the police authorities submitted report in final form vide charge-sheet No. 160/2000 dated 2.6.2000 under Sections 448/ 395/397/427/34/120B of the Indian Penal Code.It has now been alleged by the petitioners that although the incident in question took place on 12.01.95, but the complaint was filed before the learned Court below on 04.01.96, nearly after one year and the de facto complainant having failed to give any cogent reason for such delayed action, the impugned proceeding can in no way be proceeded with and the same is liable to be set aside.That being the position, being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the continuation of the impugned proceeding and specially being aggrieved by the order dated 9.6.2000 passed by the learned SDJM, Howrah, the petitioners have come up before this Court praying for the reliefs as aforesaid on the grounds taken above.The learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that according to the de facto complainant on 13.01.1995, his son lodged a written information with Golabari P.S. regarding the incident of 12/ 13.01.95 at midnight.In such a situation, if there was certain cognizable offences disclosed in the aforesaid information, then certainly under the provisions of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the same must have been entered into the book kept in the Police Station under Section 154(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure and copies of such information should have been given to the informant forthwith and after recording the same in the Police Station, the police was under obligation to investigate the case under Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.So, at every stage, the informant was to be informed about the progress of the case or otherwise and in any event, if the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station refuses to record an information which discloses cognizable offences, the aggrieved person may approach the Superior Officer under Sub-section (3) of Section 154 of Code of Criminal Procedure.In the present case, however, it was not alleged that the Officer-in-Charge refused to record the First Information Report or refused to investigate.The only allegation against the investigation was that it was a tardy one.And in consequence thereof, the de facto complainant filed a petition under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Magistrate, which was eventually sent to the Police Station with a direction to treat the same as First Information Report and investigate.Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, Golabari P.S. started an investigation, in connection with the First Information Report Case No. 10 dated 08.01.1996 under Sections 427/395/397/448/34/120B of Indian Penal Code.It has further been contended on behalf of the petitioners that after the second investigation, the Investigating Agency submitted a final report as a mistake of fact and the said final report was placed before the learned Magistrate on 10.10.96 wherein it was also mentioned that the complainant had been informed about the result of the investigation, but despite the said fact, the de facto complainant filed a Naraji petition only on 17.06.99 i.e., almost a lapse of three years and thereafter on the basis of the Naraji petition, the learned Magistrate passed order dated 03.01.2000 directing a fresh investigation in this case by an Officer other than the former one which is palpably a wrong order and passed without Jurisdiction.It has further been contended on behalf of the petitioners that on receipt of the application under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure by the said complainant three courses were left open to the learned Magistrate which are as follows:Accordingly, they have come up with an application praying for the aforesaid relief.This prayer has been opposed by the opposite parties including the State of West Bengal alleging that the present petitioners also came up with the applications seeking for the relief for quashing of the Golabari P.S. Case No. 10 of 1996 dated 08.01.96 and as such this being a second revision, the instant application is not at all maintainable.Furthermore, it has been contended on their behalf that in fact on the basis of the first information allegedly lodged on 13.01.95, the police did not actually investigate into the offence and simply on receipt of the notice, pursuant to the order dated 19.09.1998, the opposite party No. 2 came to learn about the filing of final report by the police and in consequence thereof, only on 17.06.1999, he has come up with the application in the form of 'Naraji' petition.It has further been contended by them that although in the instant petition, the petitioners have come up for challenging the order of cognizance, yet, in fact they are actually challenging the order of sending of the application under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure and the consequent investigation which they cannot do plainly because those are certainly barred by limitation.The petitioners here have virtually raised their grievance in respect of terminology/nomenclature of the investigation to be directed by the learned Magistrate, but in fact whatever order was passed that was only for collection of the evidence in connection with the aforesaid offences involved in the case.complainant's son Mintu Sarkar had to make an application before the Investigating Officer, Golabari P.S. on 13.06.1995".
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
145,566,552 |
Brief facts as revealed from First Information Report (Exhibit Ka-01) are that on 23.5.1989 one Gobare son of Kadhile resident of Kotva, District Lakhimpur Kheri was making "Kothari" in the neighborhood of his son-in-law Siddhique in Village Bhadura for his residence.At about 4.30 p.m. on the same day respondent-accused Rahmat son of Fakira, Fakira son of Abdulla, Sirdar son of Natha and Jaan Mohd. son of Subhan came there and started giving him beating.Accused Rahmat and Jaan Mohd. were armed with "kanta" and accused Fakira and Sirdar were having "lathi" in their hands.On his hue and cry Harun Khan son of Siddhique reached there.Gobre ran away into house of Munshi to save himself, but accused chased him there also and assaulted him.When his wife Haffizan tried to save him they also gave beating to her also.The accused persons were inquiring about his daughter Zaibunnisha and son-in-law Siddhique.When Gobare told him that Zaibunnisha and Siddique had gone to Sallihabad bazar to consult doctor they left him and went to Sallihabad bazaar.Accused persons found them near old Crusher at about 5 o'clock in the evening, while Siddhique and Zaibunnisha were coming back through lakhimpur-mohammadi road.Accused persons assaulted them there with "kanta and "lathi".Witnesses Mustafa, Mohd. Raza-father of Siddhique, Khalil, Callector singh and many others, who were there at "Crusher" came in and saved them.Siddhique and Fakira had old enmity due to some property.Injuries were found on her body as per injury report (Exhibit Ka-13).Her statement is also supported by an independent witness P.W.-4 Harun Khan, who had reached the place of occurrence near "old crusher".Though P.W.-2 Mustaq was declared hostile by the prosecution as he did not support the prosecution in his cross examination, but learned A.G.A. has argued that he had supported the prosecution case in his examination-in-chief.But later on when he was called for cross-examination after lapse of considerable period of time he became hostile under pressure of accused persons.The injuries shows that there was only one open wound from where infection can be said to have developed.The post-mortem (Exhibit Ka-18) also mentions one septic wound on the same place where open wound was caused.Hon'ble Ravindra Nath Mishra-II,J.(Delivered by Hon'ble Ravindra Nath Mishra-II,J.)Three separate appeals have been filed against Judgment dated 13.08.2001 passed by Addl.Session Judge, Court No.3, Lakhimpur Kheri in Sessions Trial No. 206 of 1990 under Sections 302/307/452/325 & 323 Indian Penal Code 1860 (here-in-after referred as Code for brevity) whereby accused Sirdar son of Natha, resident of Bhadura, Police Station Phardhan District Lakhimpur Kheri has been acquitted and accused Rahmat son of Fakira, resident of Village Bhadura, Police Station Phardhan, District Lakhimpur Kheri and accused Jaan Mohd. son of Subhan, resident of Birampur Police Station Mitauli, District Lakhimpur Kheri have been convicted under sections 323/325 & 452 of the Code.State has filed Criminal Appeal No. 440 of 2004 to set aside the judgment acquitting accused Sirdar and to enhance the sentence under sections 302/307/452/323 & 325 of the Code against respondent-accused Rahmat and accused Jaan Mohd. respectively.Simultaneously Criminal Appeal No. 784 of 2001 and 866 of 2001 have also been filed by accused Rahmat and Jaan Mohd. against their conviction.Since all the three appeals have been filed against one and the same judgment, they all are taken up together for disposal.Due to this animosity accused persons had attacked them with intention to kill.F.I.R. was lodged by Gobare verbally on 23.5.1989 at 8.20 p.m. in police station Phardhan, District Lakhimpur Kheri and medical examination of injured persons were conducted by Dr V. K .Dixit on the same day in district hospital Kheri and injury report was prepared (Exhibit Ka-13) in which following injuries were found on the body of Smt. Zaibunnisha:" 1. Lacerated wound 7 cm x 1.5 cm x Scalp deep on left side of head 12 cm above the left ear.Clotted blood adhere in an around the wound.2. Abrasion Multiple in an area of 9cm x 3cm on back of left elbow & upper part of left forearm.Abrasion 2cm x 1.5 cm on top of left shoulder.Contusion 5 cm x 2 cm on back of Right Arm 17 cm below to top right shoulder Red Around the swelling 12 cm x 8 cm.Contusion 5 cm x 2 cm on outer aspect of left thigh 15cm above the left knee jt.6. Complains of plain in right thigh but mark of external injury not visible."Gobare was also medically examined and following injuries (Exhibit Ka-15) were found on his body:Traumatic Swelling 5.5 cm x 3 cm on top of head 17 cm above the root of neck.2. Contusion with Abrasion 5 cm x 2 cm on back of left forearm 15 cm below the left elbow Jt.Abraded Contusion 7.5 cm x 2 cm on back of Right forearm 15 cm below the Right elbow Jt.Around the Swelling 12 cm x 8 cm colour Red.Lacerated wound 3 cm x 1.5 cm x bone deep on front of Right leg 18 cm below the Rt.Abrasion 2 cm x 0.5 cm on inner side of Rt.Ankle Jt.6. Complains of pain in left leg and chest but mark of external inj.not visible."Siddique had also injuries on his body(Exhibit Ka-16), which may be described as follows:" 1. Lacerated wound 8 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on left side of head 13 cm above the left ear blood oozing.Lacerated wound 7 cm x 0.8cm x bone deep on left side of head on back 13 cm above posterior to left ear.Lacerated wound 3.5 cm x 0.4 cm x muscle deep on back of left fore arm 8 cm below the left elbow Jt.Contusion 5 cm x 2 cm on back of left elbow Jt.Traumatic Swelling 7 cm x 4 cm on back of left hand.Abrasion 2.5 cm x 1 cm on from of Right leg 27 cm below Rt knee.Multiple contusion in an area of 25 cm x 22cm on back (illegible) scapular region of back on both sides."Following injuries were found on the body of Smt. Haffizan(Exhibit Ka-14):Lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 0.4 cm x muscle deep in between the web in between the left thumb of left index finger.Traumatic swelling 5 xm x 3 cm on back of left hand 2 cm below the left wrist."Injured persons were admitted in District Hospital.Investigation was entrusted to Sub Inspector R.B. Mishra, who recorded statement of CC Ram Briksha Yadav, scribe of First Information Report and General Diary of Police Station.Next day he also recorded statement of witnesses Harun Khan, Hafizan and Khalil and thereafter he inspected the place of occurrence and prepared site plans (Exhibit Ka-3) and (Exhibit Ka-6).The injuries of Gobare were serious in nature, therefore, he was kept in Hospital till 14.6.1989 when he died of Septicemia in hospital.Inquest report (Exhibit Ka-7).Post-mortem (Exhibit Ka-18)was conducted on 15.6.1989 thereafter the case was converted into Sections 302/34, 307, 325 & 452 of the Code.Having found prima facie case against accused persons, charge-sheet (Exhibit-Ka 12) was submitted under Sections 307/ 325/302/34 & 452 of the Code.Accused Fakira had died after submission of charge sheet Hence trial proceeded only against accused Rahmat, Sirdar and Jaan Mohd and charges under Sections 307/302 read with 34 & 452 of the Code.were framed against them to which they denied and claimed to be tried.In order to prove charges against accused persons, prosecution examined P.W.-1-Zaibunnisha, P.W.-2 Mushtak, P.W.-3, Haffizan, P.W-4 Harun Khan, P.W.-5 Sub Inspector Shyam Raj Yadav, P.W.-6 Dr. V.K.Dixit, P.W.-7 Dr. A.K.Srivastava.After conclusion of prosecution, accused persons were examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code in which they pleaded false implication and had stated that due to enmity witnesses have given statement.No witness has been examined on behalf of accused persons.After hearing submissions of both the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, trial Court found sufficient evidence to convict accused Rahmat and Jaan Mohd. under Sections 323, 325 & 452 of the Code but acquitted accused Sirdar of the charges levelled against him on the ground that prosecution has failed to prove charges against him beyond reasonable doubt.The trial court has failed to appreciate the same and has caused injustice by not considering the same.The trial Court did not consider the fact that the statement made in First Information Report lodged by injured Gobare, who later on succumbed to Septicemia resulted from ante-mortem injuries comes within category of his dying declaration.She has stated that her husband was three brothers one of them Noor Mohd. Died living behind his window Khiarunisha who after his death entered into Nikah with another brother Dost Mohd. Khiarunisha had tranferred certain property inherited by her from Noor Mohd. in favour of Siddhique through power of attorney holder Mordhawaj, but later on Khiarunnisha herself sold the same land to Rahmunnisha, who on her turn sold it to accused Rahmat.Therefore, they both became enmical.This fact does not appear to have been denied by the accused persons.They have not said anything regarding this sale of property in their statement recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code.Nothing has been suggested in cross examination of witnesses.Hence the trial court has committed no error in concluding that the parties were on inimical terms.In order to bring home the charges against accused persons, the prosecution has examined P.W.-1 Zaibunnisha, daughter of deceased Gobare, P.W.-2 Mustaq, an independent person, P.W.-3 Haffizan and P.W.-4 Harun Khan who are wife and son of deceased Gobre respectively.she heard cry of her husband, on which she rushed to the place of incident where she saw accused Rahmat and Jaan Mohd. armed with "kanta" and Fakira and Sirdar armed with "lathi" attacking her husband Gobare.Her husband Gobare in order to save himself rushed into house of Munshi, but there also accused persons caused severe injuries with their arms.When P.W.-3 Haffizan tried to save him, they attacked her in which she suffered injuries.Her injury report Exhibit Ka-14 indicates one lacerated and one traumatic swelling on her body.As per Injury report of deceased Gobare (Exhibit Ka-15) One traumatic swelling, contusion with abrasion, abraded contusion, lacerated and one abrasion wound were found on the body of deceased Gobare.Learned Additional Government Counsel has argued that special status has been conferred on an injured witness in law.Haffizan, being injured, her presence on the place of occurrence, cannot be doubted.As has been stated, the injured witness has been conferred special status in law and the injury sustained by him is an inbuilt- guarantee of his presence at the place of occurrence."Thus the testimony of P.W.-3 Haffizan is not liable to be disbelieved.Her statement is also supported by P.W.-4, Harun Khan, who is son of injured Zaibunnisha.He has supported the case of prosecution that accused Rahmat, Jaan Mohd. and Ali Ahmad who were armed with "kanta" and "lathi" inflicted injuries on the body of Gobare, and when he rushed in the house of Munshi in order to save himself, they chased him there also and caused injuries in the house of Munshi.when Haffizan tried to save him accused persons attacked her also.Though P.W.-4 Harun Khan is not an injured witness, but there is nothing in his statement to disbelieve his testimony.Similarly Zaibunnisha and Siddique daughter and son-in-law of deceased Gobare were also attacked with "kanta" and "lathi" by accused persons near "old crusher" when they were coming back from Salihabad market.Zaibunnisha suffered injuries on her body.Witnesses may be categorized into three distinct categories.Learned counsel for the appellant accused Rahmat and Jaan Mohd has further argued that the accused persons are alleged to have inflicted injuries with "Kanta and lathi".kanta is a sharp aged weapon but no injury was found on the body of injured which can be said to have been caused with sharp edged weapon.We have gone through the impugned judgment and evidence on record.The trial court relying on the testimony of witnesses has concluded that the accused had attacked Gobre, his daughter and his son in law with other side i.e blunt side of "kanta".P.W.-3 Haffizan herself in the examination-in-chief has stated that Sirdar came along with other accused, he was armed with 'lathi".She has also stated that Sirdar also inflicted injuries to Gobare and to her.From this statement, presence of accused Sirdar on the second place of occurrence cannot be doubted.He was present on the second place of occurrence, but he did not cause any injury.Septicemia is an infection of the blood also knows as bacteria or blood poisoning.His injury report (Exhibit Ka-15) shows that there was one traumatic swelling on the top of head, two contusions were on forearm.There was one lacerated wound below right knee and one abrasion on right Ankle.
|
['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
145,569,803 |
Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge-sheet of Case Crime No. 1101 of 2018, under Sections 354Ka, 354Ga, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Sultanpur, summoning order dated 25.07.2019 passed by C.J.M., Sultanpur as well as proceedings of the case.Learned counsel for applicant after arguing for sometime submits that, the grievance of the applicant may be satisfied, if the Court below is directed to expeditiously dispose the application of the applicant.Learned A.G.A. will also have no objection to the request made by learned counsel for the applicant.With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.Order Date :- 9.9.2019 Shanu/-
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,455,706 |
On that day it was mentioned by Mr. N. D. Jaywant, learned junior of Mr. M. K. Joshi, and applied for date.Therefore, another date viz. 8th February 1984 was suggested.The writ petition was thus called out for hearing on 8th February 1984 when no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner.This Court went through the record and dismissed the writ petition having come to a conclusion that the complaint did disclose a prima facie case for issuing process.The rule was accordingly discharged.In the result, I allow this review petition.Petition allowed.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
145,573,019 |
The petitioners are in no way involved in the alleged offence.They have been falsely implicated in the instant case due to village rivalry.The petitioners are brothers.Apprehending arrest in connection with Lalgola Police Station Case No. 693 of 2015 dated 23.09.2015 under Sections 341/376/511/212/323 of the Indian Penal Code corresponding to G. R. Case No. 2821 of 2015, this application for anticipatory bail has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The petition of complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed on 7th September, 2015 and is nothing but an after thought.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Samapti Chatterjee, J. ) 3
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
145,573,262 |
No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 3 of 34 September, 2014 and also the orders dated 27th October, 2014 and 3rd December, 2014 issuing process against the petitioners under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and all the proceedings emanating therefrom, passed in the above said FIR No.313/2014 and CC No.72/3 by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 3 of 34Jayantilal Kothari R/o E-88, Kirti Nagar, Delhi-110015 submits as under:I live at the aforesaid address with my family and Sh.Champatlal Babulal Jain was insisting upon me to invest in his projects and on 20.04.2007 he came to my house and represented that he is constructing a mall cum multiplex "Ripple Mall" at M.G. Road Vijayawada and the price of same is going very high in property market and I can earn very good profit if I purchase some area in his mall.I was not interested in purchasing the property but he assured & represented me that he is my close relative and I must purchase space in his mall.He further represented me that the entire deal is transparent and the Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 4 of 34 property/space shall be allotted to me as soon as the construction is completed lie further offered me to allot 5000 sq. ft.(Supper built up) @ Rs.9500/- per sq. ft. amounting to Rs.4,75,000/- (Rs.Four crores and seventy Five lacs only) on the ground floor of the mall.He further offered me to allot 3000 sq. ft.(Super Built up) @ Rs.8,000/- per sq. ft.amounting to Rs.2,40,00,000/- (Rs.two crores and Forty lacs only) on the first floor of the mall.In other words, he represented me to allot total area of 8000 sq. ft. for a total consideration of Rs.7,15,00,000/- (Its seven crores and Fifteen lacs).I further stated to him that I am living at Delhi and it is not possible for me to monitor the project at Vijayavada but on that he again assured me that he is already there and I need not to come to Vijayvada personally and payments can be mace from Delhi from banking channels from time to time.He further assured me that he will keep me informed about the project.Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 4 of 34Allured by his presentations and keeping in view the fact that he is my close relative and there was no reason to disbelieve him.I agreed to purchase the space in the mall and entered into an agreement dated 20.04.07 with Sh.Champatlal Babulal Jain at my house at Delhi.As per the agreement I also paid him Rs.21,50,000/- (Rs.Twenty One lacs and Fifty Thousands only) vide cheque No.655142 for Rs.11,00,000/- and cheque No.655143 for Rs.10,00,000/- both dated 20.07.2007 and cheque No.655143 for Rs.10,00,000/- both dated 20.07.2007 and drawn on state Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Kirti Nagar Branch in favour of Suraj Constructions.As per the demands of Sh.Champatlal Babulal Jain, I kept paying the money to him from my bank State bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Kini Nagar Branch Delhi via RIGS.As and when I asked him about the development of the construction and possession of the property, he kept me telling that the construction is going on, and the completion of the Mall would take some time.As per his demands I paid the entire agreement amount of Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 5 of 34 Rs.7,15,00,000/ (Rs.Seven Crore and fifteen lacs) from 20.04.2007 to 03.03.2010 from my bank at Delhi.I further paid him Rs.3,75,000/- on account of transfer fee for the aforesaid area in my favour.Even after the receipt of entire sale consideration and transfer fee.Champatlal did not transfer the property in my name nor he gave possession of the same to me rather he kept the matter pending on one pretext or other.On my persistence Sh.Champatlal told me that he is not having enough money to complete the project and as such he requested me to give Rs.2/2-1/2 crores as loan on interest a short duration so that he can complete the project and transfer the property in my name.He also promised me return the loan shortly along with interest @ 18 p.a.Champaklal sold total 8000 sq. ft. space in Ripple Mall, Vijayavada to me and took more than 7 crores as sale consideration and 2,38,00,000/- as loan (Total more than 9 crores) but after completion of construction, he sold the same space to other persons him and the en tire sale consideration has also been taken.It was in the knowledge of Sh.Champatlal since beginning that he would not allot me any space in Mall but despite that he made fake and frivolous representations to cheat and defraud me to the tune of more than 9 crores.Had the actual position been represented to the me, I would not have given any money to Sh.I have also come to know that he and his other associates are professional Cheaters and they have cheated a larger, number of people to the tune of crores of Rupees by using similar modus operandi.The exact quantum of fraud and other persons who are involved in criminal conspiracy with Sh.Champatlal can only be determined by your good self by conduction details investigation in the matter.Till date, neither the space has been allotted to me in the Mall nor the payment/ money has been returned me by Sh.Payments have been made through proper baning channels from Delhi and I have got all the proofs to support my contentions.Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 5 of 34Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 6 of 34Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 8 of 34Champatlal has failed to protect my interest in the transactions from which he legally bound.Champatlal has cheated me in a planned manner and he has also betrayed my trust and as such he deserves to be punished for his acts."After the complaint, the following events happened from time to time as per the details provided by the parties.Details of dates of events are given as under:21.02.2014 A letter was sent by the Petitioner No.1 to the Investigating Officer in response to the notice dated 20.12.2013 as he was in Rajasthan attending a family wedding, and he had only received the notice upon his arrival on 30.01.2014: Petitioner No.1 provided the true and correct facts in relation to the case and rebutted the allegations made by the Complainant.He informed the IO that the Complainant himself sought cancellation of the allotment space in Ripple Mall and that the Complainant vide his letter dated 22.03.2011 had requested that Rs.9.5 Crores be transferred to M/s Fuso Glass India Pvt. Ltd. for allotment of shares in lieu of the amount paid by him to M/s Suraj Constructions and had also agreed to forfeit Rs.6.75 Lakhs as compensation for cancellation.Accordingly, through its letter dated 20.05.2011, M/s Suraj Constructions cancelled the transaction and an amount of Rs.9.5 Crores was transferred as per the Complainant's request.He further informed the IO that M/s Fuso Glass India Pvt. Ltd. in its letter dated 12.02.2014 confirmed Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.He further noted that all the details of the payments made by alleged persons are a matter of record and all the evidence i.e., bank statements, agreement etc. are within the reach and possession of the Complainant and no field investigation was required in the matter.Further, with regard to the letter dated 20.04.2007, the IO observed that the said agreement seemed to be a letter and as per language of Para(e) and the concluding paragraph, it did not seem to be an agreement.He noted that it has neither been registered nor mentions any plot.28.05.2014 Order passed by Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Court changing the Investigating Officer and issuing show cause notice under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the outgoing IO Kuldip Singh and SHO Kirti Nagar on the allegation of the Complainant that inaction on their part had led to Mr. Champatlal Jain fleeing the country.The Metropolitan Magistrate held that though the FIR was registered within the time frame directed by this Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.18.06.2014 The new Investigating Officer issued a letter dated 18.06.2014 for stopping the sale and purchase of property in Ripple Mall, Vijayawada.19.06.2014 A notice was sent through S.I. Rajpal requiring the attendance of Petitioner No.1 at P.S. Kirti Nagar for investigation.21.06.2014 A letter was sent in response to the notice dated 19.06.2014 stating that Petitioner No.1 had gone to USA to attend a wedding and was likely to return on the first or second week of July.It was also reiterated that all documentation would be produced before the Investigating Officer as and when directed by him and that Mr. Champatlal Jain would appear before him and cooperate in the investigation upon his return to India.A reply to the show cause notice under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was filed by SHO Kirti Nagar wherein it was stated inter alia that the present case was between two relatives and needed a deep and diligent investigation.The SHO was of the opinion that on the basis of mere allegations, arrest, LOC and other coercive steps were not advisable Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 11 of 3424.06.2014 I.O. Kuldip Singh also filed his reply to the show cause notice stating that there was no reasonable ground to arrest the alleged person except the allegations raised by the Complainant in his complaint and the FIR.He further stated that unless and until there are sufficient grounds to arrest a person, there is no need to open the LOC and stop anyone from going abroad and curtail the fundamental right of an individual and there is no untoward urgency to take steps to stay the sale of the mall.Unless and until the authenticity of the Complainant is verified and ascertained, such steps were not advisable.The IO noted that Complainant wanted the police to take steps to prevent Petitioner No.1 from selling property in the mall but also alleged in his Complaint that all the space in the mall had already been sold.It was also stated that Petitioner No.1 was not found when raids were conducted in his office and residence the IO was informed that Petitioner No.1 was abroad and that a notice has been served to the manager of his office with directions to join investigation and to produce relevant documents.It was also stated that the District Registrar, MG Road, Vijaywada has been requested to stop further sale and purchase of property in Ripple Mall till the disposal of the present case.It was further stated that Asst.Director, Bureau of Immigration, New Delhi was asked to provide details of arrival of Petitioner No.1 and the Regional Passport Officer has been requested to provide passport details.In conclusion, it was noted that Petitioner No.1 was evading arrest and was sending his representations through his manager via courier/speed post, despite the fact no warrant for arrest had been issued against him and the fact that through letter dated 21.06.2014, which had been delivered on 24.06.2014, he had been informed that the Applicant was abroad and would join investigation as soon as he returned.Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 12 of 3425.06.2014 Additional Sessions Judge passed an order stating that till the next date of hearing, in which time the Investigating Officer would have to verify all the documents filed along with the bail application, Petitioner No.1 would not be arrested.02.07.2014 Petitioner No.1 joined investigation before the Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 13 of 34 Investigating Officer at Chennai who recorded his statement.The statement of Petitioner No.5 was also recorded by the I.O. The other Petitioners were also present at their office premises at the time, and offered their cooperation.Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 13 of 3403.07.2014 Petitioner No.1 produced several documents, including originals, relating to the transfer of shares of MIS Fuso Glass to the Complainant, which were seized by the investigating officer through two seizure memos.07.07.2014 Status report/further reply was filed by the IO in the bail application of Petitioner No.1 in which it was stated that the documents produced by him had been shown to the Complainant who had denied all signatures and documents as being forged and fabricated.It was stated that the original documents were being sent to the FSL for expert opinion and that other partners of M/s Suraj Constructions were to be interrogated at length.Further, it was requested that Sections 467/468/471 be added to the present case.08.07.2014 Anticipatory bail application filed by Petitioner No.1 was rejected by the ASJ, Tis Hazari Court, since it was a cheating case of more than Rs.9 Crores and the Complainant had denied his signatures on the documents transferring shares and custodial interrogation was required.15.07.2014 Petitioner No.1 produced 47 documents including original documents relating to the transactions of transfer of shares.These documents included the original gift deed executed by the Complainant himself in favour of the Naina and Ashok Jain.These were seized by the Investigating Officer vide a seizure memo.Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 14 of 3402.08.2014 The Complainant filed an application on 02.08.2014 for direction for surrender of the passports of the accused persons arraigning the other Petitioners herein as well, despite the fact that only Petitioner No.1 had been named in the FIR.The Complainant sought similar direction against the other Petitioners as well.11.09.2014 The I.O sought issuance of non-bailable warrants against the Petitioners.The Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 11.09.2014, issued non- bailable warrants against the Petitioners despite the fact that no notice or summons were issued.15.09.2014 Status report dated 15.09.2014 stating that the petitioners, were evading arrest and hence non-bailable warrants had been obtained against them.Champatlal Babulal Jain (Partner in M/s Suraj Constructions) is also the Managing Director of addressee No.1 M/s Fuso Glass India Private Ltd.That it is also a matter of fact that during the investigation of aforesaid FIR, a letter dated 21.02.2014 Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 17 of 34 issued by you addressee no.1 to M/s Suraj Constructions and signed by its authorized signatory and a reply has been submitted before the police authorities stating therein that you addressee No.1 (M/s. Fuso Glass India Private Ltd.) has received an amount of Rs.9,50,00,000/- (Rs. Nine Crore and Fifty Lacs Only) from M/s. Suraj Constructions on account of my client share application money in Fuso Glass Pvt. Ltd. in the year 2010-11 & 2011-12 and subsequently shares were allotted to my client.That it is a matter of fact that my client has never applied for allotment of shares in addressee No.1 nor any request for transfer of money was made to M/s Suraj Constructions by my client.From the facts and circumstance it is clear that you addressee No.1 has issued a false and fabricated letter dated 12.02.2014 to cover up the illegal misappropriation and cheating by M/s. Suraj Constructions and its partners.Not only this, it is apparent that various false, forged and fabricated documents have been prepared by you addressee No.1 and 2 and other directors/Managing Directors employees etc. of addressee No.1 to cover up illegal acts of misappropriation, cheating and forgery.That it also important to note that the partners of M/s Suraj Constructions and Directions/Managing Director of Fuso Glass India Private Ltd. belongs to the same family.That from the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is clear that you the addressee No.1 company is unable, neglected and failed to pay the total outstanding amount/debt of Rs.9,64,69,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. due and payable to my client, despite it being an admitted amount.Moreover it is clear that the affairs of the company have been conducted in a fraudulent manner and the persons concerned in the management Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 18 of 34 of affairs of addressee no.1 are involved in fraud, cheating and misappropriation.(f) Around the same time, as making payments to Suraj Constructions, the complainant had also made payments of a sum of approx.Rs.9,64,00,000/- to M/s Fuso Glass India Pvt. Ltd.The submission of learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is that the sum of Rs.19,21,44,000/- was adjusted towards the issuing of shares and the necessary steps by way of Form-2 and annual return under Section 159 were taken and nothing more is due from the petitioners side and all documents referred by them are genuine.The said documents referred by the petitioners and submissions thereto are denied by the complainant by submitting that all those documents are forged documents which are allegedly signed by the complainant.It is further stated that whatever steps have been taken with regard to submitting the Form-2 and Annual Return under Section 159, it was not within the knowledge of the complainant as these actions taken by the petitioners themselves without the consent of the complainant.Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.Legal notice was issued on 20th July, 2011 for possession and return of the loan amount along with interest.In the month of September, 2013, it has come to the notice of the complainant that the side area of the first floor was allotted to many leading brands and the mall was completely functional.No space was given to the complainant by the petitioners who have cheated the complainant.Therefore, the complainant left with no other option but to file the criminal complaint to EOW on 18th October, 2013 under Section 156(3)Learned APP for the State as well as the learned counsel for the complainant have argued before Court that all the documents produced by the petitioners are forged, fabricated, manipulated and most of them were not in the knowledge of the complainant at the Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.By this order, I propose to decide five anticipatory bail applications, filed by Tara Chand Lumbchand Jain, Ramesh Kumar Hazarimal Chouhan, Champatlal Jain, Madanlal Babulal Chowatia, Sharad Babulal Jain, Ashok Babulal Jain, Naina Ashok Jain and Anujkumar Tarachand Jain, under Sections 438 & 482 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest/anticipatory bail with directions to the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer in case FIR No.313/2014, under Sections 420/406 IPC, P.S. Kirti Nagar, Delhi to release the petitioners in the event of their arrest in the said case.With regard to sixth petition, i.e. Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 filed by 8 petitioners under Sections 482 Cr.P.C., the prayer is made for quashing of the order dated 28th May, 2014 as well as for quashing of non-bailable warrants issued against them by order dated 11th Bail Appl.All the parties have made their submissions.Since the facts are common, all the petitions are being decided by this single order.The complaint was filed by respondent No.2 Hitesh Kothari under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 18th December, 2013 seeking registration of FIR at PS Kirti Nagar, New Delhi.The main contents of the complaint read as under:"I, Hitesh Kothari S/o Sh.Though I was not in a position to pay the said amount at that time but still keeping in view the fact that I had already in vested a lot of money in the project and he is my close relation, I gave him a loan of its.2,38,00,000/- which was also paid from the aforesaid bank at Delhi.On 04.06.2011, I demanded back my loan amount of Rs.2,38,00,000/- from Sh.I also sent him a legal notice on 20.07.2011 which was not replied by him and also raised the issue within my larger family as he was closely related to me.Due to the intervention of family as he was closely related to me.Due to the intervention of family members and friends.After January 20 13, I made several telephone calls to Sh.Champatlal from Delhi and every time he told me that construction is going on at the site and he will keep his words.As the matter had already been raised within the family.I believed his words and did not take any legal action against him.11.09.2013, when I was browsing the internet regarding commercial property prices in India.I immediately went to the office of Sh.Champatlal and asked him to allot my space in the mall and return my 'loan amount.On that Sh.Champatlal induced me to enter into an agreement at my house E-88, Kirti Nagar Delhi on 20.04.2007 by making false representation that he would allot me space as stated above in the Nipple Mall at Vijayavada and also, look 100,000/- at the time of signing Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.Right from the beginning.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 7 of 34Bail Appl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 9 of 34 that share certificates for the amount of Rs.9.5 Crores had been issued in the name of the Complainant for the years 2010-11 and 2011-Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 10 of 34 court, the investigating agency had still not taken a single step for collection of necessary evidence and to ensure that the accused should not run away or dispose off his belongings and proceeds of cheat.The Metropolitan Magistrate further noted that there is no need to doubt the submission of the Complainant as Petitioner No.l and the Complainant are near relatives.Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.18.09.2014 Documents that were sent by the Petitioner No. 1 on 25.08.2014 were seized and a seizure memo was recorded.27.10.2014 The Police sought issuance of coercive steps under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 alleging that the Petitioners were evading arrest.The Metropolitan Magistrate was pleased to issue process under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.07.11.2014 The anticipatory bail applications of Petitioner Nos. 2-5 were rejected on the ground that coercive steps had already been issued and they were not cooperating with the Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 15 of 34 investigation.Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 15 of 3403.12.2014 Fresh process was issued under Section 82 Cr.P.C. as the previous process could not be executed owing to paucity of time.It is the admitted position that after filing of the complaint, the complainant Mr.Hitesh Kothari had also issued the notice dated 20th June, 2014 under Sections 271/272 of the Companies Act, 2013 for winding up the company, to Fuso Glass India Pvt. Ltd. and Mr.Ashok Babulal Chowatia, Director of the said Company.The contents of the said notice read as under:-That my client is a businessman by profession and due to his fair transactions and professional attitude, he has earned excellent goodwill in the national as well as in the international front.That you notice address No.2 being a close relative of my client, approached my client in capacity of Director of addressee No.1 and took total amount of Rs.9,64,69000/- (Rs.Nine Crore Sixty Four Lacs and Sixty Nine Thousands only) as loan from my client on various dates in the name of addressee No.1 with an assurance that the said loan shall be repaid on demand and besides that my client shall be paid interest @18% p.a.Needless to say that the entire amount was paid through proper banking channels and as such the payment of said amount cannot be disputed.Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 16 of 34That despite specific demands and requests of my client, you failed to make repayment of loan amount to my client alongwith interest.My client has already issued a separate notice dated 20.07.2011 in this regard.That it is also a matter of fact that my client has also made a separate complaint of cheating and fraud to the tune of more than Rs.9,50,00,000/- (Rs.Nine Crore Fifty lacs only) against M/s Suraj Constructions and its partner Sh.Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 17 of 34Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 18 of 34By this legal notice, I herby call upon you to pay the amount of Rs.9,64,69,000/- (Rs.Nine Crore Sixty Four Lacs and Sixty Nine Thousands only) alongwith interest @ 18% p.a., within a period of 14 days from the receipt of this notice, failing which my client shall be constrained to initiate winding up proceedings against you in the competent court of law besides taking other remedies as available under the law, which shall be entirely at your own cost and expense."The petitioners (the petitioners herein refer to all the parties of M/s. Suraj Constructions and Director of the Company M/s. Fuso Glass India Pvt. Ltd.) during the course of arguments have not denied the fact of entering into the agreement on 20th April, 2007 through Champatlal Jain who is the Managing Partner of M/s Suraj Constructions with the complainant-Hitesh Kothari.It is also not denied that said Champatlal Jain offered to sell 5000 sq. ft. of super built up area on the ground floor at Rs.9500/- per sq. ft. and 3000 sq. ft. of super built up area on the first floor at Rs.8,000/- per sq. ft., i.e. for a total consideration of Rs.7,15,00,000/- to the complainant.The petitioners have not denied the fact that the entire payment of Rs.7,15,00,000/- as sale consideration and Rs.3,75,000/- as transfer Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 19 of 34 fee for the said space has been received from the complainant.It is also not denied by the petitioners that the complainant had further advanced a loan of Rs.2,38,00,000/- to Champatlal Jain, partner of M/s Suraj Constructions.They have also not denied that the said space has not been allotted to the complainant as per the agreement, nor the petitioners have returned the loan amount of Rs.2,38,00,000/Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.(b) In the said letter dated 22nd March, 2011, the complainant had requested that Rs.9.5 crores paid by him to Suraj Constructions be transferred to M/s Fuso Glass India Pvt. Ltd. for allotment of shares in his name.(c) The complainant through the aforesaid letter dated 22nd March, 2011 also agreed to forfeit Rs.6.75 lakhs as compensation for the cancellation.The complainant has not claimed this amount, neither has he made any allegations of cheating with respect to this amount.(d) Pursuant to the aforesaid request of the complainant, Suraj Constructions through its letter dated 20th May, 2011 informed the complainant that an amount of Rs.9.5 crores was transferred to M/s Fuso Glass India Pvt. Ltd. It was also Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 20 of 34 stated that in the years 2010-11 and 2011-12 share certificates had been issued in the name of Hitesh Kothari.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 22 of 34 time of filing the complaint.The details of the said documents are given as under:-Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 22 of 34(i) Cancellation letter dated 22nd March, 2011 filed by Champatlal Jain in his bail application.(ii) The affidavit issued on 24th September, 2011 and 2,60,000 shares applied on the same date and the affidavit also attested on the same date.Affidavit Nos.Affidavit Nos.Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.(viii) Shareholders list(ix) Form-2 allotment of shares on 28th February, 2011 to 12 persons on Rs.10/- face value (Premium - Nil) signed by Ashok B. Jain and same date 94400 shares issued to Hitesh Kothari Rs.10/- face value with Premium - Rs.240/- signed by Ashok B. Jain.(x) Form-2 filed by company in ROC, allotted shares 2,60,000 to Hitesh Kothari on 26th September, 2011 signed by Ashok B. Jain.In a nut-shell, the case of the complainant is that the petitioners have cheated him by adjusting Rs.9,64,69,000/- given to M/s Fuso Glass India Pvt. Ltd. as loan amount as well as the total amount of Rs.9,56,75,000/- for the purpose of space in the Mall at Vijaywada.Learned counsel for the complainant submits that as far as the amount of Rs.19,21,44,000/- is concerned, the petitioners cannot deny the factum of the said amount as the petitioners themselves have adjusted the said amount towards the shares allotted to him.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 24 of 34 almost nil against the amount adjusted where the petitioners have shown the value with premium of Rs.240/-.The value with premium on the respective dates was very negligible and actually fraud has been played upon the complainant.Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 24 of 34I have been informed by the learned APP for the State that all the documents have been sent to FSL, Rohini, for verification/ comparison of signatures and the reports are likely to be received very shortly.According to the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned APP for the State, on the face of said documents, they are forged and fabricated.Therefore, no relief should be granted to the petitioners unless the amount of Rs.19,21,44,000/- is secured by the petitioners.The law relating to pre-arrest is quite settled.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 25 of 34 him and complainant regarding sale of specific flats, was purely of civil nature and complainant had already filed suit for specific performance.Bail Appl.The said suggestions are not acceptable to the learned counsel for the complainant who submits that as regards the 8000 sq. ft. of super built up area in Ripple Mall, Vijayawada, the possession would remain with Suraj Constructions and they will earn the huge rent, out of the said area, without any fault of complainant who is actually entitled thereto.As regards the security of immovable property of Rs.8,50,00,000/- is concerned, similar is the reply of the complainant that against the admitted amount paid to the petitioners, the security Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, coupled with the fact that the petitioners and the complainant are related to each other and being a family dispute, in view of undertaking given by the petitioners to join the proceedings and to produce all the necessary documents required by the Investigating Agency, without deciding anything on merit, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bails to them in view of peculiar facts and circumstances in the matter; it is directed that in the event of their arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail subject to their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer (IO) and further, the said relief is being given to them, subject to the following conditions:-Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.Subject to the aforesaid compliance, the order dated 28th May, 2014 as well as the order dated 11th September, 2014 issuing thereby non-bailable warrants against them and also the orders dated 27th October, 2014 and 3rd December, 2014 issuing process against Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 34 of 34Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 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.
|
145,573,406 |
According to the prosecution case, Ramdas Govinda Pote, who is the paternal uncle of appellant Sanjay had lodged a report on 17.10.2014 stating therein that he was residing in his house with his wife Shakuntala, son Vitthal, daughter-in-law Manisha and grand- daughter Suhani.According to Ramdas, one of his daughters was married and was residing in her matrimonial home and his other son was residing at Rampur.It is stated that his younger son viz. Vitthal used to reside with him with his family and used to run a Kirana Shop.It is stated that his elder brother, namely Nagorao was residing with his family in the adjacent house.Nagorao had two sons and one daughter and his elder son Kawadu had died.Accused Sanjay was his second son and he was residing with his wife and children with his father Nagorao.It is alleged in the complaint that from about 10 to 12 days prior to the occurrence of the crime on 16.10.2014, Sanjay used to proclaim that Lord Hanuman had entered into his body and used to start worshiping him by calling all the members of his family.It is alleged that Sanjay::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 08:35:47 ::: CR-APEAL148.16-Judgment 3/23 used to proclaim that he was a godly person and God was residing in him.It is alleged that on 16.10.2014 when Vitthal returned from work at about 9.30 pm, appellant Sanjay entered into the house of Ramdas at about 1.00 O'clock in the midnight.It is alleged that appellant Sanjay told the members in the family of Ramdas that there was a ghost in their house and that God had asked him to remove the ghost by practicing exorcism.It is alleged that Sanjay started slapping all the members of the family of Ramdas, ordered them to take bath and operated the water pump in the courtyard of the house of Ramdas.It is alleged in the complaint that Sanjay drenched all the members of the family of Ramdas with water, thrust the water pipe in the mouth of Vitthal, sat on his chest and started shouting that he would remove the ghost from the body of Vitthal.It is alleged that since Sanjay was saying that nobody should come in between him and Vitthal, Ramdas and the members of his family did not intervene till Vitthal was motionless as he had apparently expired due to the thrusting of the water pipe in his mouth.It is alleged that after Vitthal stopped moving Sanjay turned towards the others viz. Ramdas and his family members and again drenched them with water.It is alleged that Sanjay then took a stone and hit it on the back of Ramdas.Ramdas sustained a bleeding injury on his head and screamed.It is alleged that the villagers came to rescue but Sanjay stood on the gate of the house and informed the people not::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 08:35:47 ::: CR-APEAL148.16-Judgment 4/23 to enter into the compound, as there was God in his body.DATED : 05.03.2018 O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per : Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.) By this Criminal Appeal, the appellant-Sanjay has challenged the judgment of the Ad-hoc Sessions Judge, Chandrapur dated 12.4.2016 in Sessions Case No.13 of 2015 convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in-default of the payment of fine to undergo rigorous::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 08:35:47 ::: CR-APEAL148.16-Judgment 2/23 imprisonment for three months.The appellant is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in-default of the payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 08:35:47 :::On the basis of the complaint lodged by Ramdas, an FIR was registered against Sanjay for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of the Penal Code.The investigation commenced after the police arrived at the spot and conducted the spot panchanama.After the investigation was completed, the charge was framed against Sanjay.Sanjay pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.The prosecution examined Ramdas, who was the eyewitness to the crime and also examined two doctors that had conducted the postmortem of Vitthal and had medically examined both Ramdas and Vitthal.The prosecution examined three other witnesses including the investigating officer.Sanjay also examined a doctor in defence.On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the trial court, by the judgment dated 12.4.2016, convicted appellant Sanjay of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of the Penal Code.The judgment of the trial court is challenged by the appellant in this appeal.::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 08:35:47 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 08:35:47 :::It is submitted that the admissions of Ramdas, in his cross-examination would clearly shows that Sanjay was behaving like an abnormal person from about 10 to 12 days before 16.10.2014 and he was committing such acts which could show that he was not mentally sound at the relevant time.It is stated that it could be gathered from the prosecution story that Sanjay was incapable of understanding the nature of the act which he was doing on 16.10.2014, as a result of which Vitthal had died.It is submitted that it is apparent from the evidence of Ramdas that Sanjay had entered into the house of Ramdas at 1.00 O'clock in the midnight shouting that he was a Godly person and that he wanted to remove the ghost from the house of Ramdas.It is stated that Sanjay then operated the motor-pump affixed to the well, drenched all the family members of Ramdas with water, thrust the water pipe in the mouth of Vitthal, sat on his chest and shouted that he was removing the ghost.It is stated that the::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 08:35:47 ::: CR-APEAL148.16-Judgment 6/23 prosecution has not proved that Sanjay either had the intention to kill Vitthal or that he had a motive to kill him.It is submitted that it could be gathered from the first information report, as also the evidence of Ramdas that there was no enmity between the family members of Ramdas and the family members of Nagorao.It is submitted that in the absence of any enmity or quarrel between the two brothers namely Ramdas and Nagorao and their family, it cannot be said that Sanjay had the motive or the intention to kill Vitthal.It is submitted that the evidence of DW-1 Dr. Imran Ali was not appreciated by the trial court in the right perspective.::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 08:35:47 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 08:35:47 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 08:35:47 :::It is stated that the probable cause of the death of Vitthal, as per the postmortem report is asphyxia due to aspiration of water and since Sanjay had thrust the water pipe with gushing water in the mouth of Vitthal, he had died by asphyxia due to aspiration of water.It is submitted that in the circumstances of the case,::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 08:35:47 ::: CR-APEAL148.16-Judgment 9/23 especially when the guilt of Sanjay is clearly brought home to him by the evidence tendered by the prosecution, this court may not interfere with the judgment of the trial court.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor sought for the dismissal of the appeal.::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 08:35:47 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 08:35:47 :::They reside in their respective houses in the neighbourhood along with their families.Ramdas admitted that on the day of the incident, Sanjay was again acting like a haunted person.Ramdas has admitted in his::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 08:35:47 ::: CR-APEAL148.16-Judgment 13/23 cross-examination that Sanjay shouted that God had ordered him to remove the ghost from the house of Ramdas and then he has started the motor-pump and drenched all his family members with water.The evidence of Ramdas, both in his examination-in-chief and cross- examination reveals that after drenching everybody from the family of Ramdas with water, Sanjay had thrust the water pipe into the mouth of Vitthal and had sat on his chest with a view to remove the ghost from the body of Vitthal.It is the case of Ramdas that before committing the aforesaid acts, he had slapped the members of the family of the Ramdas.Sanjay appears to have been telling one and all from a few days before the incident that he was a Godly person.Sanjay used to dance and shout and chant the name of Lord Hanuman.It appears that the prosecution case is supported by the evidence of Ramdas that on the midnight between 16/10/2014 and 17/10/2014 Sanjay came to the house of Ramdas at 1 O'clock midnight, started shouting that he would remove the ghost from the house, poured a pot of water on his head, operated the motor pump of the well, asked everybody to sit on the baz (wooden cot with coir wires), started slapping everybody, sprinkled water on their body and drenched everybody with water and put the water pipe in the mouth of Vitthal till Vitthal stopped breathing.The evidence of Dr.Imran Ali would not be very relevant for deciding the question whether at the time of committing the crime Sanjay was incapable of knowing the nature of the act as he was not in a sound::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 08:35:47 ::: CR-APEAL148.16-Judgment 16/23 state of mind, as the crucial time for determining whether the accused was not in a sound state of mind and was incapable of knowing the nature of the act would be the time when he had actually committed the act.Sanjay had lost his brother Kawdu and the son of Kawdu was also feeling haunted.::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 08:35:47 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 08:35:47 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 08:35:47 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 08:35:47 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 08:35:47 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 08:35:47 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 08:35:47 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 08:35:47 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 08:35:47 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 08:35:47 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 08:35:47 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 08:35:47 :::Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the criminal appeal is allowed.The judgment of the trial court, dated 12/04/2016 in Sessions Case No.13 of 2015 is hereby set aside.Order accordingly.No costs..::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 08:35:47 :::
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
145,586,940 |
eP goj;j !;Ty; rh;ogpnfl; cd;dhy; ghJfhf;f Koatpy;iy.eP ntiyf;F ngha; vd;d bra;a nghw.This petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in PRC.No.6 of 2014, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Salem.Through the wedlock, a female child was born and the petitioner is said to be working as a Junior Assistant in the City Police Office at Salem.There seems to be some quarrel between the parties with regard to the sale of a plot.There was also regular quarrel between the petitioner and the deceased, since the petitioner was insisting that the deceased must go for work and therefore he was pressurising her to take a job.The deceased resisted the same on the ground that there was a child aged about 1 1/2 years and she cannot go for a job.On 12.05.2012 at about 05.30 p.m., the deceased contacted her brother and informed him that he should bring the documents pertaining to the plot immediately, since the petitioner was pressurising to sell the plot.On the very same day at about 07.15 p.m, there was a quarrel between the petitioner and the deceased and the petitioner is said to have uttered the following words:ehd; filf;F ngha;tpl;L tuj;Jf;Fs;ns rh;l;ogpnfl; ,y;iyd;dh eP vJf;F gpunahrdk;,y;iy. ePP ,Ue;Jk; xd;Djhd;. ,y;yhk ,Ue;jhYk; xd;Djhd;.Not able to take it any further, the deceased took the extreme step of committing suicide by hanging at about 07.30 p.m., on the same day.http://www.judis.nic.in 3Based on the complaint given by the father of the deceased, an FIR came to be registered for the offence under Sections 498 A and 306 of IPC, before the respondent police.
|
['Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
92,517,218 |
This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 07.03.2014 passed by the learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Session Trial No.828/2012 by which the appellants were found guilty under Sections 307/34 and 324/34 of IPC and sentenced to 7 years R.I. under Section 307/34 of IPC and 1 year R.I. under Section 324/34 of IPC.They were also sentenced to fine of Rs.500/- each in both the sections separately and 2 months additional sentence by way of default stipulation.I.A. No.8135/2017 is filed under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. for acquitting the appellants as the complainant and the appellants have entered into a compromise and I.A. No.6947/2017 is filed under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C. for grant of permission to compromise the matter.While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.(i) There is one injury found on left side of his naval, which was a penetrating wound and;(ii) The two other injuries were on right forearm and one injury was right thigh.The dispute was a personal dispute between the accused and the injured.No member of the public was involved and looking to the fact that they have entered into compromise and stated that they are living peacefully in the society in future, I find that this is a fit case where using extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the offence may be permitted to be compromised.Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of on the basis of compromise.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
92,525 |
JUDGMENT K.K. Verma, J.The petitioner has therefore come up in revision against the appellate judgment.The following concurrent findings of the Courts below were not challenged before me.Late in the afternoon on 14-11-1978, a truck (No. 6607 M.P.D.) driven by the petitioner was involved in an accident on the outskirts of the village of Nanawad on a public road, near a culvert of a canal, resulting in the death of P.W. 2, Gangadhar's son Pappu (aged 8 years).It is not in dispute that after the accident, the truck was halted and the petitioner Nannekhan (DW 2), the truck-cleaner Azad (DW 1) and the labourers on the truck ran away.Here, the petitioner assails the finding that he drove the truck negligently.Brijmohan (PW 3), the first-informant and the sole eye-witness, found favour with the Courts below with his version that the truck, coming from the north of a west-east running canal at about 4 p.m., crossed its culvert in speed came south towards the village of Nanawad, and then at about 1 furlong from him (Brijmohan) knocked down and crushed Pappu under the right-hand side of the front wheel of the truck.Brijmohan (PW. 3) has withstood cross-examination very well.The aforementioned independent testimony which highlights the negligent driving in hitting a boy visible on the road finds corroboration in the F.I.R. (Ex. P-5) lodged by Brijmohan at 5.15 p.m. at the Sheopur-Kalan P.S., and the unimpeachable evidence of Dr. S.A. Ahmad (P.W. 4) who has deposed that Pappu's both the thighs, the whole of abdomen had been crushed and the visceral organs ruptured, and that the intestines had come out.It is evident that Brijmohan's testimony could be discarded on its being successfully rebutted or displaced by the defence version.The truck-cleaner Azad (DW 1) and petitioner Nannekhan (D.W. 2) gave the following defence-version.The truck driven slowly,' crossed the culvert.Then the boy started running from over the culvert, from the right hand side of the driver, and attempted to cross the road.The driver applied the foot brake, but it did not work.Then he veered the truck towards his right but finding that the truck was in danger of running down the road into a pit, he veered the truck towards his left.They say that the boy dashed against the rear of the body of the truck on the right-hand side of the driver.Now, the boy had crushing injuries on his thighs and the abdomen.He had no injuries on his chest, face and head.Thus, the prosecution-version that a wheel crushed him is consistent with the medical evidence, while the defence-version that the boy dashed against a moving truck's rear does not fit in with the medical evidence.The proved fact that the truck was brought to a halt near the place where the dead body was found exposed the falsehood of the defence-version that the foot brake had failed to work when the driver applied it.Besides, the hollowness of the defence-version is further exposed by its omission to show whether the boy dashed against the truck while it was first veered towards the right or when, later on it was, veered to the left.I, therefore, see no reason to differ from the conclusion reached by the Courts below that the petitioner's negligent driving of the truck, on a public place that caused the accident resulting in Pappu's death.The proved facts bring home the charges under Sections 279 and 304A, I.P.C.The petitioner's learned Counsel urged that the petitioner could not have been sentenced under Section 279,1.P.C. separately after he had been found guilty under S, 304A, I.P.C. This submission is accepted because some of the facts found as ingredients of the offence under Section 304A, I.P.C. covered the ingredients of the offence under Section 279, I.P.C. The sentence of Rs. 250/- on account of fine under Section 279, I.P.C. is, therefore, set aside.As to the sentences of rigorous imprisonment of one year and a fine of Rs. 250/-.I find them rather on the heavier side.In my view, a sentence of 6 months' rigorous imprisonment would be sufficient for the ends of justice.With the above modifications, the revision is dismissed.The petitioner who is on bail is hereby directed through his counsel to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morena on 12-2-1986 to hear the result of the revision and to surrender to his bail to serve out the remaining part of the sentence of imprisonment.
|
['Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A 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.