Datasets:
Fawazzx
/
full

Dataset card Data Studio Files Community
2
id
int64
17
1.89B
cases
stringlengths
8
539k
labels
stringlengths
38
1.25k
instruction
stringclasses
1 value
92,528
The appellant was charged under S. 302 of IPC for having committed the murder of Ashok Vishnupant Kulkarni who was Railway Police Constable at the Pune Railway Station.The said railway police station is situated in the premises of Pune Railway Station.In front of the said office there is a verrandha.The office of the Police Inspector is on platform No. 1 of the Pune Railway Station at a distance of about 400 yards from the Pune Railway Police Station.At the relevant time PW 4 Ravikant Abasaheb Tayade, the Police Inspector was holding the charge of Pune Railway Police Station as Police Inspector Yeshwant Hari Kulkarni PW 5 was on leave.The deceased Ashok Vishnupant Kulkarni was working as Police Constable at the said Railway Police Station.The appellant was seen at the Pune railway station platform on 19th, 20th and 21st January 1976 in his uniform.On the day of the incident i.e. 21st January 1976 the appellant was seen sitting in the office of the Railway police station, Pune between 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. At times he was sitting quietly in the office premises.At about 4-45 p.m. the appellant suddenly took out knife from his pocket and stabbed the deceased Ashok Kulkarni when the deceased and PW-2 Waghmare were in the verrandha.PW. 1 complainant Mrs. Vachhal Kshirsagar heard the cry of the persons coming from the verrandha and, therefore, she came in the door when she saw the deceased police constable Kulkarni lying injured in the pool of blood.The other constables present there i.e. PW.2 Waghmare, Head Constables Devkathe, Gaikwad and Patil separated the appellant from the deceased when he was sitting on the body of the injured constable.The appellant was then pushed inside the office of the Railway police.On his arrival the deceased constable Ashok Kulkarni was taken to the Sassoon Hospital, Pune where he was pronounced dead.The appellant immediately was arrested.It is the prosecution case that immediately after the incident when the appellant was forced inside the office of the Railway police, the appellant lifted a chair lying in the police station and threw it out.In order to prove that the death of the deceased was as a result of stabbing by the appellant is concerned, the prosecution has led evidence of Manohar Waghmare PW 2 who was the police constable at the Railway Police Station, Pune on the relevant date and time and was keeping watch on the movements of constables of the Railway Police Protection Force along with the deceased.According to this witness he was on the said duty from 2 p.m. onwards along with the deceased.He knew the accused.He along with the deceased were sitting in the verrandha at about 4-45 p.m. when the accused was inside the police station suddenly rushed to the verrandha, took out a knife article No. 8 from his pant pocket and stabbed the deceased Kulkarni.The another constable Ghodke gave a stick blow on the hand of the appellant as a result of which the knife fell down from the hand of the appellant-accused.Thereafter many police men caught the accused and kept inside the police station.This witness also deposed to the effect that from the time they were on duty on that day the accused was frequently entering into the police station and coming out and that he was in his uniform.The accused was known to this witness for a period over one year but he did not make any enquiry with him about his strange behaviour of coming and going out of the police station.This witness had seen the actual assault on the deceased and his testimony has not been shattered in the cross-examination.We have also gone through his evidence and we have no doubt that this witness has seen the actual assault on the deceased and his evidence is quite believable.16 The next witness examined by the prosecution is PW 1 Vachhal Kshirsagar who is lady PSI and was on duty from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. on the said date at the Pune Railway Police Station.At the relevant time of the assault she was inside the police station and on hearing the voice from the verrandha "Aai Ga ! (Oh mother !)" she came immediately out in the verrandha.On her coming out in the verrandha she saw the deceased constable Ashok Kulkarni lying injured in a pool of blood and the appellant was seen sitting on the body of the injured constable.According to her many other constables from the police station came and over-powered the accused.She also stated that the accused then lifted a chair and threw it out.She also stated that the accused lifted one of the kit boxes lying in the police office and rushed towards the lady constables and, therefore, lady constables raised cries when constable Shaikh intercepted the accused.After the Police Inspector came on the scene, the accused was taken into the custody and the injured was sent to the hospital.The prosecution had examined the Police Inspector Tayade PW 4 who said that when PW 1 PSI Mrs. Kshirsagar informed him that the accused stabbed constable Ashok Kulkarni with a knife, he came at the scene of offence and sent the injured to the hospital.He also took the accused in custody.He recorded the FIR which is Exh. 16 lodged by PSI Mrs. Kshirsagar PW 1 and arrested the accused.He recorded the statement of constables and arrested the accused and as he found some strange behaviour on the part of the accused, he sent the accused to Sassoon Hospital for treatment under his Yadi Exh. 22 on the same day.JUDGMENT S.S. Parkar, J.2. Facts leading to the conviction of the appellant briefly stated are as under :On seeing this behaviour of the appellant the lady constables present in the police station raised cries.The appellant also lifted one kit box lying in the office of the police station and went towards the female officers for assaulting when constable Shaikh intercepted.At the time of arrest the knife article No. 10 found in the pant pocket of the appellant was seized.Sub Inspector Mali made inquest panchnama of the dead body in the Sassoon Hospital.Police Inspector Tayade recorded the statements of PW 2 Waghmare and ten others.As the Police Inspector Tayade PW 4 noticed that the appellant was behaving in a very strange manner he felt that the appellant was not in proper mental condition and, therefore, he made an application Exh. 22 addressed to the Dean of Sassoon Hospital to medically examine the appellant and called for report regarding his mental condition.By the said application further request was also made that in case the appellant was found insane, necessary arrangement should be made to admit him in the mental hospital.Reverting back to the progress of the investigation, PW 4 PI Tayade handed over the charge of the investigation to Police Inspector Yeshwant Kulkarni PW 5 on 27th January 1976 as he resumed duty on that day.On 16th March 1976 he forwarded the article Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 to 11 to the chemical analyser, Bombay for report.JMFC (Railways) Pune committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Pune as the offence, prima facie, fell under S. 302 of IPC.As the appellant accused was in Yeroda Mental Hospital, Pune upto 5th July 1982, the trial of the appellant did not take place.Considering the said report Exhibit 2 along with the letter of the Superintendent, Central Mental Hospital, Pune dated 20th May 1982 the Sessions Court, Pune was satisfied that the appellant had understanding capacity and was mentally fit to face the trial.The Sessions Court, therefore, passed order on 14th July 1982 to place the matter on 16th July 1982 for framing the charge.On that date the accused had engaged an Advocate who contended that the appellant was capable of defending himself and was fit to stand for his trial.The appellant accused pleaded not guilty to the said charge.In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined five witnesses.Secondly, PW 2 Constable Manohar Waghmare has been examined as eye-witness to the incident.PW 3 is Dr. Dilip Sapre who performed the autopsy on the deceased.The prosecution also produced documents viz. spot Panchnama dated 21st January 1976 Exh. 11, Inquest Panchnama dated 21st January 1976 exh.The prosecution has also produced the application dated 21st January 1976 Exh. 22 made by the Police Inspector regarding the mental condition of the accused-appellant.The defence of the appellant is of total denial.On behalf of the appellant two doctors have been examined as defence witnesses.DW 1 is Dr. Keshav Thombare, Registrar in Psychiatry who examined the appellant on 21st January 1976 about his mental condition.DW 2 is Dr. Prabhakar Vyawahare who was the Medical Officer in Mental Hospital.The defence of the appellant-accused was that at the time of the incident the appellant was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law, on 21st January 1976 and, therefore, whatever he did on that day was not an offence.The learned Sessions Judge after considering the entire evidence on record that it was the appellant-accused who had committed the murder of Ashok Vishnupant Kulkarni on 21st January 1976 intentionally and, therefore, he committed offence under S. 302, IPC.The learned Judge rejected the plea of unsoundness of mind taken by the appellant accused under S. 84 of IPC and held that the appellant accused was guilty of offence under S. 302, IPC and, therefore, by his judgment and order dated 25th August 1982 sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life.It is this order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge which is under challenge before us in the above appeal.We have gone through the entire evidence on record both of the prosecution witnesses as well as two doctors examined on behalf of the defence.We have also perused the documents like application dated 21st January 1976 made by PW 4 Police Inspector Tayade to the Sassoon Hospital regarding the mental condition of the accused and the report of the doctors.P. I. Kulkarni after taking over the investigation on 27th January 1976 recorded the statements of two witnesses and sent Arts.1 to 5 and 7 to 11 to the Chemical Analyser, Bombay.He received the C.A. report Exh. 25 and after completing investigation filed charge-sheet on 2-9-1976 before the J.M.F.C. (Railways), Pune.The evidence of none of these witnesses has been shattered in their cross-examination on the point of assault made by the accused on the deceased at the relevant time and place and date at the Railway Police Station, Pune.As regards the injuries received by the deceased, the prosecution has examined Dr. Dilip Sapre PW 3 who performed the autopsy on the deceased.According to the said doctor the deceased received the following four external injuries :-An incised elliptical wound 3/4" x 1/2" on right side of neck 4" above the sterno claciclcar joint and 1/2" lateral midline with tailing towards right and oblique measuring 1/2" x 1/4" the fibres for sterno mestoid were obliquecally out and injury reaching up to right apical lobe of lung.Incised elliptical wound 1" x 1/2" situated in left illic possa 4" above the anterior superior illiac spine and 4/2" below the constal margin and in the midelavicular line.Through this mesentary 4" in length has come out.3. 3 superficila scratch abrasion on right abdomen wall, first one was 7th rib measuring 2/2" x 1/2" and the others were 1" below measuring 1/2" x 1/4" and the third was the above obvious second abrasion 1" x 1/4".All the three had tailing towards left side.An incised wound 1/2" x 1/4" on the eleventh thorasic vortibras.It was bone deep.A circular abrasion 1/4" in diameter just lateral and right side to that incised wound.On internal examination the said doctor found the following injuries :-1. Ruptured pluera on right side.Two incised wounds near each other.One 1/2" and other 1/4" in length.First one was 4" in depth and the other was 1/4" in depth.There was haemothorax with 350 c.c. of fluid blood in the thoraseic cavities.4. 1" x 1/2" tear in the peritonumeum in the left illise fossa.400 c.cs. of fluid blood was present in the abdomen cavity.Mes entrary shows 3 tears one inch apart from each other 2" x 1", 1/2" x 1" and 1" x 1/2".They are 4" proximal to cascum.According to the said doctor the external injuries were ante-mortem.In the opinion of the doctor the cause of death was due to haemarrhagic shock due to injuries to lung right masantry.The evidence of this doctor was not challenged in the cross-examination.From the aforesaid evidence we have no manner of doubt that the deceased has died homicidal death as a result of the stab injury given by the appellant-accused by knife article No. 8 on 21st january 1976 at about 4-45 p.m. in the verrandha of the Railway Police Station at Pune.The report of the chemical analyser shows that the knife article No. 8 was stained with blood but the same was disintegrated and, therefore, the blood found on the knife could not be determined.According to the said report the blood found on the clothes of the deceased and the accused was human blood of Group 'A' which is that of the deceased.In other words the direct evidence led by the prosecution of the eye witness Manohar Waghmare PW 2 and that of complainant PW 1 has been substantially corroborated by the fact that the clothes of the deceased as well as the clothes of the accused were stained with human blood of Group 'A.' The said evidence is also corroborated by the medical evidence of Dr. Sapre who carried on the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased.The aforesaid evidence leaves no manner of doubt that the deceased had died because of the assault madde on him with a knife article No. 8 by the appellant-accused on 21st January 1976 at 4-45 p.m. in the verrandha of the Pune Railway Station.In the instant case the matter does not rest there.In order to fix the appellant-accused with the guilt for committing the offence of murder under S. 300 punishable under S. 302 of IPC the prosecution has to prove that the said assault was made by the accused intentially or knowingly.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused for charge of murder the prosecution has to bring the accused under Fourth clause enumerated in S. 300 of IPC.In the instant case from the medical evidence and circumstantial evidence which is on record we are of the opinion that the accused has done the aforesaid act of stabbing the deceased without being capable of knowing the nature of the act or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law by reason of his unsoundness of mind at the time of doing it.It is true that there is no evidence on record to show, either medical or otherwise, that the accused was a person of unsound mind before the date of alleged offence.He has deposed that on 21st January 1976 at about 11-30 p.m. the accused was brought to Sassoon Hospital for treatment by Police Officer.He states in his deposition that during his examination on 21st January 1976 he found that the accused was confused.He had maintained the case-papers which were prepared in his hand.On the following day i.e. 22nd January 1976 in the course of examination he found that the accused had paronoid delusion.He further deposed that during the said examination the accused told him that his wife was influenced by his neighbour by way of Mantra and Tantra and that earlier day everybody was killing him and he was protecting him and, therefore, he took out knife and he did not know what happened thereafter.The said doctor examined the accused again on 23rd January 1976 when he found the accused to be persistent in his paronoid delusion and was confused.On the basis of his findings during the examination of the accused in those days he found the accused to be mentally sick and accordingly he gave his opinion.According to him the accused had auditory hallucinations.He further deposed that delusions, hallucinations, depressions, seclusiveness are the symptoms of mental disease.He proved the observations made in the handwriting of Mrs. Master.He further stated that delusions and hallucinations are the symptoms of schizophrenia and that declusions affect the conduct of and actions of sufferer and may lead him to commit suicide, or murder.It is important to note that he has also opined that the observations which are made by him in the case papers Exh. 27 pertaining to the accused could not be the outcome of one day.He stated that it was possible that these diseases were deep rooted in the patient accused for a long time.Another doctor who is examined as DW 2 on behalf of the defence is Dr. Prabhakar Vyawahare who is M.D. in Psychiatry.During that period many doctors had examined the accused and the diagnosis was paronoid schizophrenia.According to him person suffering from delusions and persecutions are primarily dangerous but may or may not commit violent act.According to him looking to the prolonged stay of the accused at the Mental Hospital, the disease may or may not surface on one day and that the accused was not pretending the insanity.According to him the observations made by the expert for the mental condition of a person are for that particular time and if the same behaviour is not repeated does not mean that the patient was cured.This witness has fairly stated in the cross-examination that he was not in a position to say since when the accused was sufferring from paronoid schizophrenia.It is also significant to mention here that on the date of incident when the accused was arrested and was being interrogated by Investigation Officer PW 4 Police Inspector Tayade, he found the accused behaving abnormally.In his deposition before the court he stated in para 5 of his evidence that during interrogation the accused was not properly giving answers and that he was not speaking.Therefore, he felt that his mental condition was not satisfactory and, therefore, he sent the accused to Sassoon Hospital for treatment.He sent the accused to the Sassoon Hospital under Yadi dated 21st January 1976 which is Exh. 22 on record.The said Yadi sates, "On enquiry with the said accused he behaved irregularly and not speaking anything.On seeing his condition we think that he is mentally deranged.So he be medically examined and report regarding his condition be given.If the accused found insane necessary arrangement be made to admit him in the Mental Hospital, Yeravada.It was pursuant to this Yadi that the accused was kept under observation between 21st January 1976 to 28th January 1976 and thereafter the doctor opined that he was a mental case and, therefore, he was sent to the Mental Hospital, Yervada where he was discharged on 5th July 1982 i.e. after a period of 6 and 1/2 years.The prosecution has also produced the remand application dated 22nd January 1976 which is Exh. 23 in which it is mentioned by the Police Inspector that on enquiry with the accused he was behaving irregularly in the fits of insanity and he was sent to Civil Surgeon, Sassoon Hospital, Pune for treatment and, therefore, seven days' magisterial custody was asked for Pursuant to the said application, learned JMFC (Railways) Pune was pleased to grant this remand.From the aforesaid evidence we have no manner of doubt that the appellant was not in proper mental state and capable of understanding the nature of his acts on 21st January 1976 and thereafter.It is true that the defence has not produced any medical evidence with regard to the mental state of the accused before the date of incident.However, the said mental state of the accused can be inferred from his conduct on the date of the incident and two days prior to the date of incident as deposed to by the Complainant PW 1 and eye-witness PW 2 and also the medical evidence led after the incident.It is important to note that Dr. K. Thombare has deposed that from the case papers of the appellant accused at Exh. 27, he could say that the accused was suffering from delusions was not the outcome of one day and that his disease was deep rooted since a long time.Similarly DW-2 Dr. P. Vyawhare has also deposed that the accused was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.From the prolonged stay of the accused in the Mental Hospital, this doctor has inferred that the disease from which the accused was suffering can not surface on one day and that he was not pretending insanity.From the aforesaid evidence it is crystal clear that the accused was not feigning insanity nor it could be said with any certainty or definiteness that the accused was absolutely sane on the date and at the time when he assaulted the deceased with a knife.It has to be borne in mind that the burden on accused is not to prove or establish his defence beyond a shadow of doubt, as in the case of prosecution, but he has only to establish it with preponderance of probability.The said doctor could not categorically state that the accused had capacity or not to understand the nature of his act at the time of alleged incident dated 21st January 1976 at about 4-45 p.m. or that the accused was suffering from his mental abnormality prior to or at the time of the incident.The trial Court has not accepted the evidence of PW-4 Tayade Police Inspector on the ground that he is not an expert, when he said that during the interrogation from the behaviour of the accused, he suspected that the accused to be mentally unsound.Similarly, the learned trial Judge has not given any importance to the circumstances proved by the lady P.S.I. PW-1 Mrs. V. N. Kshirsagar, when she said that after the incident the accused threw chair out of the office and also tried to assault lady Police by picking up the Kit box which was lying in the Police Station.The trial Court has also not given due importance to the case papers Exh. 27, wherein the wife of the accused is reported to have said that since last 8 months the accused was quarrelsome, abusive, adamant and was very whimsical in his nature and also refused to take treatment since 8 days' prior to the date of the incident on the ground that she was not examined.The learned trial Judge has relied on the circumstance of finding two knives with the accused to infer that he must be absolutely sane.A person who carries knife with the intention of killing somebody or for any other purpose, does not keep two knives in his pant pocket.Similarly, after the incident no normal accused starts throwing chairs and other goods when he is over powered and confined inside the Police Station in the presence of number of Police-men.In our view the learned judge has also not properly appreciated the evidence of two doctors, examined on behalf of the two defences.The trial Court has wrongly relied on the deposition DW 1 Dr. Thombare in his cross-examination when he stated that the accused was a patient of Paranoid Schizophrenia, was not a conclusive diagnosis and that he was not in a position to state whether on 21st January 1976 at about 4-45 p.m. i.e. the date and time of incident, the accused had no understanding capacity to know the nature of his act.Appeal allowed.
['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.
92,529,477
Dr. Santosh (P.W.9), who was the then C.M.O. on duty, started medical treatment to deceased and intimated police about the injured deceased.On the basis of that dying declaration, Crime No.25/2003 was registered at M.I.D.C. Police Station, Ahmednagar.On 31.1.2003, at about 12.300 noon hours, the deceased succumbed to her injuries.By this appeal, the State of Maharashtra has challenged the vires of judgment and order of acquittal of accused No.1, passed by learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Sessions Case No.53/2003, dated 1.12.2003, whereby all accused were acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/02/2018 02:21:11 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/02/2018 02:21:11 :::Appeal No.208/2004 2 Original accused No.3 died during the trial and proceedings against him is abated.The prosecution case in brief is that, the deceased married accused No.1 on 24.5.2002 and thereafter cohabited with the accused persons at Nimbalik.They lived together.After marriage, for about 2/3 months, cohabitation of the deceased was normal.However, thereafter accused persons started ill-treatment to the deceased for demand of dowry amount of Rs.7000/-.The deceased was fed up with the said ill-treatment and, therefore, on 30.1.2003, at about 11.30 p.m., at the residence of the accused, deceased committed suicide by setting herself ablaze.::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/02/2018 02:21:11 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/02/2018 02:21:11 :::Appeal No.208/2004 3 After carrying out investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ahmednagar.Offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code being exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, this case came to be committed to the Court of Sessions, Ahmednagar.Charge Exh.11 was framed against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.In support of the prosecution case, total 9 witnesses were examined.Shaikh Rauf Abdul Rahman (P.W.7) is the person who conducted part of the investigation and prepared spot panchanama Exh.27 of the spot of the incident.Chandrakant Mhaske (P.W.8), P.S.I., M.I.D.C. Police Station, Ahmednagar is the investigating officer who carried out further investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused.Dr.::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/02/2018 02:21:11 ::: Cri.Appeal No.208/2004 4 Santosh Khamkar (P.W.9) is the Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ahmednagar in whose presence first dying declaration (Exh.34) was recorded.::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/02/2018 02:21:11 :::Learned A.P.P. for the State submits that, when the injured was admitted in the hospital, at the earliest her first dying declaration (Exh.34) was recorded, which speaks that, on account of doubting the character by accused No.1 and due to beating to deceased by accused No.1, she committed suicide.He placed reliance on the oral dying declarations of deceased in presence of her parental relatives (P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.5).According to learned A.P.P., on the basis of these dying declarations, prosecution can establish that, on account of continuous demand of dowry amount of Rs.7000/-, the deceased was subjected to ill-treatment by all the accused persons.Even accused No.1 doubted the character of the deceased, which resulted into her death.According to learned A.P.P., this evidence is sufficient to convict at least the accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code.In reply, Shri B.N. Palve, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that, even if dying declaration Exh.34 is admitted as it is, it indicates that, the deceased committed::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/02/2018 02:21:11 ::: Cri.Appeal No.208/2004 5 suicide in the hit of anger.Therefore, on the basis of Exh.34, even accused No.1 cannot be convicted for any offence.::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/02/2018 02:21:11 :::His next submission is that, the oral dying declarations brought on record by Zumber (P.W.1), Ramdas (P.W.3) and Venubai (P.W.4) are vague and totally unreliable and cannot be accepted to base the conviction of the accused.Learned counsel for the respondent did not dispute the preparation of spot panchanama Exh.27 and cause of death of the deceased as proved by Dr. Sunil Pokharna (P.W.6).In view of these submissions of respective parties, the fate of this case revolves upon the reliability of written dying declaration Exh.34 and oral disclosure by deceased before her father Zumber (P.W.1), brother Ramdas (P.W.3) and neighbour Venubai (P.W.4).After going through the evidence of Dr. Santosh (P.W.9) and A.S.I. Shaikh Yusuf (P.W.5), it emerges that, the first dying declaration Exh.34 was recorded by A.S.I. Shaikh Yusuf (P.W.5) when deceased was in fit condition to give her statement.Nothing could be elicited from the cross-examination of these both witnesses to create doubt about fit condition of deceased to give the statement.However, this important piece of evidence i.e. dying::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/02/2018 02:21:11 ::: Cri.Appeal No.208/2004 6 declaration Exh.34 speaks that, on 30.1.2003 at about 11.00 to 11.30 p.m., accused No.1 asked the deceased whether she had any affair with any third person and thereafter the accused had beaten the deceased.The dying declaration reflects that, due to this act of the accused No.1, the deceased got annoyed and enraged, and she poured kerosene on her body and set herself ablaze.::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/02/2018 02:21:11 :::It is to be noted that, in the dying declaration Exh.34, the deceased nowhere blamed accused Nos.2 and 3 (in-laws).Most important aspect to be noted is that, in this dying declaration, the deceased did not utter a single word regarding harassment to her at the hands of even accused No.1 for demand of dowry or any other valuable article.Even in her dying declaration, the deceased nowhere uttered that due to harassment at the hands of accused or due to doubt raised by accused No.1 about her character, her condition was so miserable or intolerable that she was constrained to commit suicide.Therefore, even if the dying declaration Exh.34 is accepted as it is, it is not sufficient to make out a case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code or even under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, for the simple reason that, single incident of taking doubt on the character of wife or beating to wife does not amount to compelling the wife or instigating the::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/02/2018 02:21:11 ::: Cri.Appeal No.208/2004 7 wife to commit suicide.If the deceased had committed suicide in a hit of anger due to her sensitive nature, even accused No.1 cannot be blamed.I hold that, the dying declaration Exh.34 falls short to establish guilt of even accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A or 306 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/02/2018 02:21:11 :::Even if the evidence of Zumber (P.W.1), Ramdas (P.W.3) and Venubai (P.W.4) is considered carefully, it emerges that, the testimony of Zumber (P.W.1) and Venubai (P.W.4) regarding the so called ill-treatment is absolutely vague.These both witnesses have not made it clear exactly in which manner the deceased was harassed by the accused persons.Only Ramdas (P.W.3) deposed that accused No.1 used to assault and accused Nos.2 and 3 used to abuse and kept the deceased starving for demand of balance dowry amount of Rs.7000/-.According to these witnesses, at the time of settlement of marriage, the total dowry amount of Rs.10,000/- was agreed and amount of only Rs.3000/- was paid, and arrears of Rs.7000/- was due from parents of the deceased.However, cat has come out of the bag when Zumber (P.W.1) was subjected to searching cross-examination by learned defence counsel.He has admitted in clear words that, due to weak financial condition of parents of bride and groom, they were not in a position to bear marriage expenses of their daughter and::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/02/2018 02:21:11 ::: Cri.Appeal No.208/2004 8 son independently and, therefore, marriage of deceased, her brother Ramdas and Shivaji, son of maternal uncle of deceased were performed at one venue and it was settled by maternal uncle Govardhan.He also admitted that, those marriages were performed peacefully.In view of this admission, it has become clear that, at the time of marriage of deceased and her brother Ramdas (P.W.3), the financial condition of Zumber (P.W.1) was very weak.Therefore, it is very hard to accept that he would promise to pay dowry of Rs.10,000/- to the accused persons or he would be in a position to pay amount of Rs.3000/- to the accused persons towards partial payment of dowry.Thus, obviously, the version of these witnesses regarding ill-treatment to the deceased at the hands of accused for payment of dowry appears to be doubtful.::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/02/2018 02:21:11 :::Another important aspect is that, from the cross- examination of Zumber (P.W.1), it emerges that, after marriage, all along the deceased was reluctant to cohabit with the accused No.1 for the reason that, she disliked him as accused No.1 was patient of leucoderma.Even on the date of incident, Zumber (P.W.1) was called by accused No.2 to his house and when Zumber (P.W.1) went to the house of accused persons, he was informed that the deceased was not ready to stay in the house of accused persons.Therefore, Zumber (P.W.1) convinced the::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/02/2018 02:21:11 ::: Cri.Appeal No.208/2004 9 deceased to stay at the house of accused.This conduct of the deceased till the date of incident creates probability that the deceased committed suicide as she was not willing to cohabit with the accused No.1, but from time to time due to insistence by her parents, she was compelled to reside at the house of accused against her wishes.My conclusion is that, this appeal being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed.Hence, I pass the following order:::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/02/2018 02:21:11 :::ORDER (I) Criminal Appeal No.208/2004 is dismissed.(II) Bail bonds and surety bonds of the respondent shall stand cancelled.( SUNIL K. KOTWAL ) JUDGE fmp/::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/02/2018 02:21:11 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/02/2018 02:21:11 :::
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
925,308
ORDER S.K. Dubey, J.The order passed in this revision shall also govern the disposal of Criminal Revision No. 127 of 1992, Ali Sher Khan v. The State of Madhya Pradesh.The two revisions are directed against the order dated 21-4-1992 passed in Sessions Trial No. 234/91 in a trial under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, by the Vlth Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, Camp Dabra, whereby on the application of the complainant the Court ordered under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code'), to add 3 persons, namely, Abdul Karim Khan, Yusuf Khan and Ali Sher Khan, as additional accused to be tried together with the other accused to stand trial.3. Facts giving rise to the two revisions are that Abdul Rashid, the complainant, lodged the first information report at the Police Station Pichhore, on 26-12-1990 stating therein that when the complainant with his son Maqbool and 3 others, Mohan Padey, Ghanshyam Singh, Chhakka was returning to his home, in the intervening night of 25th and 26th December, 1990, after attending the Qabali programme in Ursa, in Pichhore, near the flour mill of Jahoor, Niyamat Beg, Habib, Sultan Beg, Yusuf Khan, Abdul Karim and Shakeel, son of Latif Khan, armed with swords came out of the house of AH Sher Khan and surrounded him with an intention to kill him, inflicted incised wounds on different parts of the body of which specific injuries were assigned to each of the accused.On his report a case under Sections 147/148/149 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code was registered as Crime No. 151/90 by Police Station Pichhore.During the investigation, the Investigating Officer found that the two revision-petitioners, namely, Abdul Karim Khan and Yusuf Khan were not present at the spot, at the time of occurrence as were not in the village being on duty in the office of Superintendent of Police, Morena, being the members of the Police force.Similarly Ali Sher Khan was also not at the spot and was on duty in Sugar Factory at Dabra.Aggrieved of this order the petitioners have filed these revisions.Shri J. P. Gupta, Sr.
['Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
92,533,904
Heard on I.A.No.20091/2015 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant.It is directed that the remaining part of sentence of appellant shall remain suspended and he shall be released on bail, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 7 th December, 2015 and on such other dates as may be directed from time to time in this regard.I.A.No.20091/2015 stands allowed and disposed of.C.C., as per rules.
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
92,540,627
This is the first bail application filed by the applicants under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.The applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No.310/2020 registered at Police Station Chitrangi, district Singrauli for the offence punishable under Section 304- B/34 of the I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.As per prosecution, the deceased has committed suicide by hanging.The complaint was lodged by husband of the deceased, wherein it has stated that there was a dispute between his wife (deceased) and his brother happened during the day time.However, when he came back home at 5 O'Clock in the evening, he found that his wife hanging from the ceiling.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present applicants are father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of deceased Satrajua.It is stated that they have been falsely implicated.They have been living separately from the deceased and her husband.If the applicants commit any offence while being on anticipatory bail, then this order shall automatically stand cancelled without reference to the Court.
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
9,254,869
Shri R. S. Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the applicant/State.None for the non-applicant--Umesh, though served.Perused the case-diary.Non-applicant--Umesh has been implicated in Crime No.447/2014 registered at Police Station--Aerodrome, Indore for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 147, 148 and 149 of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Trial Court for its compliance.The application is thus disposed of.(P. K. Jaiswal) Judge pp
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
95,715,106
Heard on admission.This revision petition has been preferred under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") being aggrieved with the common judgment dated 31.3.2005 passed by V Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in Sessions Trial Nos. 61/03 and 94/03, whereby respondent nos. 1 and 2 have been acquitted of the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294, 449 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the IPC").The original Sessions Trial 371/01 was decided by the trial Court vide judgment dated 30/9/02, but as the respondent nos. 1 and 2 along with other co-accused persons were absconding, supplementary charge-sheet was filed and S.T. Nos. 61/03 and 94/03 were instituted against the respondents.Prosecution case, in brief, is that the respondents Raja Singh and Kusum Rani along with other co-accused Ramsingh, Ramkrishna, Ghanshyam, Prakash, Raja and Chandrabhan constituted an un-lawful assembly and in furtherance of its common object, trespassed into the house of complainant Santoshrani and while other co-accused were exhorting to burn her alive, Jalam caught hold of her, Kusumrani poured kerosene oil and Kallu set her ablaze.Mulabai and Prabhabai extinguished fire from the body of complainant.She was brought by her brother-in-law to Devri, where First Information Report (for short "FIR") was registered against the accused persons in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 294 and 307 of the IPC and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed.Learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as learned Government Advocate, while making reference to the evidence on record, submitted that the trial Court had erred in appreciating the evidence and the judgment of acquittal deserved to be interfered with.Having regard to the arguments advanced by the parties, we have gone through the judgment and record of the trial Court.After considering the evidence and material on record, the trial Court held that the evidence of prosecution witnesses was not reliable because it was full of contradictions, omissions and exaggerations.It was also found by the trial Court that dying declaration (Ex.P/18) which was recorded by Dr. P.C.Shakya (PW13) was also not reliable because Dr. Shakya himself testified in his evidence that declarant was being tutored by the family members when he had entered into the room for recording the dying declaration and while she was giving dying declaration, her family members were shouting and telling her from outside.He further deposed that the deceased was telling the names of all the villagers and at his instance, had stated the names of selected persons.He further deposed that finally the dying declaration was recorded in brief as he was fed up of writing names.
['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
95,717
JUDGMENT Rengasamy, J.This revision is against the order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madras, in Crl.R.C. No : 7 of 1986 reversing the order of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O. II) , Madras, in E.O.C.C. No. 634 of 1985, discharging the petitioners herein under section 245(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, holding that no case is made out against the accused.The facts of the case set out in the complaint of the respondent-Income-tax Officer are almost admitted by the petitioners.The petitioners are husband and wife and they are income-tax assessees.Subsequently, the said Lakshmanan had executed a registered sale deed dated December 17, 1984, in respect of the same lands in favour of the first petitioner for a consideration of Rs. 45,000 only.The enquiry by the Income-tax Department revealed that though the seller, M. Lakshmanan, had received the sale consideration of Rs. 2,75,000 and this amount was deposited by the second petitioner in the names of the family members of the said Lakshmanan in Indian Overseas Bank, West Mambalam branch, in the sale deed only Rs. 45,000 was shown as sale consideration suppressing the real consideration and undervaluing the sale deed.Therefore, the respondent-Income-tax Department filed a complaint under the abovementioned sections for dealing with these petitioners according to law.The prosecution examined five witnesses to show the prima facie case against the petitioners and the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was not satisfied with the evidence of these witnesses to accept that there is prima facie a case against these petitioners for framing the charges against them.Hence, the revision is liable to be dismissed.
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
95,719,726
The application is hereby allowed.At present, the applicants/original accused [1-Kisan s/o Wamanrao Kharabe, 2-Santoba @ Santosh s/o Ramrao Kharabe, 3-Gangadhar aaa/-::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 07:20:49 :::( V.K. JADHAV, J. ) ...::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 07:20:49 :::
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
957,201
(2) The prosecution case against the appellant is that about two years prior to the date of offence, he had married Ansuya, daughter of Balbir Singh, the deceased in this case.The appellant was living with his wife at Muzzafar Nagar and a daughter was also born to them.The appellant and his wife were.however, quarrelling frequently and the appellant was also beating his wife.as he suspected that she was having some affair with her brother-in-law, i.e. sister husband, who was also living in the same village.On receiving information that his daughter was being ill-treated by the appellant, the deceased went to Muzzafar Nagar about a month prior to the date of offence and brought his daughter to his house at Delhi.The appellant did not allow his wife and father-in-law to take the infant daughter with them but, later on, he sent the child to Delhi.On 14-8-1968, the appellant came to the house of the deceased at about 7.00 P.M. and after having his food with the deceased and the other members of the family, he asked the deceased to send Ansuya with him.The deceased replied that he would send her after the appellant had found some employment.But when the appellant insisted that his wife should be sent back with him immediately, the deceased called Ansuya and asked her whether she was willing to go with her husband.Ansuya flatly refused to go with the appellant in view of his ill-treatment in the past.The appellant then got excited and started abusing the deceased.JUDGMENT M.R.A.O. Ansari, J.(1) This is an appeal against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge.Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 2 of 1969, convicting the appellant herein for an offence under section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and also for an offence under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code .and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.The latter got up from the cot where he was sitting.The appellant then whipped out a knife from the pocket of p his trousers and stabbed the deceased on the right-side of his chest.He stabbed the deceased again on the left-side of his head.Ansuya and her younger brother Devinder Singh and her younger sister Sunita, who were present at that time, tried to intervene.The appellant then inflicted an injury with the knife on the left elbow of Ansuya.On hearing the alarm raised by these persons.Ram Avtar, Chet Ram and Hem Chand, who happened to be standing at the Halwai shop on the ground floor of the same house, and Narinder Singh the elder son of the deceased who happened to be on the roof of the house at that time, came rushing to the scene of offence.All of them snatched away the knife from the hands of the appellant.The deceased, who appeared to be in a serious condition, was removed to the hospital by Narinder Singh and Ansuya.By the time they reached the hospital, the deceased was found to be dead.Meanwhile, somebody had informed the police control room by telephone and the police arrived at the scene of offence shortly thereafter and recorded the statement of Sunita.the younger daughter of the deceased.The police also seized the knife which was produced by Ram Avtar, who was one of those persons who had snatched the knife from the hands of the appellant.The police then arrested the appellant.The shirt, pants and the banyan then worn by the appellant were found to be blood-stained and were, therefore, seized by the police.The appellant was also found to be having a number of injuries on his person and he was also sent to the hospital for examination of these injuries.Later, Ansuya, the wife of the appellant, was also got examined by the doctor and she was also found to be having some injuries on her person, (3) Several pleas have been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant either by way of self-defense or by way of extenuating circumstances.The first plea taken is that of self-defense.According to the appellant, he did not come to the house of the deceased armed with the knife Ex. P/1 and that it was only when the decease caught hold of his neck and Public Witness 13 pointed the knife Ex. P/1 at his chin with a view to compel him to execute a deed of divorce that he snatched away the knife from the hand of Public Witness 13 and inflicted one stab-injury on the chest of the deceased only with a view to extricate himself from the hold of the deceased.According to the learned counsel for the appellant this plea is supported or at least probablised by the injuries on the person of the appellant which, according to him, have not been explained by the prosecution.The following injuries were found on the person of the appellant when he was examined on 15-8-1968 at 10 A.M. by Public Witness 21, Dr. S. S. Kaushal :-An abrasion 1/4"X1/4" below the left eye.An abrasion 1"X"" on the right side of the nek 2" below the right ear.An incised wound 1/4"X1/4" and skin-deep near the outer angle of the left eye with tailing at one end.A linear abrasion 1" long on the right side of the neck.A contusion 1/4"X1/4" on the second toe of the right foot.(4) The only injury which could have been caused by a sharp weapon like Ex. P/l is injury No. 4 and the appellant himself has explained this injury in his statement under section 342 Criminal Procedure Code .as follows :-"ASI snatched the knife from Devinder Singh, the knife hit me on the face below the eye."On the other hand, according to the prosecution witnesses, this injury as well as the other injuries found on the appellant were caused when Public Witness s. 14 to 17 caught hold of the appellant and snatched away the knife from his hands.The other injuries are attributed by the appellant to the deceased who, according to the appellant, not only caught hold of this neck but also gave him fist blows.According to the appellant, the deceased assaulted him in this manner only with a view to compel him to execute a deed of divorce.It is difficult to believe this explanation in view of the fact that the appellant had already obtained Ex. D/C from Public Witness 5 in which Public Witness 5 had given her consent for divorcing the appellant.Public Witness 5 had, at one stage denied having executed such a document and when confronted with the document itself, she had stated that the same had been got executed under coercion by the appellant.There was no necessity, therefore, either for Public Witness 5 or for the deceased to compel the appellant to execute a deed of divorce.Further, it is difficult to believe that if the deceased wanted to obtain a divorce deed from the appellant by force, he would have asked a young boy like Public Witness 13 to point the knife against the appellant.and that he would have been able to inflict injuries on the deceased with the same knife which was sought to be used against him.If it was the intention of the deceased to use the knife Ex. P/1 against the appellant in order to compel him to execute a deed of divorce and if the appellant had tried to snatch away the knife, the appellant would have sustained far more serious injuries than those which he had actually sustained.The plea of self-defense cannot, therefore, be accepted, especially when, on the other hand, the injuries on the appellant have been sufficiently explained by the prosecution witnesses as having been caused during the struggle that took place for over-powering him and for snatching away the knife from his hands after he had inflicted the injuries on the deceased.(6) The next plea advanced on behalf of the appellant is that he stabbed the deceased while deprived of his self-control due to grave and sudden provocation.In support of this plea, reference is made to the evidence of Public Witness s. 2, 5 and 13 in which they have stated that when the deceased asked Public Witness 5 if she was willing to go with the appellant, Public Witness 5 not only refused to go back with the appellant but also broke her bangles saying that so far as she was concerned the appellant was dead and also that Public Witness 5 threw her child forcibly on the cot.In the case before the Kerala High Court, there was no evidence of any previous estrangement between the husband and the wife.Both of them were living amicably and had gone to attend a festival.While returning from the festival, the wife suggested that they should go to her mother's house before returning to their own house.The husband, however, wanted to go back to his house as it was already late and as he wanted to take his bath and food.Upon this, a quarrel appeared to have developed between the husband and the wife during the course of which the wife broke her 'Thali' and threw it on the husband's face and swore that she would never thereafter go and live with her husband.This infuriated the husband and he cut her with a chopper which he happened to have in his hand at that time.On these facts, it was held that there was grave and sudden provocation for the husband to attack the wife.But in the present case, the refusal on the part of Public Witness 5 to go back with the appellant could not have come as a surprise to him as the relations between them had already become strained and she had actually come from his house about a month prior to the date of offence.The fact of breaking the bangles and throwing the child on the cot was only a further expression of Public Witness 5's unwillingness to go back with the appellant.
['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
95,724,136
2.The brief facts of the prosecution are as follows:- P.W.1 and P.W.5 are the employees of the TVS Mills.On 07.07.2003, they were assigned the work of withdrawing a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- from theCanara Bank to pay salary to the employees.Accordingly, P.W.1 and P.W.5 went to the Canara Bank in P.W.1's two wheeler bearing Registration No.After withdrawing the amount, they kept it in a brief case.Whilethey were returning to the mill, A-1 to A-3 waylaid them with aruval.Sincethe vehicle was attacked by A1 to A3, the vehicle fallen and A-1 to A-3 tookaway the brief case containing Rs.1,40,000/-.Thereafter,P.Ws.1 and 2 informed their superiors and P.W.3 who is working as security inthe mill.Subsequently, they had informed the same to the Police Stationthrough telephone.Thereafter, Ex.P1/complaint was lodged.3.P.W.11 commenced the investigation and went to the place ofoccurrence and prepared observation mahazar and rough sketch under Exs.P.10 and 11 respectively in the presence of P.W.3 and examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.On 13.07.2003, while he was a patrol in-charge,A-2 and A-3 coming in a motor vehicle.They were intercepted by P.W.11 andseized their vehicle bearing Registration No.The admissible portion of their voluntary statementsmarked as Exs.Pursuant to their confession, they seized a sum ofRs.20,000/- from both the accused under Ex.P.15 and Ex.Thereafter, on09.09.2003, P.W.11 arrested A-1 and recorded his confession.The admissibleportion of the same was marked as Ex.Pursuant to the same, a sum of Rs.15,000/- was seized.He has also seized a VIP suit case/M.O.2 under Ex.Thereafter, he gave a requisition/Ex.P.7 to the Judicial Magistrateto conduct identification parade.On receipt of the requisition given byP.W.11, P.W.8-Judicial Magistrate No.I, on 24.07.2003, conductedidentification parade in respect of A-2 and A-3 in the central prison.P.W.12 conducted further investigation and finally laid a final reportas against all the accused.4.Based upon the materials and the pleadings, the trial Court convictedA-1 to A-4 under Section 120(b) IPC and sentenced them to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each in default toundergo four months rigorous imprisonment each and A-1 to A3 convicted under Section 392 read with Section 397 IPC and sentenced them to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each in defaultto undergo six months rigorous imprisonment each.Aggrieved over the same,the present appeal came to be field.Death certificate was annexed along withthe memo filed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.Hence, thecharge against A-3 is abated.6.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/A1 and A2 wouldcontend that the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.5 is highly doubtful.Theprosecution has not proved the withdrawal of the amount from the Bank.Hewould further contend that no bank official was examined before the trialCourt and the test identification parade conducted by the Judicial Magistratecannot be believed since the accused were shown to the witnesses prior to theconduct of the test identification parade and A-1 was not identified in thetest identification parade.However, A-1 was arrested later.Further, it iscontended that the accused were using the same vehicle which was stolen from the witnesses is highly improbable and therefore, the arrest of the accusedis highly doubtful.7.The learned counsel for the fourth appellant/A4 contended that as faras the charge of conspiracy of A-4, there is no evidence available on record.8.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State would contendthat P.W.1 and P.W.5 are the employees of the TVS Mills.While they were returning from the bank, after withdrawing a sum of Rs.1,40,000/-, they werewaylaid by A-1 to A3 and A2 attacked the vehicle by using aruval.As aresult, P.W.1 and P.W.5 fell down.The accused decamped the cash kept in brief case and P.W.1 and P.W.5 identified the accused in the identificationparade conducted by the Judicial Magistrate. A-2 and A-3 were arrested andthe cash has been seized from A-1 and also seized the brief case.Thewitnesses have also clearly identified the stolen amount.In the abovecircumstances, the prosecution has clearly established the guilty of theaccused beyond reasonable doubt.Therefore, the judgment of the trial Courtdoes not require any interference by this Court.9.Heard the learned counsels and perused the entire materials availableon record.10.Admittedly, P.W.1 and P.W.5 are the employees of the TVS Mills.On 07.07.2003, while they were returning from the bank after withdrawing a sumof Rs.1,40,000/- towards wages of the employees, they were waylaid by A-1 toA-3 and A-2 attacked the handle bar of the vehicle by using aruval.When thevehicle fell down, A-1 to A-3 took away the brief case containingRs.1,40,000/-.P.W.1 and P.W.5 asserted in their evidence thatthey were waylaid and cash has been stolen.11.The evidence of P.W.4 clearly indicates that P.W.1 was working assupervisor in the TVS Mill Company on the occurrence date and after theoccurrence, he rushed to the mill and informed him that the suit casecontaining cash and bike were robbed.12.P.W.1 and P.W5 in their substantive evidence identified A-1 to A-3.It is also to be noted that A-2 and A-3 were put to identification parade.F.I.R was also lodged on the same day of occurrence and they were arrested on13.07.2003 by the P.W.11-Investigating Officer.It is thespecific evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.5 that prior to the identification parade,they never seen the accused prior to the parade.The witnesses never seen thephotographs of the accused in any of the newspapers.It is to be noted that the identification parade was conductedon 24.07.2003 and after the test identification parade, A-1 was taken custodyfrom some other case.Merely because, A-1 was not put into the identification parade alongwith A-2 and A-3, the same cannot be doubted and the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.5 cannot be disbelieved.It is the specificevidence of P.W.1 and P.W.5 that they were waylaid by A-1 to A-3 and blocked their vehicle with aruval and took away the suit case containing a sum ofRs.1,40,000/-.The evidence of Investigating Officer would clearly show thata sum of Rs.15,000/- also seized from A-1 besides thebrief case and the motor vehicle also seized from A-1. P.W.1 and P.W.5 haveidentified not only the motorcycle but also the brief case which was used forcarrying the cash at the relevant point of time.13.Admittedly, P.W.1, who was the Supervisor of the TVS Mill, was usingthe bike at the relevant point of time.The cash was recovered to the tune ofRs.35,000/- from the accused.The seizure of the cash depends upon variouscircumstances, some time the accused might have spent the said amount and the vehicle may be utilised for other activities.In the above circumstances, theevidence of P.W.1 and P.W.5 cannot be disbelieved.It is further to be notedthat after the occurrence, they have seen A-2 and A-3 for the first time inthe identification parade conducted by the Judicial Magistrate-P.W.8 and theyhave also identified A-1 in their substantive evidence.P.W.1 and P.W.5 are the employees of the TVS company and they were carrying cash.They have sufficient time to see theaccused in the occurrence place, till the accused left the place.They hadan opportunity to see their faces.Their faces have imprinted in the mindsof P.W.1 and P.W.5 who have experienced such theft unexpectedly.The evidence of P.W.4clearly indicates that the amount has been stolen.Without any suchoccurrence, it is not possible for P.W.1 and P.W.5 to rush to the policestation and give a complaint.It is also not necessary for them to givefalse case against the accused.P.W.4 in his evidence stated thatimmediately after the occurrence, P.W.1 and P.W.5 in a hurried mannerinformed about the theft of amount of the company by the accused.Thematerial objects namely, M.O.1-bike and M.O.2-brief case are identified byP.W.1 and P.W.5 besides they were also identified the accused.From theirevidence, this Court does not find any infirmity as to the prosecutionversion.14.In the above background, it has to be seen whether the prosecutionhas proved the charge under Section 120(b) IPC against the accused.He wasaware of the withdrawal of the money from the bank and he has conspired withother accused to rob the money.Absolutely, there is no material evidence toshow that A-4 entered conspiracy with A-1 to A-3 to rob the said amount atthe relevant point of time.If really, A-4 was present in the place ofoccurrence or some where else, P.W.1 could have stated in the F.I.R itself.Similarly, the finding of the trial Courtconvicting A1 to A3 under Section 120(b), is also liable to be interferedwith.15.However, the finding of the trial Court convicting A-1 and A-2 underSection 392 read with Section 397 IPC does not suffer from any infirmity.Therefore, this Court does not find any infirmity in the judgment of thetrial Court convicting the A-1 to A-3 under Section 392 read with 397 IPC.Hence, the finding rendered by the trial Court as against A-1 and A-2 underSection 392 read with Section 397 IPC is confirmed.16.In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed as abated in respectof A-3, since he died during the pendency of the appeal.The Criminal Appealis allowed in respect of A-4 and he is acquitted from the charge underSection 120(b) IPC.1.The Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Madurai2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
['Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
95,732,242
( 07.02.2018) The present appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by appellants/accused persons against the judgment dated 31.10.2006 passed by Fourteen Additional Session Judge, (Fast Track) Jabalpur (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No.497/2003, whereby the each appellants have been convicted for offences punishable under section 364/34 of IPC and awarded R.I. for ten years and fine of Rs.1,000/-; under Section 302/34 of IPC and awarded R.I. for life and fine of Rs. 1000/- and under Section 201/34 of IPC and awarded R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs.500/-, with default stipulations.The case of prosecution in brief is that the complainant Rajkumar Jarolia resident of village Mangola lodged a report Ex.P-5 at around 10:50 p.m. in the night on 13.04.2003 at Police Station Panagar stating that on the same day at around 6:00-6:30 in the evening when he returned home he was informed by Rammu Kachi that at about 5:30-6:00 p.m. in the evening at Nagra-Podi road near Paan (beetle) shop of Manoj Mahere, appellant Rakesh, Gendlal, Babbu @ Lakshaman and Milan Yadav were assaulting Mukesh Jarolia by wooden planks and sticks and they had taken Mukesh forcibly with them by their motorcycle and went towards Nagna village.They were also threatening to kill Mukesh.After getting this information, Rajkumar mounted the search of his son Mukesh.He came near Pariat river where he found the dead body of Mukesh.There were multiple injuries found on person of body of deceased.He came to know that Guddu Badonia, Manoj and other witnesses were present at the time of incident at Paan Shop.-3- Cr.The Town Inspector, R.D. Bhardwaj Police Station, Panagar recorded the F.I.R. Ex.P-5 and Marg Intimation Ex.He visited the scene of crime and prepared spot map Ex.P- 6 and seized plain earth and read earth vide seizure memo Ex.He prepared Panchnama of dead body Ex.P-1 and sent the body for postmortem.Since place of incident comes within jurisdiction police station Gohalpur, therefore, the FIR Ex.P-5 and inquest report were sent for further investigation to police station Gohalpur where the offence is registered on the basis of FIR and matter was investigated by R.S. Kalra, Sub Inspector (PW-21).As per prosecution, during investigation appellants were arrested and a country made pistol was seized at the instance of appellant Rakesh.A Hero- Honda motorcycle No. MP-20-KH-1817 and blood stained clothes were seized at the instance of appellant Gendlal.A wooden plank was seized at the instance of appellant Babbu and a Yahama motorcycle and wooden plank were seized at the instance of appellant Milan.Complainant Ramkumar (PW-2) is the father of deceased Mukesh.He deposed that on 13.04.2003 at around 6:00-6:30 p.m. in the evening he was at home, Rammu Kachhi came there and told him that the appellants Milan, Babbu Yadav, Rakesh Yadav, Gendlal Yadav were beating Mukesh near the Paan Shop of Manoj and thereafter, they had forcibly taken Mukesh by their motorcycle towards village Nagna.Receiving the information, Ramkumar came to the Paan Shop of Manoj in search of his son Mukesh.Manoj told him about the incident and informed that the appellants had taken Mukesh by their motorcycle after beating him.Guddu Baronia and 2-3 persons had also witnessed the incident who were present at the shop.Thereafter, Ramkumar went to village Nagna in search of Mukesh and went towards Pariyat river where he found the dead body of his son Mukesh lying near the bank of river.A No.2239/2006 spot map and Panchnama of dead body.Although, he is not an eyewitness to the incident.Rammu Lal Kachhi (PW-13) deposed that on 13.04.2003 at around 6:00 O'Clock in the evening he was grazing his cattle in the "Mangela Haar" which is situated about 20 feet distance from the Paan Shop of Manoj.The appellants caught hold of Mukesh and forcibly taken him by their motorcycles towards village Nagna.Seeing the incident, Rammulal went to the house of deceased and informed his father Ramkumar Jarolia about the incident.Ramkumar went towards the Paan shop of Manoj in search of his son.Next day morning, he came to know that dead body of Mukesh was found near the bank of river Pariyat.Manoj Mahere (PW-1) deposed that he has a Paan Shop situated on Katangi road at village Podi.On 13.04.2003 at around 5:00-5:30 O'Clock in the evening he was present in his Paan shop, the deceased Mukesh and his friend came for taking Paan-Gutkha.Meanwhile, appellants Milan and Mukesh along with two other appellants, whose names not known to-8- Cr.A No.2239/2006 him, came there by two motorcycles and rushed towards Mukesh to catch him.Seeing them, Mukesh ran towards Paan Shop, the appellants surrounded him and started beating him.Seeing the quarrel, Manoj told the appellants not to indulge in fighting but they went on beating Mukesh and thereafter, they forcibly took him by their motorcycles towards Belkhadu.Next day he came to know that dead body of Mukesh was found near the bank of river Pariyat at village Nagna.Police prepared panchnama of dead body Ex.P-2 and spot map Ex.The statement of witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed before the Court.The appellants have been charged under Sections 364, 302 in alternative 302/34 and 201 of IPC.They abjured guilt and pleaded innocence.The prosecution has examined 21 witnesses whereas the appellants have adduced two witnesses in their defence.The trial Court on appreciation of evidence found the appellants guilty for kidnapping and commission of murder of the deceased Mukesh and destroying the evidence of crime.-4- Cr.A No.2239/2006 The appellants are held guilty under Sections 364/34, 302/34 and 201/34 of IPC and sentenced as mentioned hereinabove.It is argued by learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants have been falsely implicated in this offence.Therefore, it is doubtful whether the incident took place near the shop of Manoj Mahere and he had witnessed the incident.The eyewitness Prem Kumar (PW-15) turned hostile.The other eyewitness Rajkumar has not been examined by the prosecution and he had deposed in favour of defence.Another witness Rammu Kachi has not given the statement to police soon after the incident, his police statement is recorded after seven days which creates doubt on his version.Similarly the statement of Gudda alias Tularam (PW-14) is also not reliable.The witnesses PW-1, PW-14 and PW- 15 are highly interested witnesses.In application for postmortem, the names of assailants are not given.There are material discrepancies occurred in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and they cannot be believed beyond reasonable doubt.The trial Court on erroneous appreciation of evidence has recorded the findings of guilt against the appellants.Heard arguments and perused the record.It is not disputed that on 13.04.2003 in the evening the dead body of Mukesh was found near the bank of Pariat river, between village Nagna and Surtalai.Ramkumar Jarolia (PW-2), the father of deceased, had lodged the FIR Ex.P-5 at Police Station Panagar.R.D. Bhardwaj, SHO, Panagar (PW--5- Cr.20) has recorded the Marg Intimation Ex.P-4 and visited scene of crime, prepared spot map Ex.P-6, Panchnama of dead body Ex.P-2 and sent the body for postmortem.This fact is duly verified by complainant Rajkumar (PW-2) and R.D. Bhardwaj (PW-20).10 Dr. Ashok Kumar Jain, CMO, Medical College, Jabalpur deposed that on 14.04.2003 at Medical College Jabalpur he had conducted the autopsy of deceased Mukesh and found following injuries :-(i) Lacerated wound 2.5 cm x 2 cm present over the neck surrounded by bruising under neath the neck muscle, thyroid gland are torn, covered by blood, the thyroid cartilage and cricoid cartilage ruptured at multiple places and filled with clotted blood.(ii) A reddish brown colour ligature mark 5 cm broad encircling the neck in middle portion of neck under neath it slight bruising present.(iii) Lacerated wound 1 x .5 cm bone deep on left frontal region of head.(iv) lacerated wound 1 cm x .5 cm muscle deep over left eye.(v) Multiple abrasions over left scapula region and upper arm varying in size shape and direction red incolour.(vi) Lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 1 cm muscle deep over right hand thumb and index finger.(vii) Lacerated wound 1 x .5 cm muscle deep over lower part of right leg.(viii) Lacerated wound 5 x 3 cm bone deep over occipital region of head.(xi) Mandible found fracture with extraction of teeth.-6- Cr.A No.2239/2006 It is opined by the doctor that injuries are ante-mortem could be caused by hard and blunt and hard and rough object and ligature material.The cause of death of asphyxia due to compression on neck and injuries to the neck organs, time of death is between 17-36 hours.In cross-examination the statement of Doctor remains uncontroverted and it is duly corroborated by postmortem report.P-20 given by him.Therefore, it is rightly found proved by the trial Court that the deceased had sustained fatal injuries at the time of incident and his death was homicidal.Now the question arises whether the appellants had committed the murder of deceased after kidnapping him.He went to police station Panagar and lodged the first information report Ex.P-5 and Marg Intimation Ex.Police arrived on the spot and prepared-7- Cr.At that time, deceased Mukesh and his friend came for taking Paan- Gutkha at the Paan shop of Manoj.Meanwhile, appellants Rammilan and Babbu Yadav came there by black coloured motorcycle along with appellant Rakesh and Gendlal who were riding another Yahama Motorcycle.Appellant Milan was holding a plank of wood.The appellants parked their motorcycles near the Paan shop and surrounded Mukesh and started beating him.Seeing the incident, the friend of Mukesh ran away from the spot.Gudda alias Tularam (PW-14) deposed that brother of deceased is his brother-in-law.On 13.04.2003 at around 5:00-5:30 p.m. in the evening he and deceased Mukesh came at the Paan Shop of Manoj Mahere for taking Paan and waiting for bus.Meanwhile, appellants arrived there by two motorcycles one of the appellants was carrying a Danda (stick) in his hand.The appellants came near Mukesh and started beating him.Seeing the quarrel, this witness became frightened and ran away from the spot and went to Damoh by bus and thereafter, he reached home.Next day, he came to know that dead body of Mukesh was found near Pariyat river.Hearing this news, he fell sick and remained at home for a week taking medical treatment.Prosecution has examined another eyewitness Prem Kumar (PW-15) but he has stated ignorance about the incident and has been declared hostile by the prosecution.It is argued by learned counsel for the appellants that Rammulal (PW-13) is not an independent witness.His presence near the scene of occurrence is doubtful.-9- Cr.A No.2239/2006 statement was recorded after a week of the incident.He has enmity with appellant Milan Yadav.His brother Bhiyyan Kachhi is facing trial for murder of brother of Milan Yadav.There is material discrepancies in his statement.Similarly witness Manoj Mahere (PW-1) has not stated the names of appellants Rakesh and Gendalal as assailants in his court statement.In his police statement, he has mentioned the name of appellant Milan only.Therefore, his statement against other three appellants cannot be relied upon.Witness Gudda @ Tularam (PW-14) has admitted in cross- examination that he was not knowing the name of appellants and he had not stated their names in his police statement.His conduct is unnatural.Even after seeing the incident, he ran away from the spot and did not narrate to any body for seven days about the incident.His police statement is recorded after a long delay.Complainant himself had not witnessed the incident.No body has seen the appellants killing the deceased.Keeping in view the material discrepancies occurred in statements of prosecution witnesses PW-1, PW-13 and PW-14, their testimonies cannot be relied upon beyond reasonable doubt.It appears that due to previous enmity, the appellants have been falsely implicated in this offence.Considering the submissions of learned counsel for appellants and on careful scrutiny of the testimonies of witnesses, PW-1, PW-2, PW-13 and PW-14, we find that the incident took place around 5:00-5:30 p.m. in the evening and FIR Ex.P-5 was lodged at Police Station Panagar at 10:15 p.m. in the night.The Police Station is about 20 Kms.distant from the scene of occurrence.From the statement of complainant Ramkumar (PW-2) it appears that after receiving-10- Cr.A No.2239/2006 the information from Rammu Kachhi about beating and kidnapping of his son Mukesh by the appellants, he went in search of his son and after finding his dead body lying near the bank of river, he immediately went to Police Station to lodge the report.Thus, the report of incident is lodged without any delay.In FIR the names of all four appellants are mentioned and it is also mentioned that the information of incident was given by Rammu Lal Kachhi and incident has been witnessed by Manoj Mahere and Gudda.The statement of Ramkumar is corroborated by Manoj Mahere, Rammulal Kachhi and Gudda.Rammulal Kachhi (PW-3) has given the elaborate description of the incident.He was present near scene of occurrence grazing his cattle.He has witnessed the incident from 30-40 feet distance.After the incident, he immediately went to the house of deceased and informed his father.His conduct is natural and we cannot presume that he has given wrong information to the complainant by falsely implicating the appellants.Therefore, only on the ground of enmity we cannot disbelieve his testimony.Another eyewitness Manoj Mahere (PW-1) also verified the involvement of appellants in beating and kidnapping of deceased.The incident took place in front of his Paan shop.Therefore, his presence on the spot is natural and believable.Although in his court statement, he has narrated the names of two appellants Milan and Mukesh and in his police statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. he had mentioned name of only one appellant Milan, but only on this ground his testimony cannot be disbelieved.He has identified all the appellants as assailants in the court.He had categorically-11- Cr.A No.2239/2006 stated in his evidence and 161 Cr.PC statement that there was four assailants who came by motorcycles at the spot and assaulted the deceased.It is possible that at the time of recording of police statement, this witness was not knowing the names of all appellants.But in the Court, he has identified all the appellants.He has no enmity with the appellants.Seeing the appellants beating the deceased, he became scared and ran away from the spot and came to Damoh by bus.Thereafter, he fell sick and remained at home.The presence of this witness with the deceased is also mentioned in the FIR, therefore, we cannot consider him as a planted witness who has not actually seen the incident.It is quite possible that seeing the deadly attack on deceased this witness became frightened and shocked and fell sick.Thus, the testimonies of witnesses Manoj, Rammulal, and Gudda inspires confidence and we can believe their testimonies.Thus, the testimony of complainant Ramkumar is duly corroborated by FIR and testimonies of above eyewitness.The trial court on proper appreciation of evidence relied upon the version of these witnesses and arrived at the conclusion that at the time of incident due to previous enmity, the appellants had beaten the deceased Mukesh and kidnapped him.-12- Cr.In view of the circumstances duly established by the prosecution, it is found proved that the appellants had kidnapped the deceased and killed him.The trial Court has described all the relevant circumstances which establishes the involvement of appellants in commission of kidnapping and murder of deceased.From the evidence available on record, it is proved that appellants had kidnapped the deceased and committed his murder.In view of aforesaid, the trial Court has rightly held the appellants guilty for commission of offence punishable under Sections 364/34, 302/34 and 201 of IPC and sentenced them accordingly.Consequently, we do not find any merits in the present appeal and it is hereby dismissed.
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
95,737,899
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC").Marriage of Kamlabai (since deceased) was solemnized with the respondent and in the wedlock, they were blessed with four children.As per the prosecution story, respondent persistently used to subject Kamlabai to cruelty and harassment and in pursuance of a recent quarrel, on 6/12/07 at about 2.30 p.m., he, after pouring kerosene oil upon her, set her ablaze.She was taken by her father and others to Hospital, where she gave the dying declaration incriminating her husband.Report (Ex.P/12) was registered and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed.Having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned Government Advocate, we have gone through the impugned judgment and record of the trial Court.After taking into consideration the evidence of Hallibai (PW1), Bhagwandas (PW2), Pappu (PW3), Bhartu (PW5), Kamlabai (PW6), Kusumrani (PW7), trial Court found that these witnesses had testified in a very exaggerated manner regarding cruelsome behaviour of the respondent with the deceased, as well as, with regard to the fact that he had set her ablaze, and their evidence contained material omissions with regard to their corresponding police statements.So far as the dying declaration was concerned, it was found that the same was totally unbelievable and concocted.In the aforesaid premises, trial Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.After perusal of the entire evidence and material available on record, we agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court.
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
48,704
The Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and looked into the materials available on record, in particular, the order under challenge.If the detenu did not come out on bail, he would not have indulged in such activities in future.In such circumstances, the Authority has not even recorded subjective satisfaction properly on the materials much less cogent material, which would indicate the non application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority.On this ground, the detention order has got to be set aside.Similarly, when a charge-sheet is not filed within the statutory period contemplated, notwithstanding the seriousness of the allegation, on the expiry of the period, the accused got a right to be released on bail.In the present case, the conclusion of the Detaining Authority, as already been extracted.On this ground, the detention order has got to be set aside.
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
4,870,730
Case diary perused and arguments heard.This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 22.08.2017 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Panna, in special Case No.67/2017; whereby learned Special Judge rejected the bail application filed by the appellant Thakurdeen Rajak, S/o Ramsi Rajak under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to get bail in Crime No.207/2017 registered at P.S. Ajaygadh, District Panna, M.P. for the offences punishable under Section 294, 323, 325, 506-B of IPC and under Section 3(2)(5-A), 3(1)(R) and 3(1)(S) of ST/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)According to prosecution case, on 14-07-2017 at village Kagre Ka Bada, appellant abused complainant and assaulted her by a stick.Complainant sustained injuries on her both hands and the appellant also threatened to kill her.The complainant lodged the report at Police Station Ajaygarh.So applicant be released on bail.Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer made by the appellant.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the appellant :The appellant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The appellant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;The appellant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;The appellant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; andThe appellant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.Accordingly, Cr.A. No. 3460/2017 is disposed of.CC as per rules.(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE ss
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 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.
48,716,557
A.831/2011 Page 1 of 8On 07.05.2004 the appellant Sukhpal, his wife Salelta, daughter Pinki and sister-in-law Sulochna were in the factory of one Shabbir, their work place.At about 11.55 A.M. the police control room received information that two individuals had died near Swaroop Nagar, Kushik Road, Gali No.2, Near Masjid.DD entry No.9A was recorded in PS S P Badli and assigned to ASI Satpal for investigation.On reaching the spot ASI Satpal Singh found the body of a woman lying at the house of Shabbir i.e. at Gali No.2, Khadda Colony, Swaroop Nagar.He recorded the statement of Sulochna who was present at the spot.In her statement, Sulochna disclosed to the police that at about 11.00 A.M. Sukhpal was abusing his wife Salelta and threatening to kill her.Thereafter, Sukhpal pinned down Salelta and stabbed her on her neck and stomach taking out chura from underneath his shirt.The appellant also stabbed himself with the said chura and fell down.She raised an alarm and many people gathered there.Shabbir telephonically called the police.ASI Satpal Singh prepared rukka and got the present case registered.Necessary proceedings were conducted at the spot.Appellant was arrested and sent to hospital for his medical examination.The chura was seized and a seizure memo Ex.PW6/A was prepared.No finger prints were lifted from the Crl.A.831/2011 Page 2 of 8 handle of the knife used in the incident.In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellant specifically stated that one Debu had an illicit relationship with the deceased Salelta.On 07.05.2004 at about 10.00 A.M. he saw deceased talking to Debu at his work place.We have considered rival contentions of the parties and have examined the testimonies of prosecution witnesses minutely.The appellant did not dispute his presence at the spot at the time of occurrence.During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the appellant fairly did not press the defence taken during the trial, alleging that the injuries on the deceased were inflicted by one Debu.We also do not find any substance in that defence as nothing on record shows if the deceased had any objectionable relationship with Debu or that Debu was at the spot at the time of incident.None of the witnesses including owner of the factory (Shabbir) has testified the presence of Debu at that time.The evidence on record is that the deceased was the appellants wife and had seven children out of the wedlock.The appellant was remorseful after inflicting injuries on the deceased.It also shows his frustration/anger in which he inflicted injuries on the deceased.A.831/2011 Page 7 of 8A.831/2011 Page 8 of 8A.831/2011 Page 8 of 8Appellant Sukhpal has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and order on sentence dated 21.03.2011 and 02.04.2011 respectively passed by Ld. Addl.Sessions Judge, whereby he was convicted for committing the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of `1000/-.The appellant was also convicted under Section 309 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.Further, he was held guilty under Section 27 of the Arms Act and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years with a fine of `500/-.All the aforesaid sentences were directed to run concurrently.During investigation police recorded statements of concerned witnesses, sent the exhibits to FSL; collected the FSL report and MLCs as also post-mortem report of the deceased.After completion of the investigation, challan was filed against the appellant for the commission of offence punishable under Section 302/309 IPC in the court of Ld. M.M.After appraisal of evidence proved on record and duly considering submissions of the parties, the Ld. Trial Court convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences.Hence this appeal.When he dragged his wife, Debu attacked him on the neck and other parts of his body.When the deceased tried to save him, Debu also attacked her and she succumbed to the injuries.Counsel further urged that this was not a case of murder as the incident had taken place all of a sudden, in a heat of passion.A.831/2011 Page 2 of 8PP for the State submitted that there is cogent evidence on record to establish guilt of the appellant.PW-3 Sulochna and PW-5 Pinki close relatives of the appellant and the deceased named former as perpetrator of the crime.No such suggestion was put to any of the witnesses regarding any altercation between the appellant and Debu.We find clinching evidence against appellant to have caused injuries on the person of the deceased.PW-5 Pinki, his daughter aged about 13 years, testified against him and categorically deposed that he had stabbed her mother with a knife.No motive was imputed to the child witness for deposing Crl.A.831/2011 Page 3 of 8 falsely against her father.PW-3 Sulochna, sister in law of the appellant, also supported the prosecution case on all material facts and implicated the appellant for causing stab injuries on the vital organs of the deceased in her presence.No material contradictions have emerged from her cross-examination.The appellant was named by this witness in her statement Ex.PW-3/A recorded at the earliest point of time.There was no major deviation in the version given by the witness in her statement Ex.PW-3/A and the one testified before the Court.The presence of this witness at the spot was not challenged.PW-6 Shabbir also supported the prosecution and corroborated the deposition of PW-3 Sulochna regarding her presence in the factory.The injuries sustained by the appellant at the spot further lends credence to the prosecution case.A.831/2011 Page 3 of 8Oral testimonies of trustworthy prosecution witnesses coupled with medical evidence on record fully prove that the appellant caused injuries to the deceased.We find no valid reason to interfere in the findings recorded by Trial Court against the appellant on this aspect.Apparently, no injuries were ever caused by the appellant to the deceased prior to the incident with any sharp object.Counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant picked up knife Ex.P-1 Crl.A.831/2011 Page 4 of 8 from the spot as such knives were used in performing the work at the factory of PW-6 Shabbir.We find substance in this plea as PW-5 Pinki disclosed in her deposition that her mother was doing tailoring job of rexine work.Availability of knife for tailoring rexine at the spot, thus, cannot be ruled out.A.831/2011 Page 4 of 8PW-3 Sulochna admitted that on the day of the incident the appellant was in the factory attending to his duties.Deceased and the appellant along with PW-5 Pinki had reached the factory much prior to the incident and no such stabbing incident took place just on reaching the factory.There is no evidence on record pointing to any serious quarrel between the appellant and the deceased before the incident prompting appellant to commit murder.The evidence reveals that a quarrel had started between the appellant and the deceased at about 11.30 A.M. and in that quarrel the appellant stabbed the deceased.In the statement Ex.PW-3/A, PW-3 Sulochna informed the police "Aaj din main karib 11 baje main apne ghar se kam per aayi thi aur Sukhpal aur Salelta pahle se hi kam per maujood the kam karte-karte Sukhpal Salelta ko galiyan de raha tha aur kah raha tha ki tujhe jan se mar dunga aur dono main kafi garma garmi ho rahi thi."Appellant did not abscond from the spot after inflicting injuries.The Crl.A.831/2011 Page 5 of 8 circumstances reveal that the occurrence had taken place all of a sudden on some trivial issue in which the appellant in a heat of passion on account of total deprivation of self control stabbed the deceased.A.831/2011 Page 5 of 8In the case of Maruti Shamrao Wadkar Vs.State of Maharashtra 2004 (4) Crimes 140 Bombay High Court (DB), the appellant therein was convicted for the murder of his son and then for stabbing himself.The appellant wanted the custody of his son and in a fit of anger stabbed him and then tried to kill himself.It was held that there was no intention of the appellant to kill his son in the said overt act and the evidence on record was sufficient to show that the act by which the death was caused was done to cause bodily injury as was likely to cause death but without intention to cause death and therefore, the overt act of the appellant would be covered by provision of Section 304 Part-I IPC.But then, what is the nature of the offence proved against him? It is an admitted case that the appellant was in a highly inebriated stage when he approached the deceased when the demand for sparing her ornaments was made by him.When she refused to oblige he poured kerosene on her and wanted her to light the matchstick.A.831/2011 Page 6 of 8 bring water in an effort to rescue her.We are inclined to think that all that the accused thought of was to inflict burns to her and to frighten-her but unfortunately the situation slipped out of his control and it went to the fatal extent.He would not have intended to inflict the injuries which she sustained on account of his act.However, number of injuries inflicted by the appellant on the vital parts of the deceased prove commission of offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I IPC.We thus, partly allow the appeal and modify the conviction of the appellant from 302 IPC to 304 Part-I IPC.The appellant is sentenced to undergo RI for ten years for the commission of offence punishable under Section 304 (firstly) IPC.Both the sentences shall run concurrently.The appellant shall also be entitled to set off under Section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code.(S.P.GARG) JUDGE (S. RAVINDRA BHAT) JUDGE January 11, 2012 tr 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.
48,719,229
http://www.judis.nic.in 2/6 Crl.O.P.No.16754 of 2020Hence, he seeks for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police.[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.6.With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is ordered.
['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
48,723,313
This is the third bail application moved by the applicant-Mohd.The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court, vide its order dated 19.05.2016 and thereafter the second bail application was also rejected by this Court, vide its order dated 30.01.2019 as not pressed, however, while rejecting the second bail application as not pressed, this Court in its order dated 30.01.2019 had directed the learned trial court to expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of the said order.It has been stated by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant that the applicant challenged the said order dated 05.10.2019, passed by the learned trial court by filing Revision Petition No.1648 of 2019 before this Court.The said revision petition was allowed by this Court, vide its order dated 13.12.2019 and the order dated 05.10.2019, passed by the learned trial court was quashed.However, the matter was remanded back to the learned trial court to take decision afresh in accordance with law after considering the evidence.On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the issue as to whether the charge is to be altered as the one under Section 376, I.P.C. is still to be decided and it is the learned trial court which has required the prosecution to furnish report from the Forensic Science Laboratory and certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. Submission is that looking to the facts the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.I have considered the respective arguments made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have also perused the record available in this case before me.It is noticeable that this Court as back as on 30.01.2019 had directed the learned trial court to conclude the trial within a month.Thereafter, as stated by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, when the trial was at the verge of conclusion the prosecution made an attempt to get the charge altered to one under Section 376, I.P.C., however, the order altering the charge was quashed by this Court, vide order dated 13.12.2019 and the matter is still under consideration on the issue relating to alteration of the charge, before the learned trial court.Accordingly, let the applicant-Mohd.Rashid @ Anees be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.The applicant on being released on bail shall, however, comply with the following conditions :
['Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
487,250
This is an appeal of Nannhu, son of Gobrya, aged about 20 years, of mauza Khardhana, who has been convicted and sentenced to death for an offence under section 302 I.P.C. This judgment shall also govern the disposal of criminal reference No. 8 of 1959 for confirmation of the death sentence.At the relevant time the accused and his elder brother Rameshwar (P. W. 2), with their wives Mst.Saraswati (P. W. 1) and Mst.Gita respectively, were living in their hut on the field to watch the crops.On 30 December 1957 the accused was taking his mid-day-meal when he had an altercation with Mst.Gita who abused him and went towards the field where the crops were standing.Thereupon, according to the prosecution, the accused picked up a lathi (Article A) and followed her.Shortly after, Mst.Saraswati (P. W. 1) heard her cries and, when she came out of the hut, she saw the' accused giving blows to her with the lathi (Article A).She went to the spot to save Mst.Gita but the accused pushed her back to the hut.He then took out an axe and dragged Mst.Gita towards the adjoining jungle.There he cut her into three pieces and concealed the dismembered parts at different places.He also hid her clothes and ornaments in the jungle, and returned to the hut in the afternoon.He then took his bath and washed the axe (Article B) and concealed it is the bagud.He also washed his clothes and kept them in a batloi (Article G) which also he concealed there.Gita had received only two blows from the lathi, Article A when she had fallen down.Subsequently, he confessed his guilt to Sunderlal Patel (P. W. 3).After his apprehension by the police, he made statements contained in Exs.P. 3, P. 4 and P. 5 which led to the discovery of the parts of the dead body and other articles.Gita, Dr. Nigam (P. W. 4) who performed the post-mortem examination, found two contused wounds on the upper part of the left pinna, which were likely to be caused by a lathi.He also found two contusions, one on the left temporal area behind the ear and the other on the left eye on internal side.He further found four incised wounds.The dead body was cut into three pieces from the neck and the pelvic girdle bone.In the opinion of Dr. Nigam, the two contusions on the left pinna and three incised wounds and the wound round the neck were ante mortem, and that the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage which resulted from the cutting injury on the neck.That the death was homicidal is clear from the medical opinion and was not disputed before us.The eye-witness of the occurrence is only Mst.Saraswati (P. W. 1).From her evidence it is clear that the accused followed Mst.Gita and struck her with the lathi (Article A) and then taking the axe (Article B) from the hut, dragged her towards the jungle.The prelude to this incident was that while taking food Mst.Gita began quarrelling with the accused that he.had eaten her gud and when he denied she abused him by saying that she would make him cat her excreta.Her statement that when she went and touched the body of Mst.Gita, she was already dead is only her surmise, for it is clear from the evidence of Dr. Nigam (P. W. 4) that Mst.Gita was alive when her neck was severed.The version of the accused that Mst.Saraswati (P. W. 1) implicated him falsely because she wanted to marry another person and had even attempted to give him powdered glass through food has been disbelieved by the lower Court on good grounds.No such questions were put by the accused to her or to his brother Rameshwar (P. W. 2).There is, therefore, no special reason to disbelieve the word of Mst.Saraswati (P. W. 1) as regards the complicity of the accused.She had told the same thing to Sunderlal Patel (P. W. 3) and Mojiram Kotwar (P, W. 5).She further testified to telling Rameshwar (P. W. 2) that Mst, Gita was killed by the accused.That she gave this information was, also disclosed by Rameshwar (P. W. 2) in his first information report (Exh. P. 1).It is true that he denied in the witness-box that she had named the accused as the culprit and attempted to throw doubt On his own report.This obviously, however, he did to shield the accused, who is his own brother.There is, therefore, no reason to doubt the veracity of Mst.Saraswati (P. W, 1) and also of Sunderlal Patel (P. W. 3) and Mojiram Kotwar (P. W. 5) against whom the accused did not allege any grudge.The discrepancies between the evidence of Mst.Saraswati (P. W. 1) before the lower Court and before the committal Court (see Exh. D-2) and also her statement during the investigation (see Exh, D-D, have been considered by the learned Judge of the lower Court to be of a minor nature.In her statement before the police, Exh. D-1, she had said that on coming out of the hut she got upon the mandua and saw the accused from that plaee beating Mst.Gita with a lathi, while before the lower Court she stated that at that time she was standing on the ground and climbed the mandua when Mst.Gita was being dragged by the accused towards the jungle, This is not a discrepancy of any vital nature.Before the committal Court she had stated that she did not actually see the accused beating Mst.Gita: see Exh. D-2, portion-A. However, that she saw the accused following Mst.Gita and standing near her when she cried and fell down cannot be disputed.Her further statement that she saw the accused dragging Mst.Gita towards the jungle was consistently made by her at all stages and is not open to suspicion.The veracity of the evidence of Mst.Saraswati (P. W. 1) is confirmed by other facts of the case.P. 3, P. 4 and P. 5 are the statements alleged to be made by the accused, leading to the discovery of the dead body and other articles.Exh. P. 6 is the seizure memo of the trunk of the dead body which was hidden in the leaves under a dhawda tree; Exh. P. 7, of her clothes which were hidden in a cavity of a mango tree; Exh. P. 8, of the head of the deeeased which was hidden in the caviiy of a fallen mango tree; Exh. P. 9, of the lower part of the dead body which was hidden in a thicket; and Exh. P. 10 is the seizure memo of the ornaments of the deceased, tied in a baniyan (Article D), which were recovered from the dried bushes and leaves lying in a part of the accused's field.As already stated, nothing was disclosed by the accused in his examination to throw doubt as regards their veracity.Saraswati identified the baniyan (Article D) as belonging to the accused and the axe (Art, B) and the lathi (Article A) as belonging to his family members.Her version has been controverted by Rameshwar (P. W. 2) consistently with his attempt to save the accused and implicate Mst.Saraswati (P. W. 1).Saraswati (P. W, 1) had declared at the time she felt the pulse of Mst.
['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
48,726,437
He lastly submitted that the applicant is in jail since 22.08.2019 is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial.Per contra learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforementioned facts.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.In view of the above, let the applicant- Satish Kumar be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in case crime no. 203 of 2019, under Sections 376, 328, 504, 506, 420, 386 IPC and Section 66(e) IT Act, P.S. Barsana, District Mathura with the following conditions:-(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.(iv) THE APPLICANT 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 APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
48,729,087
CRM No. 11013 of 2018 Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 5th December, 2018 in connection with Suti Police Station Case No. 431 of 2018 dated 29th October, 2018 under Sections 325/326/307/427/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code.In addition, the petitioners will also report to the investigating officer at such time and place as may be specified by the concerned police officer, till the investigation is completed.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed on the conditions indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 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.
484,465
Kameshwar Prasad and Pramod Swarup for the Appellant.S. K. Jain for the Respondent.The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PATHAK, J : This appeal by special leave is directedagainst an order of the Allahabad High Court dismissing anapplication for "clarification" of an earlier order made bythe court in a criminal proceeding.The dispute in this appeal relates to a propertydescribed as house No. 24/47, Birhana Road, Kanpur.A suitfiled by the South India Trading Company against JethmalLaxmichand was decreed and execution proceedings were takenfor the attachment and sale of the487aforesaid house property.The house was owned by one KhemRaj, who died leaving a widow, Smt. Sooraj Devi (theappellant) and a son, Kailash Chandra Jain (the secondrespondent).The property was purchased by Pyare Lal (thefirst respondent).Pyare Lal obtained possession through theCivil Court Amin on 8th October, 1965, but in his absenceKailash Chandra Jain is said to have removed the lock andentered into possession.In a criminal proceeding againsthim on a complaint by Pyare Lal, he was ultimately convictedand sentenced by the High Court under s. 448, Indian PenalCode by an order dated Ist September 1970, under which theHigh Court also directed "that house No. 24/47, BirhanaRoad, Kanpur be restored to the possession of thecomplainant".Pursuant to that order, Pyare Lal applied forpossession.The appellant filed an objection, asserting aright to the property.The Magistrate overruled herobjection, observing that it was open to her to establishher right by way of suit.The rejection of her objection wasupheld by the High Court by its order dated 21st July, 1978.The appellant then filed Criminal Miscellaneous ApplicationNo.5127 of 1978 before the High Court under s. 482 of theCode of Criminal Procedure alleging that she was not a partyto the criminal proceeding against Kailash Chandra Jain,that she was in possession in her own right, and that theearlier order of the High Court dated Ist September, 1970directing restoration of possession to Pyare Lal beclarified by a declaration that it was not binding on herand did not affect her possession.On 5th January, 1979, theHigh Court dismissed the application in view of the decisionof this Court in State of Orissa v. Ram Chander Agarwalaetc.The order has led to this appeal.Before passing on the merits of this appeal, we mayobserve that the house property has been, and still is, thesubject of civil litigation.As theproperty was meanwhile sold and the sale confirmed the suitwas regarded as infructuous and the plaint was allowed to berejected for want of court fee.Instead, Civil Suit No. 53of 1964 was filed by the minor sons of Kailash Chandra Jainclaiming that they were joint owners of the property, thatthe sale conferred no right, title or interest in Pyare Laland that they were entitled to an injunction.The appellant,who had originally been impleaded as a defendant in thesuit, was transposed to the array of plaintiffs.The suitwas dismissed in default, but subsequently restoration wasallowed by the488Trial Court on payment of costs, and the time for payment ofcosts was extended by the High Court.A third suit, CivilSuit No. 18 of 1977, was filed by the appellant forpartition.An application for interim injunction forpreserving the appellant's possession in the house propertyhas been dismissed by the trial court.The appeal must be dismissed.
['Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
48,463,567
/304/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of : Ratan Roy & Ors.... ... petitioners Mr. Jaydeep Biswas, Mr. Soomyadeep Das, Mr. Sougata Mondal ... ... for the petitioners Mr. Samik Ganguly ... ... for the State The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Murshidabad P.S. Case No. 122 of 2018 dated 02.03.2018 under Sections 341/324/325/326/304/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioners claim that following an altercation in the village, two groups clashed and one of the persons from the rival group succumbed to his injuries; but the petitioners were not the principal assailants though they were present at that time.It appears that even some of the principal assailants have been granted bail by the trial Court and the charge-sheet has now been filed.Since the investigation has been completed, the petitioners may not be arrested at this stage as long as they attend the trial on a regular basis.In addition, the petitioners will also attend the trial on a regular basis on the dates fixed.In default of the petitioners attending the trial, the trial Court will be at liberty to cancel the defaulting petitioners' bail without reference to this Court.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J) (Sanjib Banerjee, J.)
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 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.
484,638
1. Emotions and moralities may make strange appearances in a Criminal Court; Law and logic don't.Assumed with this proposition, and it is only after sterilizing our judicial mind from the ugly nature of the allegation, we log on to the website to download the factual matrix essential for the proper disposal of this application.Bone of contention:Manimala presented a male child, who is aged about five and half years to the accused Tapas.Print Out No. 3:On coming to know about such relationship when she protested she was physically and mentally tortured by her husband, accused Tapas.Print Out No. 4:Opposite party No. 2 used to spend her nights with accused Tapas in the matrimonial home of Manimala while she was made to sleep in the adjoining room.Print Out No. 5:Constant torture and harassment by both the accused - Tapas and the opposite party No. 2 who was a Headmistress of a High School.Print Out No. 6:On 05.2.2004 petitioner came to know Manimala had died and for her death the accused Tapas was responsible; and further the opposite party No. 2 had spent her right in the matrimonial home of deceased Manimala just the day before she died.The grieving father of deceased Manimala (the petitioner) gave a written information before Khatra Police Station which resulted in registration of Khatra Police Station Case No. 0904 dated 07.2.2004 under Sections 498A, 306 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC).An order dated 29.06.2004 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khatra in G. R. Case No. 30 of 2004 directing that-"Hence the accused may find bail of Rs. 6,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 3,000/- each of the like amount:(1) with the condition that she will make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required, (2) she will not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat 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 the police officer until further order."Print Out No. 1:Manimala, the only daughter of the unfortunate petitioner was given in marriage with one Tapas Kumar Singha Mahapatra (accused), an Assistant School Teacher of Jambani High School on Ashar 16, 1404 B.S.Print Out No. 2:Apprehending arrest in connection with the said case registered against her and accused Tapas she preferred an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the said Code") before the learned Sessions Judge, Bankura.It was registered as Cri.Learned Sessions Judge by his Honour's Order No. 2 dated 20.2.04 allowed the said prayer on the following terms:-"Hence the prayer for anticipatory bail for the petitioner is allowed.In the event of her arrest she be released on bail subject to her following conditions.This order will remain in force for the next 30 days from the date of this order:i) she will make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required,ii) she will not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat 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."The learned Sessions Judge arrived at his two part findings: Part-1:"Section 498A IPC is related to the husband or relatives of the husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.The petitioner is a school teacher and she is not a relative of the husband of the deceased as such Section 498A IPC is not attracted at least against this petitioner."Part-II:"..........Section 306 IPC speaks of abatement to suicide.After perusal of the FIR which has been lodged by the father of the deceased I find that there is a story of illicit love affairs between the husband of the deceased and the petitioner.But it has been specifically stated therein that over this incident of death he suspects that his son-in-law Tapas Singha Mahapatra is fully responsible.It has also been stated therein that on the previous night of her daughter's death this petitioner stayed with the husband of the deceased.This petitioner even if or argument's sake is presumed has some love affairs but there is no allegation in the FIR that for that love affairs she instigated the deceased for commission of suicide.Instigation or incitement is the most essential allegation for attracting Section 306 IPC.In absence of any such evidence the petitioner who is a lady and also a school teacher deserves the order of anticipatory bail."Distraught father of Manimala (the petitioner herein) sought to scuttle the said order, which was, however, turned down by the learned Sessions Judge in-Charge in Cri.Subsequently, the petitioner herein also moved this Court; but he met with the same fate.At the Bar:Shri Manuwar Ali, learned Counsel appearing in support of the application has made two-fold submissions.He showed from the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge as well as the learned Magistrate that the order of anticipatory bail as well as regular bail granted in favour of the opposite party No. 2 was absolutely an erroneous order as there were serious allegations against her.According to Shri Ali the FIR contained materials against the opposite party No. 2 and that too in a case of this nature it was not proper to have granted her relief.He further submitted that even if his prayer for cancelling the anticipatory bail was refused earlier, the present application for setting aside the order of regular bail had to be viewed from a different angle and accordingly he prayed for allowing the application.That way also the said order was erroneous.
['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
484,648
Petitioner No.1, however, contacted the company and paid back the amount, by way of two bank drafts, cash as well as by adjusting his outstanding amounts.He also tendered resignation.ORDER Usha Mehra, J.Joint petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the FIR No.416/98 under Section 408 IPC lodged by petitioner No.2 against petitioner No.1 with Police Station in Chitrajan Park, New Delhi.In order to appreciate the contention raised in the petition, lets acquaint with the facts of the case.The petitioner no.1 was employed as Peon with petitioner No. 2 Hiten Industrial Textile Ltd. (hereinafter called the Company).On 30th, September 1998 petitioner No. 1 was deputed to collect a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- in cash from Fateh Puri on behalf of the Company.Petitioner No.1 collected the cash amounting to Rs. 1,80,000/- but neither came to the office nor deposited that amount.Petitioner No. 1 was also not found at his residence, therefore, Company suspected he had misappropriated the amount which belonged to the Company.Accordingly, the Company lodged a written report with the Police dated 8th October, 1998 on the basis of which FIR No. 416/98 dated 8th October, 1998 was registered.The same was accepted by the Company.Accordingly petitioner No. 1 and the company jointly filed this petition for quashing the said FIR.3. Notice on the petition was issued to the respondent/State.On behalf of the Company, Shri Dinesh Chandra, Taxation Advocate, appeared and filed the affidavit supported by Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Company authorising him to make the statement in the Court indicating withdrawal of its complaint and for quashing of the FIR.He stated that petitioners have settled the matter.Company had suspected that petitioner No.1 was trying to misappropriate the money.Admittedly the status of the petitioner No. 1 was only of a peon.Petitioner No.1 returned the amount without any outside intervention or pressure.Company has already accepted his resignation.It would be futile to drag the parties to litigation.There is nothing on record wherefrom it could be inferred that there was any fraudulent intention on the part of petitioner No.1 to mis-appropriate the Company's money.
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
48,467,477
She had deposited Rs.9,000/- out of Rs.15,278/- but still he used to make phone calls to her at odd times in night.He used to use the obscene language with her while talking on telephone and used to ask her for physical relations with him in lieu of exempting her from paying fees.He used to send SMS to her in the night and was thus torturing her during her studies.DATED : JANUARY 15, 2015 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER A.B. CHAUDHARI, J.) :By this criminal application, applicant seeks quashment of first information report and charge-sheet in Criminal Case No. 212/2010 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 6th Court, ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2015 21:06:50 ::: 2 appln1199.10 Gondia as well as order rejecting application for not committing the case to Sessions Court under Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure.::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2015 21:06:50 :::We have heard Dr. De, learned Counsel for the applicant.::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2015 21:06:50 :::Learned Counsel Dr. De further contended that there is an order made by the learned Magistrate, which amounts to shirking of duty by him by not accepting the application for not committing the case to Sessions Court under Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure.He, therefore, submitted that the said order is also wrong and is liable to be quashed and set aside.Per contra, Shri Uikey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent no.1, opposed the criminal application and submitted that the charge-sheet having been filed, the applicant should go for trial rather than prosecuting the present criminal application and the present criminal application is premature.He prayed for dismissal of the criminal application.We have gone through the criminal application, first information report as well as statements of witnesses.From perusal of the first information report as well as statements of ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2015 21:06:50 ::: 4 appln1199.10 witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, we find that there is no allegation about kidnapping within the meaning of Sections 365 and 366 of Indian Penal Code.::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2015 21:06:50 :::::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2015 21:06:50 :::In the Indian Penal Code, Section 349 defines "Force"She may be an idiot, she may be under the spell of anaesthesia, she may be sleeping, she may be unable to appreciate the significance of the act, nevertheless, the offender is punishable under the section.A female of tender age stands on a somewhat different footing.(iv) The applicant shall be tried for an offence punishable under section 354 read with section 511 of the IPC and the trial shall be completed within a period of six months from today.::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2015 21:06:50 :::
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
484,688
The factual matrix of the prosecution case are ;(A) According to complainant Navnath he resides in the farm house in Gat No.238 of village Vadgaon Landga.He was treated therefor.However, accused used to quarrel with his mother (wife of accused) whenever there used to be a mental tension to him.Further according to him, on 12th May, 2007 his elder brother Macchindra had been to village Palaskhed to see the ailing niece.On 13th May, 2007 complainant, along with his wife and daughter had been to the house of maternal uncle at village Hivargaon.At about 8.30 p.m. on the said day, he received a phone call from his friend Ramdas Landge informing that his father had assaulted his mother.Accordingly, complainant and his maternal uncle reached his home in village Vadgaon Landga.On reaching the home, they were informed that his uncle Devidas and others have carried injured mother to hospital.(B) The complainant immediately rushed to the hospital, where he came to know that his mother is no more alive and that his father had assaulted his mother with wooden thrashing rod on her head.(C) On coming back to home, he opened the house ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:56:54 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:56:54 :::and noticed that there was blood in the room so also blood stained thrashing rod was also lying in the room.(D) After post-mortem, funeral was performed.(F) Pursuant to the registration of crime, Investigating Officer collected necessary papers, recorded statements of witnesses and also collected post mortem report.Accused was arrested.Shirt on the person of accused, having blood stains, was seized under the panchanama.Muddemal property was sent to Chemical Analyser.JUDGMENT: [Per Deshmukh, J.]The judgment and order of acquittal of the respondent (accused) under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC") by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangamner, District Ahmednagar, dated 22nd February, 2008 in Sessions Case No.35 of 2007 is the subject matter of present appeal, filed by the appellant - State.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:56:54 :::(E) On 14th May, 2007, complainant Navnath lodged a report with Police Station Sangamner against the accused.Based on the said report, police registered C.R.No.153 of 2007 against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.Map of the spot of incident was got prepared.(G) After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Sangamner, who, in turn, the case being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, committed the same to the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangamner.(H) The learned trial Judge framed charge against the accused for the offence under section 302 of IPC.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:56:54 :::Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.To bring home the guilt to accused, prosecution has examined six witnesses.PW 1 Navnath (Exhibit 12) is the son of accused so also complainant.PW 2 is Babasaheb (Exhibit 14) who arrived at the spot after hearing hue and cry of deceased so also took her to the hospital.PW 3 is Dhondiba (Exhibit 16), who also heard hue and cry of deceased and reached to the house of accused.He saw the accused coming out of the house and that the deceased was lying in the pool of blood.PW 4 is Namdeo - Police Constable (Exhibit 17), who carried to the muddemal articles to the Chemical Analyser.PW 5 is Wasim Pathan, Circle Officer (Exhibit 20), who prepared the map of the spot of incident.PW 6 is Sunil Bacchav, Police Sub Inspector and Investigating Officer (Exhibit 23).The learned trial Judge, after recording statements of prosecution witnesses also recorded statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Defence of the accused was that, he has been falsely implicated in the case, he does not remember anything about the incident and that he is suffering from mental disorder.The learned trial Judge ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:56:54 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:56:54 :::Principle for basing conviction solely on circumstantial evidence have been reinstated.exceptions, special exceptions, proviso contained in the penal Code or in any law defining the offence, the Court, after due consideration of the evidence, in the light of the above principle, if satisfied, would state in the first instance as to the exceptions the accused is entitled, then see whether he would be entitled for complete acquittal of the offence charged or would be liable for a lesser offence and convict him accordingly.We have seen Chapter No.We have appreciated the distinction of defence raised under section 84 of Penal Code and Chapter No.25 of Cr.This is to rule out the plea of mental disease or insanity that may likely to be raised at the trial.The failure of the prosecution to do so ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:56:54 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:56:54 :::There is no attempt on the part of the accused to change the alleged bloodstained shirt.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:56:54 :::According to the prosecution, arrest of the accused was caused by P.W.6 Mr. Bachhav.Under the same Panchanama, shirt on the person of the accused was also seized.(v) There are two reports of the Serologist on record.Communication dated 13th September, 2007 is addressed to Medical Officer, Cottage Hospital, Sangamner.Blood of deceased, according to this communication, was of "B"This was blood of deceased Mirabai which was sent for analysis.We have also considered another report of the Chemical Analyser, which is on record.Around eight articles/ exhibits were sent for examination, including incriminating article/ weapon i.e. the wooden batton/ rod, full shirt allegedly worm by the accused at the time of commission of crime.Sari found on the person of deceased was stained with blood of "B" group i.e. her own blood.Blouse, which was on the person of deceased, was also stained with blood of "B" group i.e the blood of deceased.Report, on the point of bloodstain found on the full shirt of the accused Exhibit-6 is material.According to the prosecution bloodstained was found on the shirt worn by the accused at the time of commission of crime.On ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:56:54 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:56:54 :::This has ungirded the claim of the prosecution that the shirt worn by the accused at the time of commission of the offence was stained with blood (probably the blood of deceased).Learned counsel for the accused disputed the homicidal death.The trial Court, therefore, did exhibit said postmortem report which is on record.This has been read in evidence by the trial Court.This document could not have been read in evidence by the trial Court.Para 10 is pointed out to us.Section 540 of Cr.P.C. (5 of 1898) was considered by the Honourable Supreme Court.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:56:54 :::The Honourable Supreme Court held that the Court by exercising its discretionary authority at any stage of inquiry, tril or other proceeding, can summon any person as a witness or examine any person in attendance though not submitted as a witness to be called.We have seen the Inquest Panchanama which is duly established by examining Panch witness and also P.W.6 investigating officer.It is true that the prosecution ought to have examined the medical officer for proving the postmortem notes.Proof of contents of the postmortem report is possible only by examining the author thereof i.e. the medical officer which carried out the postmortem.This report could be established in accordance with the scheme of the Evidence Act. In the absence of such evidence, the postmortem report could not have been read.However, we are not giving much importance to this aspect of the matter for the reason that the Inquest Panchanama is on record, duly established, proving the fact of unnatural death of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:56:54 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:56:54 :::deceased Mirabai.We have given due consideration to the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.This is an appeal against acquittal filed by the State under section 378 of the Cr.P.C. This Court being appellate Court, has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power [Ram Singh @ Chhaju V/s State of Himachal Pradesh" reported in 2010 (1) Supreme 486].In our view, the appeal filed on behalf of the State is merit-less.We are upholding the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:56:54 :::The Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.In view of earlier order passed at the time of admission of the appeal, accused has furnished bail bonds.We quantify Rs.3,000/- towards fees to be paid to the learned counsel appointed for the accused/ respondent.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:56:54 :::Whether the case involves an important ... No question of law and whether a copy of the judgment should be sent to Nagpur, Goa and Bombay offices?[G. F. ANSARI] PRIVATE SECRETARY TO THE HONOURABLE JUDGE ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:56:54 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:56:54 :::
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
52,446,993
(26/08/2015) Revisionist/complainant is aggrieved by order dated 1.5.2015, whereby the court below has exonerated the accused from the charge under Section 326/34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).Shri R.P.Rathi, learned counsel for the revisionist, contends that the revisionist's daughter Lata and father- in-law Shankar were keeping watch on her agricultural field, which was cultivated by tractor.The accused attacked them with kicks and fists by hitting the scrotum of Shankar (father-in-law), resulting in injury and severe pain.The FIR was registered for the offences under Sections 323, 504, 506-B and 34 IPC.The police, in turn, submitted the charge sheet.
['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
52,451,296
pk CRM No. 6923 of 2015 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 27.07.15 in connection with Tamluk P.S. Case No. 407/15 dated 26.5.15 under Sections 498A/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of:- Basudeb Khutia & Ors.498A/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code have come to this court for anticipatory bail.We have gone through the same and find according to those two witnesses, which are at pages 44 and 45 of the case diary, the 2 intimacy of their mother with their uncle, the elder brother of their father was not liked by the other members of the family including the petitioners and they objected to that.Thereafter, the victim housewife left her matrimonial home with her two sons and started staying at her parents' home.There also the elder brother-in-law was a frequent visitor.3 The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
52,456,052
And In the matter of: Mantu Pal & Ors. ...Petitioners.Mr. Ravi Sankar Chattopadhyay ...for the petitioners.Ms. Zareen N. Khan ...for the State.Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertaking.(Subrata Talukdar, J.) 2
['Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
52,457,826
16.07.2018 Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.:This is an appeal directed against the order dated 26th February 2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in SC No.4/2000 arising out of FIR No.1004/1999 registered at PS Sultanpuri convicting the Appellant for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and the order on sentence dated 27th February 2003 by which the Appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three years.A. 155/2003 Page 1 of 4The charge against the Appellant was that on 15th September 1999, at around 7:15 pm, he had committed the murder of the deceased Jaswant @ Mannu by inflicting knife injuries on the left side of his chest.There were three purported eye witnesses to the incident, namely Satvir Singh (PW-5), Dev Raj (PW-8), and Anil Kumar (PW-9).During the trial, PWs- 8 and 9 turned hostile and declined to support the case of the prosecution.The prosecution, therefore, heavily relied upon the evidence of Satvir Singh (PW-5) who stated that on the fateful day, he was present in his house when he heard a quarrel taking place at a distance of 10 paces from his house.He noticed the exchange of hot words taking place between the Appellant and the deceased, who happened to be his neighbor.He then saw the Appellant taking out a knife from the dub of his pant and gave a knife blow on the left side of the chest of the deceased and immediately thereafter, started running from the spot.However, when an alarm was raised, the Appellant appears to have been apprehended on the same day itself.The size of the wound in the ventricle was about 1.5 cm.From the evidence of PW-5, it appears that there was a heated exchange of words between the Appellant and the deceased immediately prior to the stabbing.The assault on the person of the deceased was, therefore not premeditated.It took place on the spur of the moment in a sudden fight and the evidence reveals that only one knife blow had been dealt to a non-vital part of the victim's body.As a result, the personal bond and surety bond furnished by the Appellant stand discharged.A. 155/2003 Page 3 of 4The appeal is disposed of.The concerned SHO will communicate to the Appellant the present order forthwith.
['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
52,463,112
A copy of the Settlement Agreement has been annexed to this petition.A copy of the decree sheet has also been annexed to this petition.As settled between the parties, the first petitioner Major Amardeep Singh Sandhu agreed to pay Rs.30,70,000/-, in all, to the complainant towards settlement of all her claims and dues.Through Ms.Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor.Sub Inspector Hasrat Ali, PS CAW Cell, East Delhi.Ms. Pammi Handa, Advocate with R2/complainant.HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA % SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(Oral) Crl.M.A. No.18444/2014 Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.This application is disposed off.This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR No. 351/2012 registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, on 07.12.2012 at police station Anand Vihar, on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties.Issue notice.Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, and Ms. Pammi Handa, Advocate for the second respondent / complainant, enter appearance and accept notice.The complainant, who is present in person, is also identified by the Investigating Officer, Sub Inspector Hasrat Ali.M.C.No.5410/2014 Page 1 of 8Similarly, in another petition, being Civil Suit (OS) No.31/2013, filed by the complainant under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 an order was also passed by this Court on 22.04.2014 referring that matter to mediation.Ultimately, on 23.04.2014, the parties arrived at an overall settlement agreeing to bring to an end all the disputes on terms before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.I am also of the considered opinion that the matter deserves to be given a quietus at this stage itself since the parties have settled the matter, Crl.M.C.No.5410/2014 Page 7 of 8 which is of a domestic and matrimonial nature, on terms, and where the complainant is no longer interested in supporting the prosecution, thereby diminishing its chances of success.M.C.No.5410/2014 Page 7 of 8Consequently, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 351/2012 registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, on 07.12.2012 at police station Anand Vihar, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.The petition is disposed off.SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J NOVEMBER 28, 2014 dr Crl.M.C.No.5410/2014 Page 8 of 8
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
524,653
Bail appears to have been granted by the Sessions Judge, but on what date it was granted we have not been told.The order ran :In the affidavit filed on behalf of the counter-petitioners, sworn to by an Inspector of Police it was averred :While in remand, be (the petitioner) applied for bail and the Sessions Judge, Combater ordered his bail on condition that he should report at the police station every day.as such the detenu was at liberty to furnish the necessary securities and come out from the jail.Hence an order for his detention was considered necessary.
['Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
52,479,608
I have heard Shri S. A. Bramhe, the learned counsel holding for Shri R. S. Kurekar, the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri N. R. Rode, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.Also perused the record and proceedings.On 18.5.2005, PW5 Haridas Mhatre, Head Constable, was Station Diary In-charge of Police Station, Malegaon.At about 20.00 hours on the said day, Prashant Bali (PW1) came to the police station and lodged his oral report (Exh.10).The gist of the first information report (Exh.10) is that the complainant resides at Ward No.3 at Malegaon in a three storey building.The ground floor of the said building is for parking.He stays with his parents on 2nd floor and the 3rd floor is used for storing material.One Smt. Durgabai Borkar used to work as maid servant in the house about 1½ year prior to lodging of the first information report.He noticed that due to the fire, there is a damage to the property worth in between Rs.1700/- to 2000/-.After entrustment of the investigation to PW7 Pralhad Ware, on 19.5.2015 he visited the spot of the occurrence and prepared spot panchanama in presence of panch witness Bandu::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2018 02:06:28 ::: 4 APPEAL193.06.odt Iratkar (PW6).By the said judgment and order of sentence, the appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 436 of the::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2018 02:06:28 ::: 2 APPEAL193.06.odt Indian Penal Code and for that he is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default sufferance of simple imprisonment for one month.The appellant is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code and for that it is directed that he shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2018 02:06:28 :::For further investigation, diary of Crime No. 68/2005 was handed over to PSI Pralhad Ware (PW7).::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2018 02:06:28 :::Her services were discontinued after paying all her wages.On 18.5.2005, in between 7.30 to 8.00 O'clock at night, the first informant noticed flames from the third floor.Therefore, he along with Bharat Gudadhe (PW3) went on third floor.That time, he noticed presence of the appellant and his act of setting the clothes on fire.The said fire was extinguished by the first informant, his mother and Bharat Gudadhe (PW3).The spot panchanama is at Exh.18 on the record.On 19.5.2005, the appellant was arrested under the arrest memo (Exh.25).After completion of investigation, the Charge-sheet was filed in the Court of law.::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2018 02:06:28 :::The learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Washim, after the matter was committed to his Court, framed the Charge against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 436 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code.The appellant denied the Charge and claimed that he be tried.In order to bring home the guilt of the appellant, in all 7 witnesses were examined by the prosecution.After the appreciation, the Court below convicted the appellant as observed in the opening paragraph of this judgment.Hence, this appeal.The report (Exh.10) and the evidence of PW1 Prashant Bali show that the mother of the appellant Smt. Durgabai was maid servant at his house.Her services were terminated by making payment of all her dues.::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2018 02:06:28 :::::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2018 02:06:28 :::In the evidence, it is stated that the appellant, who is the son of Durgabai, used to demand amount of Rs.500/- from the first informant towards wages of Durgabai.About seven days prior to the incident also, the appellant demanded the said amount and extended the threats that if the amount is not paid, he will cause a damage.This part of his evidence is conspicuously silent in his report (Exh.10).No doubt true, that the first information report is not an encyclopedia of the prosecution case.The lodging of the first information report enables the investigating machinery to set the criminal law into motion.However, in the present case, except this, no other motive is attributed against the appellant.In view of this, in my view, not mentioning of this material aspect in the first information report, assumes importance.From the prosecution case, it is established that PW1 Prashant Bali is an influential person in Malegaon town.He runs a theater.His younger brother Shriram Bali (PW4) is a contractor.PW1 Prashant admits that his father is having good relations with the police.In this backdrop, as threats were extended to PW1 Prashant,::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2018 02:06:28 ::: 6 APPEAL193.06.odt it would have been the most natural reaction on the part of Prashant or any of his family members to report the said to the police for taking necessary action against the appellant, however, the said incident was not reported to police.In view of the said, it is really difficult to accept about the occurrence of such incidence.::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2018 02:06:28 :::What is important to note is that from the witness box, PW1 Prashant did not claim that he saw the appellant in action of setting the clothes on fire.His version from the witness box is, after he sensed about the fire on the third floor and when he came to the staircase, he noticed appellant running through the said staircase.In the first information report, according to him, he noticed the appellant in action of setting the clothes on fire.The first information report is never a substantive piece of evidence.Therefore, though in the first information report he claimed that he noticed the appellant while setting the clothes on fire, in view of the fact that no such facts are stated in the substantive evidence, it is clear that the first informant has not seen the appellant in action of setting the clothes on fire.The other two prosecution witnesses namely PW2 Santosh Bali and PW3 Bharat Gudadhe also claim that they saw::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2018 02:06:28 ::: 7 APPEAL193.06.odt running away the appellant from the spot.Their evidence is also conspicuously silent that it is the appellant who set the clothes on fire on the third floor.::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2018 02:06:28 :::According to the evidence of PW1 Prashant, the police station is situated at 100 to 150 feet away from the spot of the occurrence.The printed first information report (Exh.15) shows that the police station is situated at half furlong away towards western direction of the spot of occurrence.However, the Investigating Officer PW5 Mhatre wants that the Court should believe that the police station is situated more than 1 KM away from the spot of incidence.To that effect, his evidence is contrary to the first information report (Exh.15) itself.The spot panchanama was drawn on 19.5.2005 at 8.00 O'clock in the morning.PW2 Santosh Bali states in his evidence that within half an hour police came on the spot.If that be so, even recording of the police statement of the complainant on 19.5.2005, in my view, is belated one and is not having any explanation for the same.::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2018 02:06:28 :::All the statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded on 19.5.2005 though they were available on the spot on 18.5.2005 and according to PW2 Santosh, police arrived on the spot after half an hour.In absence of any plausible explanation, the Court will have to reach to a conclusion that there is delay in recording the statements of material witnesses.Therefore, embellishment at the hands of the prosecution witnesses is not completely ruled out.On re-appreciation of the entire prosecution case, I am of the firm view that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant.Consequently, I pass the following order :The criminal appeal is allowed.The judgment and order of conviction dated 20.3.2006 passed by the learned 2nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Washim in Sessions Trial No. 75/2005, is hereby quashed and set aside.::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2018 02:06:28 :::::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2018 02:06:28 :::The fine amount, if any paid by the appellant, be refunded to him.The bail bonds of the appellant shall stand cancelled.The appeal is allowed and disposed of.JUDGE Diwale::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2018 02:06:28 :::::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2018 02:06:28 :::
['Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
52,483,274
(03/12/2014) This petition under Section 482 of Cr.Briefly stated the facts necessary for deciding the petition are as follows:The Assistant Returning Officer, Chanderi District Ashok Nagar wrote a letter directing the SHO Chanderi to initiate legal action against petitioner No.1, Gopal Singh Chouhan (Duggi Raja) for contravening the Election Conduct Rules and for violation of Section 144 of Cr.P.C and to report the matter to the Office of Assistant Returning Officer, State Assembly,Chanderi District Ashok Nagar.On this direction, Police Station Chanderi lodged Crime No. 409/2013 under Section 188 read with 34 of IPC against the petitioners.Accused persons / petitioners were arrested.On 29.9.2014 the petitioners filed the application before the JMFC Chanderi, stating that if there is any (2) M.Cr.C No. 10015/14 violation the District Election Officer, ought to have filed the complaint himself or any officer subordinate to him.But, the present complaint has not been filed by the District Election Officer.It has been instituted at the instance of Police Station Chanderi.The prescribed procedures not followed in this case.Under Section 188 of IPC the compliant has to be filed by the competent authority.Only on the basis of which cognizance can be taken, otherwise not.A copy of this order be sent to the JMFC Chanderi for compliance.(S.K. Palo) JUDGE dcs
['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
128,063,136
The FIR was registered under Sections 452, 323, 294, 506,34 of IPC.Later on, in view of fracture found in parietal bone of Madhur, Section 326 of IPC has been added.This is first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The applicant has been arrested in Crime No.566/2014 registered at Police Station, Bahodapur, District Gwalior, for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 323, 294, 506-B and 326 of IPC.It is alleged by the prosecution that Deepak Pathak and Ramkumar alongwith two associates armed with Lathi and Danda entered in the house of the complainant and started abusing.When it was objected, they gave beating to the complainant, his brother Madhur and mother Rani Devi by means of Lathi and Danda.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has falsely been implicated in the case.He has not committed any offence.On the basis of the report of the applicant, Crime No.567/14 under Sections 323, 294, 506, 34 of IPC has been registered against the complainant party.Trial is likely to take time.Hence, prayed for bail.The prayer is opposed by learned Public Prosecutor.2 M.Cr.
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
128,073,126
"(i) On the basis of DD No. 14A regarding information of murder, SI Manoj Kumar along with Ct.Wazir Chand went to the spot i.e., H. No. A-102, Ganga Ram Colony, Tikri Khurd, Delhi.In the meantime, IO/SHO Inspector Sunil Kumar along with Ct.Vinod and Ct.Naveen also reached at the spot where he found SI Manoj Kumar along with Ct.Wazir and accused Ranjeet present there.Accused Ranjeet opened the door/lock of the aforesaid house from the keys which were in his possession.Blood was found scattered in the house and accused Ranjeet had shown the dead body of one Ram Awadh in the said house.There were sharp injury marks on the neck, face and ear on the body of the deceased.On the right hand of the deceased, there was a tattoo mark "Ram Awadh Kiran".On the basis of the DD entry, IO prepared a tehrir and got the FIR registered through Ct. Wazir.(ii) Crime team was called at the spot.During investigations, Kiran Bharti, wife and Sikandar, nephew of deceased Ram Awadh also arrived at the spot, who also identified the body of the deceased.Crime team officials inspected the spot and took photographs of the spot.Accused was interrogated and arrested in this case and his disclosure statement was recorded.The earth control and dry blood of deceased Ram Awadh were lifted from the spot and were converted into a pullanda and sealed.IO prepared the site plan and sent the body of deceased to BJRM Hospital Mortuary.State (Delhi Administration), (1997) 2 Crimes 169 (Del).In the present case, the confessional statement made by the accused (Ex. PW-4/A) is inadmissible as per Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, however, there is nothing on record to disbelieve the testimony of PW-15 (Inspector, Sunil Kumar), PW-14 (SI Manoj Kumar), PW-1 (Sikandar) and PW-2 (Smt. Kiran Bharti) in whose presence the recovery of dead body of the deceased and weapon of offence were recovered on the basis of disclosure (Ex. PW-1/C) made by the accused which is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses in relation to recoveries are consistent and trustworthy and corroborative, as such the ground raised by learned counsel for the appellant in relation to inadmissibility of the recoveries at the instance of the accused person holds no ground.CRL.A. 411/2018 Page 13 of 38MEDICAL AND SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCEV.K. Jha, Medical Officer, BRJM Hospital, Jahangirpuri, Delhi conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased (Ex. PW-11/A) and during his examination-in-chief he deposed as under:-"Opinion Cause of death as hemorrhagic shock as a result of cut throat injury inflicted by other party.All injuries were antemortem in nature and Injury No. 6 was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.Injury No. 1, 4 and 5 have been inflicted are defence wound and time since death was approximately 26 hours."Incised would on web space between middle finger and ring finger right hand of size 2cmX1cmXmuscle deep.Multiple incised would about ten in numbers on left CRL.A. 411/2018 Page 14 of 38 side of neck.The biggest one is 10cmX2cmXvessel deep.On dissection, it has cut skin, muscles and vessels.Blood and blood clot present.CRL.A. 411/2018 Page 14 of 38Internal examination On internal examination brain matter was soften, stomach was empty."Blood samples lifted from the spot and clothes of the deceased as well as accused, including pant, shirt, baniyan and underwear were sealed by the Investigation Officer, PW-15 (Inspector, Sunil Kumar), which fact was confirmed from the testimonies of PW-14 (SI Manoj Kumar), PW-1 (Sikandar) and PW-2 (Smt. Kiran Bharti).PW-15 (Inspector, Sunil Kumar) also proved the FSL report as (EX.-PW-15/C) and (Ex.PW-15/D).As per scientific analysis report (EX.-PW-15/C) 'Blood was detected on exhibits (1a, 1b, 1c, 1d), (3a, 3b, 3c) and 5'.Relevant portion of (Ex.-PW-15/C) and (Ex.PW-15/D) reads as under:- (Ex.-PW-15/C) "DESCRIPTION OF ARTICLES CONTAINED IN PARCEL Parcel '1' : One sealed cloth parcel described as envelope at S.No.1 sealed with the seal of FMT BJRM HOSPITAL DELHI containing exhibits '1a', '1b', '1c' & '1d', described as 'envelope containing gauze' in the forwarding letter.Exhibit '1a' : One pants having brown stains.Exhibit '1b' : One shirt having brown stains.Exhibit '1c' : One baniyan having brown stains.Exhibit '1d' : One underwear having brown stains.Parcel '3' : One sealed cloth parcel sealed with the seal of "SKS" containing exhibits '3a', '3b' & '3c'.Exhibit '3a' : One pants (Jeans) having brown stains.CRL.A. 411/2018 Page 15 of 38Exhibit '3b' : One baniyan having brown stains.Exhibit '3c' : One bag having brown stains.Parcel '4' : One sealed cloth parcel sealed with the seal of "SKS" containing exhibits '4a' & '4b'.Exhibit '4a' : One sickle made up of wooden handle and metallic blade having rusty stains described as 'Fatal sickle'.Exhibit '4b' : One knife made up of wooden handle and metallic blade described as 'Domestic knife'.Parcel '5' : One sealed cloth parcel sealed with the seal of "SKS" containing exhibit '5' kept in a plastic container.Exhibit '5' : Cemented material having darker stains described as 'Dry blood' with floor.Parcel '6' : One sealed cloth parcel sealed with the seal of "SKS" containing exhibit '6' kept in a plastic container.Report of serological analysis in original is attached herewith."The post-mortem report further suggests that the death has been caused due to injury no.6 as deposed by PW-11 (Dr. V. K. Jha) in his statement (Note:-Injury no.7 mentioned in the postmortem report Ex. PW-11/A)) 'Multiple incised wound about ten in numbers on left side of neck.The biggest one is 10cmX2cmXvessel deep.On dissection, it has cut skin, muscles and vessels.Blood and blood clot present'.The examining Doctor, PW-11 (Dr. V. K. Jha), clearly opined that the 'Cause of death as haemorrhagic shock as a result of cut throat injury inflicted by other party'.The post-mortem report (Ex. PW-11/A) supports the case of the prosecution and is in consonance with the disclosure statement (Ex. PW-1/C) made by the accused person which was duly corroborated by the testimony of PW-15 (Inspector, Sunil Kumar), PW-14 ( SI Manoj Kumar), PW-1 (Sikandar) and PW-2 (Smt. Kiran Bharti).Moreover, the FSL report (Ex.-PW-15/C) and (Ex.PW-15/D) clearly depicts that the blood group 'B' found on the clothes of the accused matched with the blood group of the deceased.But because of scarcity of time, my nephew could not talk to accused Ranjit.I also changed my shift due to harassment given to me by Ranjit from morning to night shift.Incidentally on 9.9.12, I went for my duty at about 8 am to the hospital and returned to my house at about 4 pm.I have also to do night shift on that day.I asked to Sikandar after his arrival to the house at about 4.30 pm about my husband.He told me that my husband had gone with Ranjit for looking a house as my husband intended to purchase a house.My husband also talked to me in this respect a few days before but I had not taken it seriously as we do not have enough money.In the evening of 9.9.12, CRL.A. 411/2018 Page 21 of 38 I had gone to hospital for attending night shift at about 8 pm and I was leaving my house I made call to accused and asked him about my husband but accused talks rudely (oot-patang bola) and stated that he had revealed the relation between me and him to my husband and he totally blanked his mind on this issue and sent my husband to our house.I have made a call from my mobile no.8130504202 but I do not remember the mobile number of accused.I was remained tensed in the hospital and early in the morning, I came back to my house from hospital in between 7.30 to 8 am.Till that time, my husband had not returned to the house.I made calls to almost all my relatives but the whereabouts of my husband were not found anywhere.I along with my nephew after confirming the address of accused, we went to Ganga Ram Colony, Tikri Khurd.It is wrong to suggest that Sikander had committed the murder of my husband.It is wrong to suggest that deceased was murdered somewhere else and the dead body was planted thereafter at the house of accused to falsely implicate him in this case.It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely."PW17/D (consisting of 6 pages) all bears my signatures at point A. I have brought the Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, bearing my signatures at point A. The same is Ex.PW17/E. All the call details Ex.PW17/D were generated from the computer which is lawfully under my control and possession, derived from the computer and its password is protected under my control.I generated the details of the calls already Ex. PW17/D. The information/CDR Ex.PW17/D is computer generated and computer is in function in ordinary course of business and there is no chance of tampering and manipulation in it.The deposition of PW-2 (Smt. Kiran Bharti) before the Court proves that accused and PW-2 were working in the same Hospital and the accused was constantly making efforts to build relationship with PW-2 (Smt. Kiran Bharti).PW-2 (Smt. Kiran Bharti) during her examination-in-chief further revealed that on 09.09.2012 i.e. the date of incident her husband (the deceased) was in the company of the accused and deposed that 'In the evening of 9.9.12, I had gone to hospital for attending night shift at about 8 pm and I was leaving my house I made call to accused and asked him about my husband but accused talks rudely (oot-patang bola) and stated that he had revealed the relation between me and him to my husband and he totally blanked his mind on this issue and sent my husband to our house.I have made a call from my mobile no.8130504202 but I do not remember the mobile number of accused.' The examination-in-chief of the wife of the deceased further revealed that she suspected that 'my husband was murdered by Ranjeet because of his inclination of one sided love with me.'.CRL.A. 411/2018 Page 26 of 38The present appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'), against the judgment dated 21.02.2018 and order on sentence dated 26.02.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-02, North Rohini Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 58133/2016 in FIR No. 302/2012 registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as 'IPC') at PS Alipur, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.7000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of five months.CRL.A. 411/2018 Page 1 of 38(iii) Accused Ranjeet Kumar lead the police party to Nangloi and Kirari Phatak, Camp No. 2, Jungle inside the bushes, from where he got recovered a bag of red and black colour and same was containing a pant, a vest, darati and a knife used in the offence.The said articles were converted in a pullanda and sealed by the IO."After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed and charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC was framed CRL.A. 411/2018 Page 2 of 38 against the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.CRL.A. 411/2018 Page 2 of 38To bring home the guilt of the appellant the prosecution has examined 17 witnesses in all.Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C wherein he claimed innocence and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case.In continuation of earlier statement of the appellant, a supplementary statement of appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C was also recorded to which he again pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.The appellant chose not to lead any evidence in his defence.After hearing counsel for both the sides and on appreciation of entire evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court convicted the appellant for the charged offence.Mr. Hemant Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, opened his submissions by contending that the impugned judgment dated 26.02.2018 is based on conjectures and surmises and the same is against the facts and settled proposition of law and that the learned trial court has ignored and omitted the material evidences and has disregarded the cogent evidence in favour of the appellant.Mr. Singh learned counsel for the appellant has further contended that the learned trial court has wrongly relied on the disclosure statement of the appellant which led to recovery of a dead body as well as the weapon of offence used for the commission of the crime; that the trial court erred in observing that the accused and PW-2 (Smt. Kiran Bharti) were having extra marital relations which led the appellant to commit the crime; that the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, however, there are various gaps in the case of the prosecution as (a) the body of CRL.A. 411/2018 Page 3 of 38 the deceased was recovered from A-102, Ganga Ram Colony, Tikri Khurd, Delhi -36, where the appellant was not residing, (b) that the wife of the deceased was not even aware of the address of the accused,CRL.A. 411/2018 Page 3 of 38(c) the fact that the accused was not present at the spot of incident is supported by electronic evidence, (d) that the weapon of offence is a planted evidence in order to falsely implicate the appellant as the knife and the darauti (sickle) recovered are easily available in the market, (e) that the trial court has wrongly relied upon the CDR data of phone of PW-2 (Smt. Kiran Bharti); that the alleged confessional statement and disclosure statement by the appellant is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act; that the investigation conducted by the prosecution is a defective one as no independent witnesses were joined at the time of recovery and the benefit of doubt shall go to the appellant.Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the Trial court has rightly given a finding that the last seen witness i.e. PW-1 (Sikandar) was a planted witness which goes on to prove that the other incriminating evidence such as disclosure statement of the accused is fabricated by the Investigating Officer in order to falsely implicate the appellant in the present case.Learned counsel for the appellant further added that the trial court erred in observing that the accused and PW-2 (Smt. Kiran Bharti) were having extra marital relations which led the appellant to commit the alleged offence.In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the cases of Aghnoo Nagesia vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1966 SC 119, Mr. Shaitan Singh Vs Talevar passed by Division Bench of Rajashan High Court bearing Crl.CRL.A. 411/2018 Page 4 of 38On the other hand, Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, learned APP for the State, strongly refuted the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the impugned judgment is based on proper appreciation of facts and evidence and no interference in the impugned judgment is called for by this Court; that the statement of the prosecution witnesses and medical/scientific evidence are corroborative in nature and the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.She further added that the appellant went to the police station and confessed his crime to the Duty Officer on the basis of which Rukka (DD No. 14A dated 10.09.2012) was prepared which is (Ex.The second limb of arguments put forth by the learned APP for the State is that on the basis of the disclosure statement of the appellant, the recovery of weapon of offence as well as the blood stained clothes were made; that the medical evidence confirms the fact that the injuries sustained by the deceased were caused by the weapon which was recovered at the instance of the appellant; that according to the FSL report the blood stains found on the clothes of the accused matched with CRL.A. 411/2018 Page 5 of 38 the blood group of the deceased; that there is no discrepancy in the testimonies of PW-1 (Sikandar) and PW-2 (Smt. Kiran Bharti), which establish the factum of the alleged crime and the testimony of PW-2 (Smt. Kiran Bharti) finds further corroboration with the CDR records exhibited as PW17/D; that the non-joining of independent witnesses at the time of recovery is not always necessary.CRL.A. 411/2018 Page 5 of 38Learned counsel for the State further contended that the evidence produced on record as well as the circumstances proved by the prosecution, formed a complete chain pointing unequivocally towards the guilt of the accused.Based on these submissions, counsel for the State urged that this Court may not interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the material placed on record including the record of the trial court.ADMISSIBILTY OF RECOVERIES EFFECTED PURSUANT TO THE DISCLOSURE/CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSEDLearned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the recoveries pursuant to the disclosure statement of the accused are not admissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. In this context, from a perusal of the record it transpires that the state machinery was set in motion pursuant to DD No. 14-A (Ex. PW-4/A) and DD No. 15-A (Ex.PW-4/C).CRL.A. 411/2018 Page 6 of 38PW-15 (Inspector, Sunil Kumar) deposed that the recoveries were effected in his presence at the instance of the accused person.PW-15 (Inspector, Sunil Kumar) during his examination-in-chief deposed that 'Accused Ranjeet opened the door/lock of the aforesaid house from the keys which was in his possession.Blood was found scattered in the house'.After the interrogation the accused Ranjeet was arrested vide (Ex.PW-1/A) and PW-15 (Inspector, Sunil Kumar) alongwith other police party was led to Nangloi and Kirari Phatak, Camp No. 2 Jungle inside the bushes by the accused.PW-15 (Inspector, Sunil Kumar) further deposed that 'Public witness Sikander was present with us at the that time.Accused Ranjeet Kumar thereafter got recovered a bag of red and black colour from the aforesaid place and the same was containing a pant, a vest and Darati and knife used in the offence.' PW-14 (SI Manoj Kumar) corroborated the testimony of PW-15 (Inspector, Sunil Kumar) in relation to recovery of body of the deceased and bag of red and black colour wherein the weapon of offence was recovered.PW-14 (SI Manoj Kumar) deposed that 'He led the police party alongwith Sikandar and Kiran Bharti to the above stated spot and recovered a bag of red and black colour.Same was containing a pant, a vest and darati and knife used in the houses.' PW-1 (Sikandar) and PW-2 (Smt. Kiran Bharti) further corroborated the testimony of PW-15 (Inspector, Sunil Kumar) and PW-14 (SI Manoj Kumar).Head Constable Raghubir Prasad(PW-1) was the duty officer at the Police Station, Lajpat Nagar and had first interaction with the accused, at Police Station, Lajpat Nagar, where he had recorded his confessional statement, vide DD entry No. 11A(Ex.The DD entry reads as:"I reside at 50 E, First Floor, Gautam Nagar, New Delhi in the Flat of Smt. Suman Roy and loved her.I came to know about her illicit relations with some other persons, on which some hot arguments took place between us.As a result whereof I became furious and today at about 8:00 o'clock in the morning I finished her by giving knife blows.I had kept the blood stained knife and clothes at the locale CRL.A. 411/2018 Page 12 of 38 itself.I have locked the flat and the key of the flat is in my possession.I have come here at Lajpat Nagar Police Station to inform you, because I knew about the Lajpat Nagar Police Station only.Dr. K.L. Sharma, SR.CMO, Subzi Mandi Mortuary, Delhi during his examination-in-chief also revealed the External and Internal Injuries suffered by the deceased.The examining Doctor further conducted the internal examination of the body of the deceased and revealed as under:-"External InjuriesIncised wound on (L) wrist 2cm x 1cm x muscle deepIncised wound on lateral angle of (L) eye 1.5cm x 1cmIncised wound on (L) parietal region 12cm x 1cm x subscalpIncised wound on middle plalanges of middle Right hand of size 2cm x 2cm x muscle deep.Exhibit '6' : Cemented material described as Earth Control.RESULT OF ANALYSISBlood could not be detected on exhibits 4a, 4b and 6(Ex.PW-15/D) "BIOLOGY DIVISION The result of the serological analysis reads as:CRL.A. 411/2018 Page 16 of 38Perusal of the post-mortem of the deceased (Ex. PW-11/A) shows that the injuries caused on the person of the deceased were inflicted with sharp edged weapon.The post-mortem (Ex. PW-11/A) report directly points towards the fact that the injuries inflicted on the deceased were caused by the same knife that was CRL.A. 411/2018 Page 17 of 38 recovered at the instance of the accused and points out towards the guilt of the accused person in the commission of the crime for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.CRL.A. 411/2018 Page 17 of 38Upon perusal of the post-mortem report (Ex. PW-11/A) and scientific report (Ex.-PW-15/C) and (Ex.PW-15/D) it can be safely inferred that there is no inconsistency between disclosure statement (Ex. PW-1/C) made by the accused person and medical evidence/scientific evidence (Ex.-PW-15/C) and (Ex.PW-15/D) which point towards the guilt of the accused.LAST SEEN WITNESSLearned counsel for the appellant contended that the Trial court has rightly given a finding that the last seen witness i.e. PW-1 (Sikandar) was a planted witness which goes on to prove that the other incriminating evidence such as disclosure statement of the accused is fabricated by the Investigating Officer in order to falsely implicate the appellant in the present case.In this context, it is relevant to observe the findings given by the trial court, which reads as under:Taking the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 as a whole after the same has been tested on the anvil of cross examination, the probative force of the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 with regard to the last seen evidence is heavily dented, as it is hard to imagine that PW1 was on Friday i.e. on 09.09.2012 at 11:15 am, whereas he used to leave for work by 9:00 am and used to return by 7:00 - 7:30 pm.He also admitted that prior to the incident, he had never heard from any neighbourer that the accused used to come CRL.A. 411/2018 Page 18 of 38 their jhuggi to meet his mami or not.He also admitted that his mama had never went to see house or a plot prior to the incident.Even PW2 stated that she did not take it seriously when deceased talked about the plot.However, she was told by PW1 that he had gone to purchase the plot.From the testimony of PW1, it is apparent that no other neighbourer had seen the accused hovering around the house of the deceased on the date of the incident or prior thereto.Further, the presence of PW1 at around 11:15 am on 09.09.2012 appears to be doubtful, as no reason has been given by him why he had not gone to work on that day and remained at his house.The PW1 also made material improvements in his testimony for instance that he gave Rs. 10,000/in cash to deceased for purchasing the plot, which was confronted with his previous statement made to the police.If that was so, then the PW1 would have definitely asked accused and the deceased the place where they were going to see the plot and the locality thereof.In these circumstances, it appears that PW1 was not the last seen witness and was introduced by the prosecution to strengthen its case.CRL.A. 411/2018 Page 18 of 38CRL.A. 411/2018 Page 19 of 38From the perusal of the impugned judgment, we do not find any infirmity in the reasoning given by the learned trial court that PW-1 (Sikandar) was not the last seen witness and was introduced by the prosecution.PW-1 (Sikandar) failed to give any cogent explanation as to why he had not gone to work on the date of incident.Moreover, the witness further failed to give any explanation in relation to improvements made by him in his examination-in-chief.However, as discussed above, in the preceding paragraph, where the admissibility of recoveries pursuant to disclosure statements of the accused is dealt, we do not find any force in the argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant that since PW-1 (Sikandar) the last seen witness has been introduced by the Investigating Officer, the recoveries effected pursuant to the disclosure are also planted by the prosecution.Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the trial court erred in observing that the accused and PW-2 (Smt. Kiran Bharti) were having extra marital relations which led the appellant to commit the alleged offence.In this context, it is relevant to peruse the testimony of PW-2 (Smt. Kiran Bharti) in order to ascertain whether there was any relation between the accused and PW-2 (Smt. Kiran Bharti), to commit the alleged offence.PW-2 (Smt. Kiran Bharti) deposed as under:-"I have been working in Max Hospital on the post of General Duty Assistant (GDA) in the year 2011 and worked there for about one year and left the job on 10.9.11 when the incident had taken place.Accused Ranjit Singh CRL.A. 411/2018 Page 20 of 38 was also working in Max hospital as GDA.We both have joined the hospital at Shalimar branch when it was opened.Accused was harassing me and teasing me for the last six months when I left the hospital.Accused talk to me absurdly like that he loves me and stated that he cannot live without me.I have understood him many times that my age is 28 yrs.And I have two issues and I am older than you but he does not understand and did not give any heed to my words.When accused could not mend his ways and when he crossed his limits of indecent behaviour, I narrated all about bad behaviour of accused to my nephew Sikander and requested him to understand accused Ranjit.I also requested not to inform to my husband Ram Avadh otherwise unnecessary a quarrel may rise.We saw that a large number of police gathered there and in between dead body of my husband lying in pool of blood.I felt astonished and I suspected my husband was murdered by Ranjeet because of his inclination of one sided love with me."CRL.A. 411/2018 Page 20 of 38CRL.A. 411/2018 Page 21 of 38During the cross-examination, PW-2 (Smt. Kiran Bharti) deposed as under:"Accused was not known to me prior to the joining in the Max hospital.I cannot tell whether accused joined the said hospital before my joining or after my joining.I do not CRL.A. 411/2018 Page 22 of 38 remember the date or time when accused stated that he loves me.he first time stated to me these words when I was on the way to my home and he was following me.I do not remember the date and month but it was in the evening after morning shift when I was going to my home he stated to me that he cannot live without me.I cannot tell the exact date when I told about the behaviour of accused to Sikander but it was about 10-15 days before the death of my husband.On 1.9.12 I had told to change my shift to the incharge but same was not completely changed.It is wrong to suggest that I had not requested to the incharge for change of my shift duty from day to night.It is wrong to suggest that I had not told to my nephew about the bad behaviour of accused towards me.It is wrong to suggest that accused had not used absurd words to me.It is wrong to suggest that I had not joined the Max hospital at Shalimar Bagh.It is wrong to suggest that accused Ranjit was not working in Max hospital.It is wrong to suggest that accused was not harassing me or teasing me for the last six months when I left the hospital.My jhuggi is situated in the middle of the lane where I was residing.There were 15 jhuggies before and 15 jhuggies after my jhuggi.Same is the situation of my front lane.It is correct that they all known to us and I also know them.1-2 persons of my locality/neighbourhood had seen the accused Ranjit and my husband gone together on the day CRL.A. 411/2018 Page 23 of 38 of incident but they do not know accused Ranjit.I cannot tell the names of those persons who had seen my husband and Ranjit together.I do not know whether police had inquired from the said persons or not.It is wrong to suggest that 1-2 persons had seen the accused with my husband on the day of incident.It is wrong to suggest that Sikandar had not told me that my husband had gone with the accused for looking a house.It is wrong to suggest that my husband had not talked to me about this fact few days before.It is further wrong to suggest that in the evening of 9.9.11 I had not gone to attend the night shift to the hospital or that I made not call to accused about my husband.It is further wrong to suggest that I had not made call from my mobile to accused.It is correct that mobile number 8130504202 is not in my name.It is wrong to suggest that I had not made call to my all relatives about the whereabouts of my husband.I reached at Ganga Ram Colony at about 2.30/3 pm and remained there till dark but I cannot tell the exact time.Many public persons were there but they are at some distance from the spot.The Ganga Ram Colony is a residential colony and peoples were residing there.I do not know whether police has prepared any documents at the spot.It is correct that I do not remember the mobile number of accused Ranjit.My statement was recorded at the spot in the evening by the police but I cannot tell the exact time.I do not remember how I came back to my house as I was in semi conscious condition after seeing the dead body of my husband and Sikander might be accompanied me.CRL.A. 411/2018 Page 22 of 38CRL.A. 411/2018 Page 23 of 38CRL.A. 411/2018 Page 24 of 38PW-17 (Chander Shekhar) Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Limited, 224, Okhla Phase-II, New Delhi proved the call detail records of mobile phone No. 8130504202 which was used by PW-2 (Smt. Kiran Bharti).The witness in his examination-in-chief deposed as under:-The said request is Ex.PW17/A. The said call record is already exhibited as Ex.PW14/K. I have brought the record pertaining to the aforesaid mobile number.As per customer application form, the mobile No. 8130504202 was in the name of CRL.A. 411/2018 Page 25 of 38 Sh.The customer supplied Election Identity Card duly attested and signed by the customer.The customer application form is Ex.PW17/B which is duly attested by me at point A, B and C (original seen and returned).The Election Identity Card is Ex.PW17/C, which is duly attested by me at point A. I also took out the call detail record of the aforesaid mobile number dated 01.09.2012 to 10.09.2012 and brought the same, which is Ex.I have also brought the cell ID chart, same is Ex.PW17/F, which bears my signature at point A."The call data record corroborates the version of the PW-2 (Smt. Kiran Bharti) wherein she claimed that she called the accused in the evening of the date of the alleged incident i.e. 09.09.2012 to know the whereabouts of her husband whereby the accused 'stated that he had revealed the relation between me and him to my husband'.The testimony of the PW-2 (Smt. Kiran Bharti) further finds support from the Cell ID Chart (Ex. PW.17/F) which shows the location of the accused and PW-2 (Smt. Kiran Bharti) at their respective places.CRL.A. 411/2018 Page 27 of 38The testimonies of PW-2 (Smt. Kiran Bharti) revealed that she was not acceding to the one side inclination of love shown by the accused towards her which led to the commission of the alleged offence.Hence, the motive for committing the crime by the accused person stood established.The counsel for the appellant further argued that the investigation conducted by the police is defective and full of lacunas, as the investigating officer failed to get the CDR's of the phone of the appellant; that the prosecution failed to join any independent witness at the time of alleged recoveries at the instance of the accused person PW-1 (Sikandar) who had joined as a witness during the recovery is not CRL.A. 411/2018 Page 28 of 38 a reliable witness and his testimony is dented; the investigation officer failed to seize the lock and key of the house where the alleged incident is said to have taken place.As far as joining of independent witness is concerned, it is relevant to refer to the dicta of the Apex Court in Gian Chand & Ors vs State Of Haryana cited in AIR 2013 SC 3395 wherein it has been held that mere non-joining of an independent witness where the evidence of the prosecution witnesses may be found to be cogent, convincing, creditworthy and reliable, cannot cast doubt on the version forwarded by the prosecution, if there seems to be no reason on record to falsely implicate the appellants.
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
128,076,438
The administrator has since taken charge and he hasin the process of administering the estate filed the above reports.The reportshave been taken up today for hearing.The plaintiffs and defendant no.1 weredirected to hand over movable and immovable properties in their possessionand also take steps to identify properties forming part of the estate by makingnecessary enquiries in that behalf.Panday and his wife are the promoters of Amoha, looking after its dayto day affairs.Amoha had also its office at 31-C, Raja Bahadur Mansion,Ambalal Doshi Marg.The telephone number 30281941 is common to AmohaTraders and Jamsheed Panday and is also provided by defendant no.1 at theKotak Mahindra Bank.The telephone number 66341941 is common to CanosTrading and El Dorado Guarantee, and the telephone number 22642264 iscommon to Amoha Traders and Jamsheed Panday and El Dorado Guarantee.Another common link is the email id which bears the prefix"[email protected]" is used by Amoha, Canos, Arma, Allanzers Securities,El Dorado Residences and Alpic BBK Finance Ltd. which is since in liquidation.There are also hotel properties in Andheri and Vile Parle.Despite clearreferences to these documents and request, this is not been produced by thetrust.The statements made by the trustees including Mr. Lam have turned outto be incorrect.The trust has withheld documents and particulars.It hasprovided incomplete addresses from time to time the use of funds for charitablepurposes has not been established, the payments made for medical treatment ofnon parsis is also suspect.The involvement ofMr.RESERVED ON : 19 th July, 2018 PRONOUNCED ON : 21 st December 2018 ::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:18 ::: 2* AdmReport_1of 2016.odtJUDGMENT:-::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:18 :::The order appointing the Administratorhas since attained finality.Vide an order dated 24 th December, 2013the Administrator was directed to file the proceedings for recovery ofproperties and to engage Advocates and seek directions from this Court as andwhen necessary.The Administrator has since opened a bank account with theCentral Bank of India, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Mumbai (AdministrativeAccount).In this report, the administrator has sought the following reliefs:(a) direct the defendant no.1 to make available to the administrator ofdocument pertaining to flat no.8, Al-Karim Manzil, including papers pertaining ::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:18 ::: 3* AdmReport_1of 2016.odtto litigation in respect of the said flat;::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:18 :::(b) direct HSBC to furnish to the administrator copies of statements ofaccounts, details of account holders and authorized signatory relating to bankaccounts in the joint names of testator late Purvez Burjor Dalal and/or lateJamshed Burjor Dalal, brother of the testator and one B.J. Dhoodmal includingthe particulars of bank account to which certain sums of money had beentransferred from the account held in the HSBC by Jamshed and Purvez Dalal;(c) a direction to Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited (KMBL) to furnish details ofbank account to which sums have been transferred on 11 th April, 2012 and 24thMarch, 2012 from an account opened by defendant no.1 in the name of thedeceased;(d) to direct defendant no.1 and one Amoha Traders Pvt. Ltd. to furnish to theadministrator copies of documents and particulars relating to certain accountsreceived by the said company from an account opened by defendant no.1 in thename of deceased testator with KMBL Account;(e) a direction to the defendant no.1 and Amoha to pay over to theadministrator a sum of Rs.17,08,147/- received by Amoha from KMBL Accountwith interest thereon from 24 th March, 2012 till payment;(f) to direct defendant no.1 and trustees of one Avabai Hormasji CharitableTrust and Bai Avabai Hormusji Tata Trust to deliver to the administrator truecopies of documents relating to a sum of Rs.15 lakhs received by Avabai ::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:18 ::: 4* AdmReport_1of 2016.odtHormasji Charitable Trust on 11th April, 2012 from KMBL Account as alsocorrespondence relating thereto;::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:18 :::(g) a direction to defendant no.1 and trustees (the Trusts) to pay over to theadministrator a sum of Rs.15 lakhs along with interest thereon; andThe facts as they have transpired and which have prompted theadministrator to make this application have been canvassed by the learnedSenior Advocate appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs and by the Administrator.It was submitted on behalf of the plaintiffs that the administrator had madenumerous attempts to compile all the facts relating to the affairs of the deceasedand the suspected diversion of part of the estate by certain personal entities.It issubmitted by Mr. Khambata that the plaintiffs have learnt that the funds of the ::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:18 ::: 5* AdmReport_1of 2016.odtestate have been diverted inter alia to one Amoha Traders Pvt. Ltd. (Amoha) andone Bai Avabai Hormusji Tata Trust for Charitable Objects (the Trust).::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:18 :::It is the case of the applicant that Amoha along with one JamsheedMinocher Panday have conspired with defendant no.1 to siphon funds fromthe estate of the deceased.In the course of hearing of this Report, numerousorders have been passed by this Court leading to disclosures from time to time.The administratorprocured these and then learnt that another account had been opened by thedefendant in Yes Bank.The account in Yes Bank had not been disclosed earlieralthough the defendant no.1 was duty bound to disclose it.Although Mr.Panday's real name is Jamsheed Minocher Panday, he described differently atvarious places such as Jimmy Pandey, Jimmy Panday, J. M. Panday etc. Theplaintiffs believed that he is the architect of the conspiracy. ::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:18 :::::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:18 :::6* AdmReport_1of 2016.odtUpon scrutiny of the account of the estate held in Kotak Mahindra Bank,the administrator found that a sum of Rs.15 lakhs was paid to the Trust.The name of the trust has beendescribed differently at different stages.It was initially said to have been called"Bai Avabai Hormusjee Charitable Trust." The defendant no.1 claimed that thetrust was set up by the industrialist Naval Tata in the year 1954 in memory ofhis mother and that donations to the trust would qualify for exemption undersection 80G of the Income Tax Act. The trust was allegedly used to siphonaway funds from the estate.The donation is said to have been made by defendant no.1 to the trust but this isin violation of terms of the 2011 Will because the 2011 Will provides forutilizing the estate funds for meeting other expenses other than for obsequiesand income tax and other liabilities only after obtaining probate.Mr. Khambata therefore submitted that the estate could not have beenmade the donation to the trust.In this behalf, it is submitted that upon enquirymade as a result of numerous orders passed by the Court, the actual name ofthe trust was found to be "Bai Avabai Hormusji Tata Trust for Charitable ::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:18 ::: 7* AdmReport_1of 2016.odtObjects" and not Avabai Hormasjee Tata Charity Trust.This is attributed toattempts by the defendant no.1 to create confusion in order to prevent names oftrustees from being revealed.Khambata submitted that several documentsin relation to the trust have not yet been provided and are unlikely to beprovided unless this Court orders an investigation.The documents remainingto be disclosed by defendant no.1 are stated to include the following:::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:18 :::(i) Application seeking addition of Jamsheed Panday as trustee;(ii) Change Report and Application for change of address to 2B, Hamam House,Change Report Application and an order to add the name of Sudhakar Pai astrustee;(iii) Certificate under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act;(iv) Accounts of the trust prior to 2008;(v) Certificate under Section 12A dated 25 th September, 2012 and connectedpapers and the statement which refers to the name of trustee in an order dated28th August, 2017 passed by this Court.According to Mr. Khambata these are documents which find reference in therecords and there may be other documents, existence of which is not apparenttoday.The plaintiffs have also contended that the defendant has engaged infabrication of documents and an attempt to mislead the Court that in theaffidavit in reply dated 14th July, 2017 in response to the administrator's report,the defendant no.1 contended that the trust was set up as a public charitable ::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:18 ::: 8* AdmReport_1of 2016.odttrust by Mr. Naval Tata.According to the plaintiffs, defendant no.1 had madefalse statements.The documents revealed that the declaration of trust is dated3rd March, 1943 and although the trust contained reference to the name Tata itwas not set up by Naval Tata and Avabai Tata was not the mother of Naval Tataas incorrectly contended by defendant no.1 who has tried to pass off the trust asbeing associated with the well known house of Tatas.Defendant no.1 hasomitted to deal with documents annexed by the plaintiff which disprove theorigins of the trust as projected by defendant no.1,::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:18 :::Mr. Khambata submitted that Dady Lam who claims to be a trustee ofthe trust had also made a false statement on oath that the trust is a publiccharitable trust created by Naval Tata.This was false to his own knowledgesince in an affidavit of October 2011 the said Lam himself states that thedeclaration of the trust is the document creating and governing the affairs ofthe trust.The house of Tatas hasdenied any connection with the Bai Avabai Trust.In support of this contentionMr.Such a letterhead was allegedly created for thepurpose of this litigation.Mr. Khambata submitted that the trustees of the saidtrust have withheld details and documents from this Court for deliberatelycausing confusion as to their correct name till they were compelled to disclosethe same by the Court.Furthermore, in the letter dated 10 th November, 2016,Mr.Lam had described the trust incorrectly and also stated that the trust hadapplied for a change of address to 2B Hamam Street, Ambalal Doshi Marg, Fort,without specifying the name of the building.::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:18 :::It is further submitted that on or about 7 th October, 2016 the trusteessubmitted 828 pages said to be documents in support of their contention thatthe monies had been utilized by the trust for charity.Only a few of these, about12 in number, were relatable to the trust.Some of these documents are said tohave the name of the trust inserted by hand.Some pertain to persons of variouscommunities and considering that the trust was meant only for the benefit ofparsis and the fact that the trustees themselves had reiterated this aspect, thetransactions were suspect.The trustees did not produce receipts from thepurported beneficiaries.In this respect reference is made to correspondencewith the banks.The so called certificate under Section 80G of the Income TaxAct has still not been disclosed although defendant no.1 continues to contend ::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:18 ::: 10* AdmReport_1of 2016.odtthat the donations, made to the trust were entitled for tax benefits.Some of the amounts are saidto be paid for medical treatment of one Mr. Waghmare who is obviously notfrom the Parsi community.The name of the trustees were also suppressed andit is only after the challenge in the Supreme Court was rejected that thesenames were forthcoming.Till then the names of the trustees were suppressed.It is submitted that the trust had stopped since functioning by 2008 and sincethe relevant Will was to be executed in 2011 the trust was sought to be revived.::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:18 :::Mr. Khambata submitted that several events establish that the trust wassought to be revived for the purpose of fraudulent activities.In October 2011Mr.Lam, the trustee affirmed an affidavit in support of his change report to addthe name of Mr. Paowalla formerly the Director of Amoha Traders and the wifeand son of Jamsheed Panday as trustees.In November 2011, the said Mr. Lamfiled the change report to add Jamsheed Panday as well as a trustee.On 28 th January, 2012a resolution was purportedly passed to authorise Mr. Lam to apply for aduplicate registration certificate of the trust.The resolution did not mention ::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:18 ::: 11* AdmReport_1of 2016.odtthe then office bearers.In the application made the name of the trust is wronglymentioned and on 11th April, 2012 a donation is said to have been made to thetrust from the funds of the estate and the cheque was encashed.::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:18 :::Thus, Mr. Khambata submitted that the trust was sought to be activatedonly the for purposes of siphoning away the funds of the estate.The defendantno.1 and the trustees have fabricated and used false evidence by creating aletterhead of a non-existent trust for the purposes of the litigation and in anattempt to make it difficult to trace the whereabouts of the Trust.The matter has nevertheless been contested on behalf of the saidMr.Lam and others despite being put to notice of this fact.As far as Amoha Traders is concerned, it is submitted that the bankstatement of Kotak Mahindra reveals that the defendant no.1 had paid a sum ofRs.17,08,147/- to Amoha on or around 24 th March, 2012 when the estate wasin medio.The telephone no.022-30281941 given to the Bank by defendantno.1 was also used by Amoha Traders and was registered in the name of thesaid Panday.The email-id provided by defendant no.1 was also that of Amoha ::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:19 ::: 12* AdmReport_1of 2016.odtand the mobile number given on by defendant no.1 is that of Darayus Paowallawho was Director of Amoha Traders.The said Paowalla is also a trustee of theBai Avabai Trust.The Account Opening Form reveals, that defendant no.1 hadinstructed the bank to provide daily balance updates to the aforesaid email-idand mobile number although he is claiming to be executor of the 2011 Will.Khambata submitted that in his affidavit dated 24 th April, 2018 defendantno.1 had stated that Amoha had acted as the introducer of the bank accountand that he was not operating any email account.He further contended that hehad provided to the bank his contact details as that of Amoha since Amohamaintained a running office and communications could be received from thebank.::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:19 :::Mr. Khambata further submitted that so called loans amounting toRs.27,92,147/- were given by Amoha, despite the contest to the Will, to meet itsexpenses of the estate through a nominated entity.Mr. Daroowala is said to beinvolved in the grant of the alleged loan although he shown to be a minorshareholder of Amoha.Although it is contended that defendant no.1 had repaida sum of Rs.17,08,147/- on behalf of the estate it would still leave a sum ofRs.10,84,000/- due, Amoha had not claimed this amount despite filing of theaffidavits and had avoided service of letters issued by the administrator.Defendant no.1 is liable personallysince Amoha was not a creditor of the estate.This conduct has to be viewed inthe light of the fact that the estate was in medio at all material times and in thisview of the matter both Amoha and defendant no.1 are jointly and severallyliable to repay the amount.I may observe here that although I have heard thelearned counsel appearing for the defendants and the respondents includingAmoha at no time was any offer made to "repay" the said sum ofRs.10,84,000/-.::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:19 :::For theperiod 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 the average loss was 4.60 lakhs acrossthese years.The balance sheets do not reflect any loans or advances given toany party and the only loan shown in the Directors report of Amoha is to oneVaseem Kapadia and Jaya S. Pai wife of Sudhakar Pai trustee of the Bai AvabaiTrust and a friend and business associate of the said Panday.This is clearly ::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:19 ::: 14* AdmReport_1of 2016.odtindicative of the fact that defendant no.1 had made a wrong statement on oathto the effect that loans were given by Amoha to the estate to the extent ofRs.27,92,147/-.Referring to documents relied upon by Amoha in the affidavitdated 7th August, 2017, Mr. Khambata submitted that cash payments ofRs.11,09,976/- were made to Safe Security Services and a total sum ofRs.17,08,147/- is said to have been paid by Amoha on behalf of the estate.Cancellations were made on invoices of professional fees paidto reflect the name of "PBD matter" which are the initials of the testator.Probatefees of Rs.2000/- was allowed to be paid for the probate petition andRs.75,027.50 as probate court fees.This amount shown in particulars of invoicehad been blacked out and the words "Printing and Stationery" have beeninserted.Legal fees paid do not appear to be connected with the estate.AChartered Accountant has certified as Amoha had incurred Rs.17,08,147/- onbehalf of the estate and had received reimbursement thereof.The certificate isissued on the basis of alleged "verification of books and information andexplanation provided by the representative of the company" but the name ofthe representative is conspicuous by its absence.The information andexplanations referred to by the Chartered Accountant has also not beendisclosed in the affidavits filed by Amoha.::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:19 :::::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:19 :::::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:19 :::Ltd. and owned about 75% issued shares of Amoha Traders.Khambata submitted thatwithin a fortnight of the demise of the testator, the said Panday has signed as awitness in a purported letter of possession dated 21 st December, 2011 by whichdefendant no.1 is believed to have handed over possession of flat no.8 in AlKarim building to one Vaseem Kapadia.That transaction has been held by thisCourt to be illegal.The fact that the said Panday was attending to matters ofthe estate was evident from the letters dated 18 th January, 2012 and 2ndFebruary, 2012 disclosed at Exhibit UU page 1006 of the affidavit dated 7 thAugust, 2017 filed by Amoha.Mr. Khambata stated that thesaid Panday and Amoha were receiving updates from Kotak Mahindra on adaily basis.On 15th March, 2012 defendant no.1 is stated to have made an inventory ::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:19 ::: 16* AdmReport_1of 2016.odtat the residence of the deceased.Panday along with Dhoodhmal and IrfanKhan were present.Panday is believed to have acted for the estate even inSeptember 2014 viz. even after the injunction order and the appointment of theadministrator.This according to Mr. Khambata appears from the letter dated22nd June, 2015 addressed to the administrator by one Rohit Shinde a personwho said to be a tenant of a bungalow belonging to the estate of the deceasednamed "Lovedale".The telephone number provided in the said communicationis standing in the name of Amoha Traders having its office at 31-C, 3 rd floor,Rajabahadur Mansion, 32 Ambalal Doshi Marg, Fort, Mumbai-4000 001,which address is also used by El Dorado Guarantee, the promoter of KratosEnergy (Kratos).There are also references made to one Gheewala in the letter and also theinitials "PG" in numerous documents."PG" appears to be the said PervezGheewala.The Kapadia named in ::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:19 ::: 17* AdmReport_1of 2016.odtthe records of Amoha Traders appears to be the same person who is said tohave bought flat no.8 in Al Karim Manzil for Rs.75 lakhs.::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:19 :::::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:19 :::Kratos shares thesame phone number as Amoha Traders which stands in the name of Jimmy1 AIR 1987 Patna 239(FB) ::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:19 ::: 18* AdmReport_1of 2016.odtPanday.The annual report of Kratos is said to contained reference to establishthat Amoha Traders, Arma Financial and Canos Trading are related parties andassociated companies.Furthermore, the plaintiffs have recently discovered thatCanos Trading Ltd., was used as a means for creating liability in the name ofthe estate and to siphon away the estate funds.This is sought to be establishedby Mr. Khambata by submitting that defendant no.1 along with three others areshareholders in Canos Trading hold one percent.Defendant no.1 holds onepercent as a shareholder of Canos along with three others.One Ms. Firozi Patel whois stated to be the wife of Irfan Khan holds 50% of shares in Amoha and is aDirector in Canos Trading.The balance 39% is said to be held by one NikhilShah.The registered office of Canos Trading is at 2B Hamam House and whichaddress was used by the trust and which the trustee Mr. Lam proposed as anew address of the Bai Avabai Trust.Canos Trading also has its correspondenceaddress at Rajabahaur Mansion address which is also shared by Amoha Traders.Further for the year ended December2016 a further loan of Rs.47,62,383/- is shown to be given to Purvez Dalal.The closing balance in the Directors Report of Canos Trading showed an ::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:19 ::: 19* AdmReport_1of 2016.odtamount of Rs.1,17,22,959/- as being due from the deceased testator.It is submitted by Mr. Khambata that these facts have now beendiscovered upon a search being carried out by the plaintiffs and none of theseaspects have been denied by the defendant no.1 or the respondents or dealtwith while making submissions.::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:19 :::::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:19 :::Khambata submitted that in the plaintiffs affidavit dated 17 thJanuary, 2017 it was pointed out that defendant no.1 was a shareholder ofCanos and had filed an affidavit in reply dated 24 th April, 2018 wherein, whiledealing with paragraph 44 defendant no.1 contended that he was not aware ofthe contents and hence did not comment upon the same.Defendant no.1 had ::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:19 ::: 20* AdmReport_1of 2016.odtfiled an affidavit dated 19 th June, 2018 in which he has admitted that he holdsshares in Canos and that he had received Rs.1,17,22,959/- who claims to havereceived as a personal loan and has attempted to explain away the Director'sReport as "incorrect" and an "error" relying upon the purported CharteredAccountants certificate.Incidentally thecertificate issued by J. C. Desai & Co. is issued upon verification of books ofaccounts and other relevant records as produced before the CharteredAccountants by Canos Trading and on the basis of verification and explanationprovided by the company.No documents which are said to have been verifiedhave been referred to.It was further submitted that defendant no.1 has statedthat he has annual income of Rs.5 to 10 lakhs in his affidavit dated 17 thJanuary, 2017 and it is inconceivable that Canos could give a loan of Rs.1.17crores to defendant no.1 who admittedly was a man of moderate means ofwhich this makes it obvious that defendant no.1 was creating liabilities in thename of late testator and siphoning the amounts in cahoots with others even ::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:19 ::: 21* AdmReport_1of 2016.odtwhen the property is custodia legis.::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:19 :::::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:19 :::Apropos the connection between defendant no.1, the said Panday andhis various companies under his control and the trust, Mr. Khambata pointedout that 2B Hamam House, Hamam Street has been the office of Amoha Traders,Jamsheed Panday, Canos Trading, El Dorado Guarantee, Lakshmi VijayamInvestments, Great Western Finance and the trust also had its office at the sameplace.He has taken me through the various affidavits from which these factsemerge.Panday is also Director of Lakshmi Vijayam Investments, GreatWestern Finance and along with his wife they have 75% shareholding inAmoha.The email address "[email protected]" is thus used by Arma, El Dorado ::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:19 ::: 22* AdmReport_1of 2016.odtSecurities, Pirojsha Consultants, El Dorado Guarantee, Great Oaks Holdings,Lakshmi Vijayam Investments and Great Western Finance and Leasing.Thesefacts have been gathered from the plaintiffs affidavit dated 16 th May, 2018.The Defendant no.1 or the others have not disputed these statements in theplaintiffs affidavit.::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:19 :::Mr. Khambata took me through the said orders.These orders refer to the said Panday described as "Jimmy Panday" and it2 (2017) 8 SCC 5923 (1986) 1 SCC 133 ::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:19 ::: 23* AdmReport_1of 2016.odtappears that Panday was adjudicated insolvent is reflected in order dated 3rdFebruary, 2009 of the Madras High Court.::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:19 :::Revival of the Bai Avabai Trust and fabrication of letter heads andreceipts leads one to believe that the trust is being used for the purposes ofreceiving kick backs and the true nature of the trust has to be ascertained.There are immovable properties in Manmad, Bachav and Nasik some of themhaving machinery.Every High Court as a court of record has power to punishthe contempt of itself.::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:19 :::The HighCourts have unlimited jurisdiction including to determine their own powers.A suit would have to be filed.Theplaintiff was entitled to file his own proceeding and so was the administrator.::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:19 :::He referred to the letter dated 10 th April,2015 addressed by the administrator to the then Advocate for defendant no. 1in response to the letter dated 26 th December, 2014 and 12 th December, 2014and submitted that copies of all documents received from Kotak Mahindra Bankwere provided.He further submitted that all invoices were also provided and itis material to note that the administrator has not contended that the documentsor any of them were fabricated.He submitted that the deceased had transactions with variousparties as seen from the Bank statement received from HSBC.::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:19 :::::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:19 :::The applicant Tewari filed a revision application challenging the judgment andhis nephew Girja Prasad Tewari also filed revision against the same judgment ::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:19 ::: 45* AdmReport_1of 2016.odtsince both revision applications involved a common question they were decidedby a common judgment.He relied upon an affidavit of the defendant no.1 dated 21 stNovember, 2012 and the exhibits to the said affidavit on behalf of defendantno.1 he denied that defendant no.1 was at fault and adopted the contents of theaffidavit to the exception relevant.::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:19 :::Thus effectively as far as Mr. Dani's clients are concerned, he submitted thatthe petitioners seek disclosure of payment of monies received by Amoha.Hesubmitted that the administrator will have to file a title suit for the money nowsought to be recovered.Mr. Dani submitted that there are conflicting issues and thereforereliance under Section 193 of the Succession Act cannot be sought that thenotice concerned was responding to an administrator's report and the plaintiff ::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:19 ::: 49* AdmReport_1of 2016.odtcannot make enquiries against other persons who are not claiming the estate.Mr. Dani relied upon the decisions of this court in Rupali Mehta(Supra) and Ramchandra v/s Vithalrao 2011 (4) Mh L J 50 in support ofhis aforesaid contentions.::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:19 :::::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:19 :::Submissions of Mr.Apte for the TrustOn behalf of Avabai Trust, Mr.Apte adopted that all the legal submissionsmade by Mr. Dani he invited my attention to the order dated 23 rd June, 2017and submitted only prayers (e) and (g) survive and therefore no investigation assought can be ordered.He submitted that the executor has made the donation.He invited my attention to affidavit dated 15 th July, 2017 and 4th June, 2018 ::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:19 ::: 51* AdmReport_1of 2016.odtfiled on behalf of (Bai Avabai Hormusji Tata Trust for Charitable Objects).::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:19 :::Reference was made to the method of payment as also the fact that thereis no written application in relation to the payments made to Waghmare.No account books were produced and thereis nothing to co-relate the amount of Rs.15 lakhs of the expenses from the dateof receipt of the amount till the money was spent.Mr. Thacker on behalf of defendant no.1 had submitted in this respect thatWaghmare did not have funds.Defendant no.1 paid the hospital and hereceived reimbursement.The defendant and noticees have failed this test.Despite that he continues to be obstructive despiteopportunities to come clean.::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:20 :::In Sita Ram (supra) , the Supreme Court directed the Central Bureau ofInvestigation to nominate a senior officer to conduct an inquiry into thecircumstances in which the respondent therein was admitted to privatehospital.This was a case of Contempt of Court wherein the hospital authoritiesknowingly assisted the respondent accused in evading arrest.The Court foundthat the circumstances under which the respondent continued to evade arrestby the police on account of his prolonged admission to hospital led the Court tohold a prima facie that an appropriate enquiry is called for to bring the truth tolight especially with a view to ascertain whether the hospital had become veryprivy to the attempt of the respondent to avoid arrest and therefore, the CentralBureau of Investigation directed to nominate a senior officer to conduct anenquiry.::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:20 :::Thus, under Section 194 the Courtcould summon the defaulting party and determine summarily, the right ofpossession.In the case at hand, I have no doubt that the defendant/noticees ::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:20 ::: 74* AdmReport_1of 2016.odthave been non-cooperative and such behaviour, despite appointment of theAdministrator is causing material prejudice to the estate and the administrationof justice.::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:20 :::::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:20 :::In particular the involvement of Amoha Traders and its various directorsand companies under the same set of persons leads me to believe that role of theAvabai Hormasji Tata Charity Trust requires to be thoroughly probed.Jamshed Pandey and defendant no.1's proximity to Mr. Pandey's and his ::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:20 ::: 86* AdmReport_1of 2016.odtcompanies and the involvement of various other persons.The defendant/noticees have had opportunities to explain thesediscrepancies.::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:20 :::::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:20 :::I am of the view that an independent investigation is required to becarried out as to the scope of the investigation, after the complaintcontemplated in this order is filed, it would be for the investigating agency toseek appropriate directions from this court time to time should the need soarise.It was possible toappreciate such contention had there been a complete and fair disclosure butthe fact that even though the Administrator was appointed in 2013 severalquestionable transactions have come to light as dealt with elsewhere in thisorder, it would be appropriate that a enquiry be conducted so as to leave nostone unturned.I therefore pass the following order;::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:20 :::::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:20 :::be filed and provide the draft complaint to the Prothonotary and Senior Masterwithin a period of four weeks from today.(II) Upon the draft complaint being lodged and subject to scrutiny of itscontents the Prothonotary and Senior Master shall forward the complaint onbehalf of the Administrator to the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai who shallnominate a suitable team of officers to initiate an investigation into thecomplaint and the affairs of deceased Purvez Burjor Dalal.The progress of theinvestigation after it commences shall be reported to the Prothonotary andSenior Master on a fortnightly basis.(III) The Prothonotary and Senior Master is at liberty to seek appropriateclarifications from this Court.(IV) This Report shall be listed for further hearing after eight weeks.(A. K. MENON, J.)wadhwa ::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:49:20 :::
['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,280,889
The prosecution case is as follows :On May 25, 1999 at about 1.00 p.m., Chuttu @Nizamuddin (PW-5) lodged a Parcha Bayan (Ex.P-12) beforethe Police Sub-Inspector of Kotwali, Tonk inter-alia statingthat at about 12.30 in the noon he along with Saleem (PW-7)and Noor (PW-13) were getting a truck repaired at RajasthanTyrewala near Roadways Depot, Tonk.One Mohamaad Deen@ Mulla (deceased) came at the shop of Ayub Bhai (PW-6).All of a sudden about 10-12 persons equipped with deadlyweapons such as gupties, swords, knives and gandasas camethere and surrounded the deceased.Javed Masood (A.1),Syed Najeeb Hassan (A.2), Ashraf and Aziz were armed withgupties and others were equipped with swords and knives.Javed Masood inflicted blow with gupti on the chest of thedeceased, Najeeb and others inflicted blows on neck, face andback.One Gullo and Sadiqque gave blows with swords onhands of deceased.Thereafter the assailants fled away fromthe scene of occurrence under the impression thatMohammad Deen @ Mulla was dead.Meanwhile police patrolvan reached at the spot and removed the deceased to the 3hospital where he was declared dead.While the deceased was sitting in the shop he went into the basement of the shop to find as to any old tyres were available to sell as requested by the deceased and when he returned to the shop the deceased was not found in the shop.Then he found crowd in the street parallel to his shop and went to the place to know as to what transpired and found the deceased was lying overturned completely soaked in blood.B. Sudershan Reddy, J :This appeal pursuant to the special leave granted isdirected against the concurrent judgments.The two appellants were tried for offences punishable under Sections 147, 323, 324, 302 of IPC.The trial court convicted both of them for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 201 and 302 IPC.On appeal, the High Court, however, confirmed the sentences awarded against the appellants for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the IPC while setting aside the conviction of the 2 appellants of the charges under Sections 201 and 148 IPC.On the basis of ParchaBayan, the FIR No.184/99 (Ex.P-48) was registered andinvestigation commenced.On completion of investigation,charge-sheet was filed against the appellants andinvestigation was kept pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.against the rest of the individuals named in the Parcha Bayan.The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as33 witnesses and got marked certain documents and materialobjects in evidence.The appellants denied the charges andclaimed trial.The trial court accepted the prosecution case and convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated above.The trial court held that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants and held them guilty of having entered into a criminal conspiracy, unlawful assembly and committing murder of the deceased.The High court, however, confirmed the conviction of the appellants only under Section 302 IPC and acquitted them of the rest of the charges.In the appeal before the High Court and as well as before us, it was contended on behalf of the defence that the 4 incident took place out of acute enmity.The evidence of highly interested eye-witness should be rejected as there is likelihood of implicating some innocent persons.Shri Amarender Sharan, learned senior counsel, inter-alia, submitted that the presence of alleged eye-witnesses at the scene of offence is highly doubtful and no reliance can be placed on their evidence.He relied on the evidence of Mohammad Ayub-PW-6 and police personnel-Laxmi Narayan-PW-29, Suresh Kumar-PW-18 and Ranjeet Singh- PW-30 in this regard.The learned counsel appearing for the State supported the judgment under appeal.As has been rightly held by the courts below that the death of Mohammad Deen @ Mulla was homicide in nature.As per post-mortem report (Ex.P-43) following ante mortem injuries were found on the dead body:Incised wound 1" x =" sub cut deep right parietal posteriorpart, ellipticalIncised wound 1" x =" pharyngeal cavity deep ellipticalvertical bleeding + Rt.carotid region ant.to ear lobule.Incised wound =" x <" muscle deep on Rt.parotid regionanterior to injury No. 2 vertical elliptical.Contusion 3" x 2" lt.forehead above lt. eye brow withblack eye.Incised wound 1" x 1/8" sub cut elliptical 1=" lateral to eyeon face right vertical.Incised wound elliptical 1=" x =" muscle deep on upper1/3rd forearm Lt. vertical.Incised wound elliptical 1=" x =" muscle deep on lt. armupper 1/3 vertical.Penetrating incised wound 1=" x =" Rt. chest cavity deep2" above & =" medial to right nipple on anterior right chestwall elliptical, directing down & medial aspect.Penetrating incised wound 1=" x =" chest cavity deepelliptical, oblique 1<" medial to injury No. 8 giving downward& laterally on ant.chest wall (Rt.)Incised wound 1=" x >" muscle deep elliptical obliquedirection medial & lateral aspect Rt.lower chest mammaryline interiorly.Penetrating Incised wound 1=" x =" abdominal cavitydeep on left hypochondrium on abdominal wall ellipticalobliquely placed 2" below sub costal Lt. marg & 2" lt.lateralto mid line.Incised wound =" x 1/8" sub cuticle 4=" below left nippletransverse elliptical.Abrasion 3 No. 2=", 2", 1" linear oblique each parallel toeach other 4" lat. & above to umblicus on lt.Incised wound 4" x =" muscle oblique above down 2"lateral to (Rt.nipple, on Rt.chest anterior lat.)Incised wound 1=" x <" muscle deep ellipticalhorizontally in mid axillary region (right).Penetrating Incised wound 1=" x =" chest cavity deepRt.mid axillary region =" below injury No. 15, ellipticalvertical bleeding.Incised wound 1=" x =" x scapular deep horizontalelliptical Rt.back chest inter scapular region.Incised wound 1<" x <" muscle deep left to mid line ofback on chest vertical ellipticalIncised wound 1<" x <" muscle deep transverse =" rightmedial to mid line on Rt.back of chestIncised wound =" x <" muscle deep on left lower to chestback in lower part elliptical horizontal.Abrasion (three) <" x <" each three No. number Rt.Abrasion (two) <" x <" on left knee joint.The cause of death according to the medical opinion was due to the excessive haemorrhage on account of injuries caused to right lung and liver.The injuries found on the chest were penetrating in nature.The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the courts below committed any manifest error in relying on the evidence of Chuttu (PW-5), Noor (PW-13) and Rayees (PW-14) to convict the appellants for the charge under Section 302 IPC.Chuttu (PW-5) who lodged the FIR is an important witness.He more or less confirmed in the examination-in-chief as to what has been stated by him in Parcha Bayan (Ex.P-12).He specifically alleged that Javed Masood (A.1) inflicted gupti blow on the chest of the deceased and Najeeb (A.2) had inflicted with gupti on abdomen and chest.It is in his evidence that the occurrence was witnessed by Husain (PW-4), Rayees (PW-14) and Ayub Bhai Tyrewala (PW-6).He stated that while assault was going on the deceased he remained shouting and no one came to rescue the deceased.Meanwhile, a white coloured police gypsy arrived at the scene of offence in which the deceased was removed to hospital where Mullaji was declared dead.He admitted that police gypsy reached just after two minutes of occurrence.He also admitted that there was an enmity 8 between him and the appellants as Javed Masood lodged a case against him and PW 14 and others.The evidence of Ayub Bhai (PW-6) is very crucial.It is in his evidence that on the fateful day the deceased alone had come on a motorcycle to his shop at about 12.30 p.m. to repay an old debt.The deceased requested for sale of some more tyres on credit basis to which he refused.There was conversation for about 15 minutes in that regard.He had died at the place of occurrence.Within 5-10 minutes the police came in gypsy and removed the body to hospital in gypsy.It is specifically stated in his evidence that PW-5-Chuttu who is none other than the brother of the deceased came to the spot after 10 minutes of the removal of the dead body and 9 enquired from him regarding the occurrence and he informed that the police took him to the hospital.He also stated in his evidence that he has not given the names of any individuals to the police in as much as he had not seen the actual occurrence of the incident.It is also in his evidence that immediately after the incident he telephoned to one Habib with a request to communicate the message to Chuttu about the occurrence.He repeatedly stated that Chuttu (PW-5), Noor (PW-13), Saleem (PW-7) and Rayees (PW-14) were not present when the police kept the dead body of Mullaji (deceased) in gypsy.He also explained that there was no need for him to send any telephonic message had they been present at the scene of occurrence.This witness did not support the prosecution case.He was not subjected to any cross-examination by the prosecution.His evidence remained unimpeached.11.The evidence of Noor (PW-13) and Rayees (PW-14) is more or less the same as of PW-5 and therefore no detailed discussion is required about their evidence.Suresh Kumar (PW-18) is a Police Constable who along with driver Ranjit Singh (PW-30) went in the gypsy to the 10spot and lifted the injured person into gypsy to take himto the hospital.He stated in his evidence that at that timeexcept himself, driver Ranjit Singh (PW-30) and CircleInspector nobody else was present.He specifically statedthat Chuttu (PW-5), Rayees (PW-14) and Noor (PW-13)were not present at the place of occurrence at the timewhen he reached the scene of offence.Laxshami Narayan(PW-29) is another Policeman who corroborated theevidence of Constable Suresh Kumar (PW-18) stating thathe and Constable Suresh Kumar and driver Ranjit Singh(PW-30) kept the body of the injured (deceased) in thegypsy and went to Sahadat hospital.There was crowdnear the injured person but no relative of deceased waspresent.In the same manner Ranjit Singh (PW-30) driverof the gypsy corroborated the evidence of PW-18 and PW-29 stating that no one was present when they have liftedthe body from the scene of occurrence and placed thesame in gypsy.All of them were police personnel and onduty at the relevant time.There is no reason for them todepose falsely.It is nobody's case that PWs 6, 27, 29 and30 are not independent witnesses.There is no reason to 11disbelieve the evidence of PW-6 and no valid reason hasbeen suggested as to why his evidence cannot be relied onand taken into consideration.The evidence of PW-6, if itis to be taken into consideration, makes the presence ofPWs 5, 13 and 14 highly doubtful at the scene ofoccurrence.We do not find any reason whatsoever todiscard the evidence of PW-6 who is an independentwitness.He was not present at the actual scene of offencewhen the deceased was subjected to attack even thoughPW-5, in his evidence stated as if PW-6 was also present atthe time of attack.But PW-6 in categorical terms stated, bythe time he went to the scene of offence within a couple ofminutes, the deceased was lying dead in a pool of bloodand neither PW-5 nor PWs 13 and 14 were present at thescene of offence.PW-5 is none other than the brother ofdeceased and a highly interested witness whose evidencewas required to be carefully scrutinised and precisely forthat reason we have looked into the evidence of PW-5 withcare and caution.The testimony of Mohammad Ayub (PW-6) cannot easily be surmounted by the prosecution.He hastestified in clear terms that PWs 5, 13 and 14 were not 12 present at the scene of occurrence.It is not known as to why the public prosecutor in the trial court failed to seek permission of the court to declare him "hostile".The Doctor was not declared "hostile".The High Court, however, convicted the accused.None of them was speaking truth.
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,280,891
The same is under challenge in his appeal.The prosecution case in nut-shell was as follows :-He cleared through Emigration and Custom check.The Appellant was having 2 bags.No contraband was found in it.The Appellant was further questioned by P.W. 1 Mr. Norman D'Souga, Custom Officer.The Appellant thereupon pointed out one brown colour zipper hand bag Article 3 which was on the Conveyor Belt.Immediately thereafter he removed a small piece of paper - baggage claim tag - from his pant pocket and swallowed it.He also rushed and pulled out baggage tag of the checked-in-bag Article 3 and ran away jumping on the conveyor belt.He ran towards the basement on the ground floor and disappeared.A search was conducted with the help of security staff and fire brigade staff and using search lights.After about 2 hours he was found hidden in bushes at the air port.While hiddening in the bushes at the air port, he swallowed baggage tag.He was brought to Department loungue and identified the checked in baggage lying on the Conveyor belt he was asked to produce the travel documents.Appellant produced pass-port, air ticket and boarding card.He was asked to open the bag.Appellant opened it with the key possessed by him.It contained 159 stapler boxes.Out - of them 69 contained brown powder in polythene bags.Preliminary test revealed it to be a psychotropic substance - amphatemine.Powder was collected.It weighted 10.175 Kg.6 representative samples of 15 grams each were taken for chemical test.This was done under Panchanama.The remaining bulk was duly packed/sealed, labelled.Appellant was arrested and produced before a Magistrate on 11-8-1987 at 3.30 p.m. On 12-8-1987 he was sent to Jail Hospital as he was suffering from bronchitis and Hernia.On 24-8-1987 Appellant filed bail application admitting seizure from him but stating that contraband belonged to one Mr. John, his Nigerian friend, who told him that the bag contained Vitamin powder and if he carries the same to Addis Ababa, he would be paid 5000 Naira.He was then taken in the judicial custody.Again on 31-8-1987 bail application was filed claiming bail on the ground that he was suffering from Hernia and requires treatment.Story of John was repeated and complaint of assault was made for the first time.On 7-9-1987 confessional statement was retracted by him.On 3-9-1987 sanction Exh. 29 under Section 137 of Customs Act was granted and complaint Exh. 30 came to be filed on 7-9-1987 by P.W. 7 Shri Kannan Sekar.On 7-9-1987 learned Magistrate issued the process.On 28-9-1987 committal order came to be passed.On 26-9-1987 samples were sent to C.A. for analysis.The C.A. report (Exh. 25) dated 4-1-1988 was received.The Appellant defended himself by contending that he has been falsely implicated in the crime by the Customs Officers.He was apprehended from the passengers' hall at Sahar Air Port.He has not checked in.He was straightway taken from the said hall to the office of Air Intelligence Unit and came to be implicated.He denied that Article 3 bag was belonging to him.He also denied that he made voluntary statement before the Customs Officers.He stated that he was assaulted and forced to put the signatures on some papers.Prosecution examined P.W. 1 Norman D'Souza Preventive Officer, Bombay Customs, to prove search and seizure under seal No. P.O. 222 carried out by him.P.W. 3 Mr. Vasant R. Hublikar, Superintendent of Customs is examined to prove that search and seizure was carried out under his supervision and appellant made the statement before him on 11-8-1987 Exh. 21 voluntarily.He mentioned that Lab Entry 883-884/Seizure dated 26-11-1987 and its memo Exh. 25 dated 4-1-1988 was received by him.There was violation of Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure.Panchanama Exh. 5 and the statement Exh. 21 were contemporaneous documents.(a) if a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties or a Court has made the complaint;Hence we reject this contention.Hence the following order :-The appeal is partly allowed.Appeal partly allowed.
['Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
126,912,942
C.C. as per rules.(S.K. GANGELE) JUDGE MISHRAHeard on I.A. No. 19889/2015, which is an application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant during the pendency of this appeal.The appellant has been convicted vide impugned judgment dated 12/08/2014 passed in Sessions Trial No. 365/2012 for the offence punishable under Section 307/149, 148 and 506-2 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for five years, one year & one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, Rs. 500/- & Rs. 500/- respectively with default stipulation.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is in jail since 12/08/2015 and the allegation against the appellant is that he had caused injuries by Katta on the palm of the complainant.The appellant had deposited the fine amount.It is further submitted by him that final disposal of this appeal would take considerable time.Hence, he prays for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application.It is further directed that on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousands only) along with one solvent surety of like amount to the satisfaction of CJM, Damoh, the appellant be released on bail with further direction to appear before the Registry of this Court on 16.03.2016 and also on all subsequent dates as are fixed by the Registry in this regard till disposal of this appeal.
['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
126,927,129
A2, wherein, the respondent/plaintiff has stating that he was ready and willing to pay the balance of sale consideration of Rs.1,50,000/-.However, the appellant/defendant was not ready, hence, he issued a notice demanding the appellant/defendant to perform his part of contract.He had to execute the sale deed after receiving the balance of sale consideration at Rs.1,50,000/- from the respondent/plaintiff.The Appellant/Defendant filed his written statement stating that there was no agreement of sale between himself and the respondent/plaintiff as alleged in the plaint and according to him, it is a false and fabricated document and the defendant had never agreed to sell his property and received part of sale consideration Rs.50,000/- and agreed to receive Rs.1,50,000/- as balance of sale consideration on or before 10.01.2004 and to execute sale deed.On verifying the original, Ex.Hence, the agreement could have been a registered document, as required by law.The appellant / defendant in his proof affidavit has stated that on 06.11.2002, he executed only a registered power of attorney deed in favour of the respondent / plaintiff, believing the assurance given by the respondent to sell the property of the appellant for a reasonable fair price, however, he has not executed unregistered agreement, Ex.Subsequently, there was village panchayat convened and as decided by the panchayatdars, the appellant / defendant paid Rs.50,000/- to the respondent / plaintiff and also cancelled the power of attorney deed executed by him in favour of the respondent / plaintiff.According to the appellant, the respondent / plaintiff had handed over the signed receipt, Ex.B.1 to the appellant, however, the respondent did not hand over his signed papers saying that the said papers were in the custody of his wife, who had gone to some other village and gave assurance that the same would be returned to the appellant, after her arrival.However, by using the papers containing signatures and thumb impressions in the stamp paper and other papers, the respondent / plaintiff created Ex.A.1, unregistered agreement.S.Arunagiri and one Ahmed Hussain, s/o.Syed Haseem Saheeb are stated as attestors to the document.The first attestor, Mannankatti was not examined as witness in the suit.The second attestor, Ahmed Hussain was examined as P.W.3, however, in his cross-examination, he has admitted only his signature in Ex.The signature alone was admitted by P.W.3 and as per the document, Ex.B.1, on 27.03.2003, the respondent / plaintiff received Rs.50,000/- from the appellant / defendant, as decided by village panchayatdars, holding that the amount had been paid by the respondent / plaintiff on 10.02.2002, as part of sale consideration.The appellant / defendant, who was examined as D.W.1 has deposed that Rs.50,000/- was paid by him to the respondent / plaintiff and for receiving the amount, the document, Ex.B.1 was executed by the respondent / plaintiff, wherein the respondent / plaintiff affixed his signature and Left hand thumb impression (LTI) in the present of witnesses.In the said document, Ex.B.1, three witnesses have been signed including P.W.3, who has admitted his signature.The Second Appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree, dated 30.01.2008 passed in A.S.No.50 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Villupuram, reversing the Judgment and Decree, dated 30.03.2006 passed in O.S.No.112 of 2003 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kallkurichi.It is seen that the suit was filed by the respondent herein against the appellant, seeking specific performance of the contract, delivery of possession and other consequential relief.After the trial, the suit was decreed, directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- with costs, in lieu of specific performance and further, held that the plaintiff is entitled to interest for the said amount, Rs.50,000/- at the rate of 6% per annum from 10.01.2002 till the date of realisation.By Judgment, dated 30.01.2008, the appellate Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court, directing the defendant to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, who is the respondent herein with other consequential relief and costs.Aggrieved by which, the defendant in the suit has preferred this second appeal.This second appeal has been admitted on the following Substantial Questions of Law:The respondent/plaintiff has averred that he had entered into an agreement of sale with the appellant/defendant on 10.01.2002 in respect of purchasing the suit schedule property for a total sale consideration of Rs.2 lacs.Out of which, a sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid as advance and part of sale consideration on the date of the agreement, 10.01.2002 and as per the terms of agreement, the respondent/plaintiff should pay the balance of sale consideration at Rs.1,50,000/- to the appellant/defendant on or before 10.01.2004 and get sale deed executed and registered at his own costs.He has further stated that Murugan, the respondent/plaintiff was doing real estate business, he approached the appellant/defendant and told that he would get a reasonable amount for his land as sale consideration and asked the defendant to execute a General Power of Attorney deed in his favour.Believing the words and the assurance given by the respondent/plaintiff, the appellant/defendant executed a General power of attorney deed and also signed in non-judicial stamps paper and other papers, as requested by the respondent/plaintiff, however the respondent/plaintiff did not done anything as assured by him, hence, the appellant/first defendant cancelled the power of attorney deed and also lodged a complaint against the respondent herein before Thiyagadurugam Police Station on 23.03.2003 and a case was registered in Cr.No.96 of 2003 under Sections 467, 294 (b) and 506 (ii) of IPC against the respondent / plaintiff and subsequently, a village panchayat was conducted and as decided by panchayatdars, on 27.03.2003, the respondent/plaintiff executed a document in the form of a receipt, stating that he received back Rs.50,000/-, alleged to have been given by the respondent / plaintiff to the appellant / defendant in the presence of three witnesses.However, subsequently, the respondent/plaintiff sent a notice dated 01.05.2003 with false averments.After receiving the notice, the appellant / defendant approached the respondent/plaintiff and enquired about the notice sent by the respondent / plaintiff.According to the appellant / defendant, the same had been issued at the instigation of some other persons, however, he assured that no further action would be taken by him against the appellant / defendant.P.W.3-Ahmed Hussain was examined as one of the attestors to the unregistered agreement-Ex.A1, as well as the registered power of attorney deed dated 06.11.2002 executed by the appellant/defendant in favour of the respondent/plaintiff.B1 is said to be receipt, dated 27.03.2003, executed by the respondent/plaintiff with his signature and left hand thumb impression in favour of the appellant / defendant.The attestors to the receipt are stated as Pa.Rajendran, who was examined as D.W.2, one G.Annadurai and also Ahamed Hussain (P.W.3).It is seen that P.W.3 has admitted only his signature available in Ex.B1, Receipt.R.Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant submitted that the Appellate Court could not have allowed the appeal and granted the relief of specific performance of contract in view of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, on the ground that the respondent / plaintiff had not come to Court with clean hands.According to the learned Senior Counsel, the document Ex.B1 would show that the respondent/plaintiff had received a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the appellant/defendant, however, suppressing the fact, the suit was filed by him.On going through the document, Ex.B.1 written in a white paper and recitals thereon, it has to be construed that the said amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid by the appellant / defendant and that was received by him towards the advance and part payment of sale consideration, as decided by the panchayatdars.The appellant/defendant who was examined as P.W1 has deposed that the respondent/plaintiff who was doing real estate business met him and gave assurance that he would sell the appellant/defendant's property for a reasonable fair price.Believing the words and assurance given by the respondent / plaintiff, he executed a power of attorney deed that was registered on 06.11.2002 on the file of Sub Registrar Office, Vikramangalam Village, Perambalur District.According to the appellant/defendant, the respondent/plaintiff had also obtained signatures of the appellant/defendant in unwritten non-judicial stamp paper and other blank papers.However, as there was no progress made by the respondent/plaintiff, as per the power of attorney deed, the appellant / defendant, police complaint was given by the appellant / defendant on 23.03.2003 against the respondent/plaintiff, based on which, case was registered by Thiyagadurgam police station in Cr.No.96 of 2003 under Sections 467, 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC against the respondent/plaintiff.According to the learned Senior counsel for the appellant, village panchayat was conducted and as decided in the Panchayat, the appellant / defendant returned the money Rs.50,000/- to the respondent / plaintiff and also cancelled the power of attorney deed executed in his favour on 27.03.2003 and also obtained a receipt, Ex.B.1 signed by the respondent/ plaintiff for he received the money Rs.50,000/-.In the receipt, according to the appellant, the respondent/plaintiff affixed his signature and also his left hand thumb impression (LTI) in the presence of P.W.2, P.W.3 and another witness, hence, the respondent / plaintiff is not entitled to specific relief of the agreement, however, the first appellate court had reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court and granted the relief as prayed for in the suit, contrary to law.53. ... ... In the instant case by asking for specific performance of the contract, the plaintiff-purchaser is praying for a discretionary remedy.It is axiomatic that when discretionary remedy is prayed for by a party, such party must come to Court on proper disclosure of facts.B.1, in the presence of the appellant / defendant, however, the same was denied by the respondent / plaintiff.In the cross-examination, the respondent / plaintiff, as P.W.1 has strangely stated that he did not know whether he had brought the appellant to Vickrayamangalam Sub-Registrar Office, Ariyalur District on 06.11.2002 and got a power of attorney deed, original of Ex.B.2, being executed and registered before the Sub-Registrar.B.2 is a certified copy of the registered power of attorney, dated 06.11.2002 executed by the appellant / defendant in favour of the respondent / plaintiff in respect of the suit property.P.W.3 and D.W.2 have attested the document.It is a registered power of attorney deed between the parties, subsequent to the alleged unregistered sale agreement, Ex.A.1, unregistered agreement been a genuine document between the very same parties relating to the suit property, at least in Ex.B.2, registered power of attorney deed, there could have been some averments about Ex.Similarly, D.W.2, who signed as first attestor in Ex.B.1, has deposed that there was a village panchayat convened after the complaint given by the appellant / defendant against the respondent / plaintiff.However, accepting the decision of the village panchayat, the appellant / defendant handed over Rs.50,000/- to the respondent / plaintiff, for which the respondent / plaintiff issued Ex.B.1 receipt with his signature and LTI, wherein, D.W.2 signed as one of the attestors.Though the suit was filed on 02.06.2003, the respondent / plaintiff has suppressed the material facts and also details of the registered power of attorney, dated 06.11.2002, though it was executed by the appellant / defendant in favour of the respondent / plaintiff.It is also an important aspect for consideration that the appellant / defendant, in his written statement has specifically stated about the criminal complaint given by him against the respondent / plaintiff and the case in Cr.No.96 of 2003 registered under Sections 467, 294 (b) and 506 (ii) IPC by Thiyagadurgam Police Station against the respondent herein and also about the village panchayat and the payment made by the appellant / defendant to the respondent / plaintiff and also the receipt Ex.B.1 issued by him for receiving Rs.50,000/-.It is relevant that P.W.3 himself has admitted his signature available in Ex.B.1, though he has stated that he did not know the contents of the document.Even in the certified copy of the power of attorney deed, Ex.B.2, Ahmed Hussain, s/o.Syed Haseem Saheeb, examined on the side of the respondent / plaintiff had admitted that he had signed as identifying witness of the parties to Ex.B.2, before the Sub-Registrar. P.W.3 in his cross-examination has admitted that he had been one of the attestors to the power of attorney deed, original of Ex.On the said circumstances, it is clear that the respondent / plaintiff has deliberately suppressed the material facts with regard to execution of power of attorney deed, original of Ex.B.2 by the appellant / defendant in his favour, though his witness, P.W.3 has admitted that he was one of the attestors to the said registered document.Though the appellant / defendant had made specific averments about the subsequent events of the criminal complaint given by him against the respondent / plaintiff and the case registered against him by Thiyagadurgam Police station and subsequent village panchayat convened on 27.03.2003 in his written statement and also adduced evidence, the respondent / plaintiff has not even filed any reply statement disputing the aforesaid facts made in the written statement.On the facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondent / plaintiff had approached the Courts below, with clean hands for seeking the discretionary relief of specific performance of contract.Having considered the same, the trial court passed a decree, directing the appellant / defendant, to repay the alleged amount, a sum of Rs.50,000/- with interest and costs.However, there was no appeal preferred by the appellant / defendant, challenging the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, before the first appellate court, hence, this Court need not go into the correctness of the said decree passed by the trial court.However, the First appellate Court has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent / plaintiff, whereby granted specific performance of contract, though the respondent / plaintiff has not approached the Courts below with clean hands by disclosing all the necessary material facts before the Courts.The evidence available on record, as discussed earlier in this Judgment would make it is clear that the respondent / plaintiff has not approached the Courts below with all relevant details.Similarly, suppressed the registered power of attorney deed executed by the appellant / defendant in favour of the respondent / plaintiff, relating to the suit property.It is unfair on the part of the respondent / plaintiff deposing evidence that he did not know about the power of attorney deed executed in his favour by the appellant, though he was a party to the document, however, his witness P.W.3 was admittedly an attestor to the power of attorney deed.Hence, a mere bald denial of Ex.B.2 for receiving the amount Rs.50,000/- and issuing the receipt, Ex.B.1, in spite of the admission of P.W.3 with regard to his signature as attestor and the fact that the respondent / plaintiff had not disputed the averments made in the written statement with regard to the criminal case regisetered against him and as per the village panchayat, receiving Rs.50,000/- from the appellant / defendant by issuing receipt for Rs.50,000/- would go to show that the respondent / plaintiff has not come to Court with clean hands, but only suppressed the important material facts.However, the first appellate court has erroneously reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and granted the discretionary relief of specific performance, contrary to law and therefore, this Court is of the view to answer the first substantial question of law in favour of the appellant / defendant and against the respondent / plaintiff.It has been made clear that there was a criminal case registered against the respondent / plaintiff by Thiyagadurgam police station, based on the complaint given by the appellant / defendant and in view of the village panchayat, the appellant / defendant paid Rs.50,000/- for which, receipt was also issued by the respondent / plaintiff.In the aforesaid circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondent / plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, pursuant to the agreement for sale.Based on the evidence available and also considering the equity, in view of the suppression of material facts by the respondent / plaintiff, the appellant / defendant was directed by the trial court, to repay the alleged advance amount Rs.50,000/- with interest and costs.Against which, no appeal was preferred by the appellant / defendant, however, merely on the ground that the trial court had directed the appellant / defendant to return the alleged advance amount, the first appellate court, cannot reverse the judgment and decree ad granted relief for specific performance.Hence, in the light of the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, referred to above and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, this Court is of the view that the first appellate court has committed error in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and granting specific performance of the contract, as there was suppression of fact and granting the discretionary relief would create great prejudice to the appellant / defendant, who has not come to the court with clean hands.The relief of specific performance is admittedly an equitable relief.The first appellate court has not properly considered that the respondent / plaintiff has not come to court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts relating to the case.In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the view that the first appellate court is not right in granting the equitable relief, holding that the respondent / plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.It is crystal clear that the respondent / plaintiff is not entitled to seek the discretionary relief of specific performance on the ground that he has not come to court with clean hands and also on account of suppression of material facts.Hence, the substantial questions of law 2 and 3 are also answered in favour of the appellant /defendant and against the respondent / plaintiff.However, as there is no cross-appeal preferred by the appellant / defendant against the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, in respect of the advance amount, it has to be legally presumed that the judgment and decree passed by the trial court has not been assailed by the appellant / defendant herein.S.TAMILVANAN, Jtsvn In the result, this Second Appeal is allowed and the Judgment and Decree, dated 30.01.2008 rendered by the First Appellate Court in A.S.No.50 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Villupuram is set aside.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.The respondent / plaintiff is directed to pay the cost, that was received by him from the appellant / defendant, pursuant to the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court.So far as the second appeal is concerned, both the parties are directed to bear their own cost.30-10-2014Index : Yes Internet : Yes tsvnToThe Principal District Judge Villupuram.The Subordinate Judge Kallakurichi.
['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
126,930,423
...for the Petitioner....for the State.Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.However, in view of protracted period of detention suffered by the petitioner i.e. 3 years, we direct the trial court to conclude the trial preferably within one year from the next date fixed for recording evidence without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.(Suvra Ghosh,J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) 2
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,269,321
From the original records and the pleadings of the parties in the writ petition it appears that on 16-8-1999 the Suptd.of Police made a report to the District Magistrate, Katni.The said report was in respect of the illegal acts and criminal activities of the detenu.It was submitted to the District Magistrate that the detenu was a hardened criminal and it was necessary to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to maintenance of the public order, therefore, a preventive order under the National Security Act, 1980 was necessary to be taken.The said report, was supported by certain details of the records of the police station Madhavnagar, Katni.The said report was also accompanied with the F.I.R., copies of Sanhas and other material.A list of witnesses was also submitted by the Suptd.of Police before the District Magistrate.The District Magistrate after receiving the complaint registered the same and examined the Town Inspector of Police Station, Madhavnagar.After recording his satisfaction that with a view to prevent the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it was necessary to make an order directing his detention, the District Magistrate passed an order under Section 3, Sub-section (2) and Sub-section (3) of the National Security Act. The District Magistrate passed an order under the powers conferred upon him by the State Government.The order was sent by the District Magistrate to the State Government for its approval.The grounds on which the order was made and the representation for consideration, the Advisory Board after considering the material placed before it and taking into consideration the totality of circumstances, after hearing the detenu submitted its report to the appropriate Government that the order passed by the District Magistrate and approved by the State Government were valid and in accordance with law.The Advisory Board in its report dated 5-10-1999 submitted that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, therefore, his detention was justified.The order passed by the District Magistrate, approved and confirmed by the State Government under Section 3 and Section 12 of the National Security Act has been challenged by the petitioner on number of the grounds.According to the petitioner the grounds of detention as furnished by the Suptd.of Police, Katni to the District Magistrate, Katni were insufficient to provide a foundation for detaining the detenu under National Security Act. It is also submitted that the order passed by the District Magistrate shows non-application of mind and the order is a mechanical one.According to them no representation was made by the petitioner nor the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 ever received any representation.According to them the representation submitted along with the petition is a concocted document.They further submitted that Annexure A/5 does not bear any date nor does it appear that it was sent to any authority.They have further submitted that on one side the petitioner was submitting that he had sent the representation through his counsel while Annexures A/4 and A/5 were not sent through any counsel.They have submitted that the grounds projected by the Suptd.of Police were legal and the order passed by the District Magistrate is in accordance with law.The District Magistrate, Katni has submitted his own affidavit inter alia contending that he had received the report from the Suptd.of Police, after registration of the case he examined the Town Inspector of Police Station Madavnagar and after examining the entire documentary and oral evidence and after recording his satisfaction he had passed the order of detention.It is also submitted that the petitioner's representation was not properly considered and present was not a case of public order but was in fact a case of law and order, therefore, ordinary preventive provisions and provisions contained under the Indian Penal Code are sufficient to deal with the offences and as such the detenu was not required to be detained.It is also contended that the grounds as detailed in Annexure A/3, the report of the Suptd.Of Police and in order dated 17-8-1999 of the District Magistrate, Katni are absolutely insufficient and do not provide any proper reason for directing detention of the detenu.It is, further contended that the grounds on which the detention order has been passed are flimsy and as some of the grounds are based on Rojnamcha Sanha, the order passed by the District Magistrate is per se illegal and deserves to be quashed.The respondents Nos. 2 to 4 i.e. the State of Madhya Pradesh, District Magistrate, Katni and Suptd.of Police, Katni have filed their return.According to him the case of the detenu was placed before the Advisory Board and the Advisory Board vide its order dated 5-10-1999 approved the detention and thereafter vide order dated 21-10-1999 the State Government confirmed the order of detention.Before referring to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties it would be necessary to refer to the report of Suptd.of Police Katni.After giving the summary of the conduct and the activities of the detenu, the Suptd.of Police has referred to certain acts of the detenu.According to the report the detenu and his associates in furtherance of their common intention intimidating one Vikas Vishwakarma, abused him and also threatened him that he would be murdered.According to the report at about 2.30 in the night the detenu Rinkusingh tried to outrage the modesty of one Sushila Devi when she was sleeping outside her house with her sister-in-law.The first informant, a young girl Rekha Patel informed the Police that on 7-6-1999 when she was sleeping in her house the accused outraged her modesty and extended the intimidation that if any report was lodged by her she would be done to death.The girl out of fear lodged the report after two days.Ground No. 4 refers to an incident dated 11-6-1999 when Asstt.According to the information the detenu was teasing the young girls and on being asked to conduct properly he was threatening the people.Sub-Inspector Khadesia after receiving the information proceeded to the spot for verification of the information, on arrival he found that the market was closed.There was a situation of lawlessness, near the girls school the detenu was standing and was throwing the challenge that he would kidnap the girls and if anybody lodges the report he would be murdered.The accused was immediately arrested and was brought to the police station.When the Sub-Inspector B. L. Khadesia arrested the accused, he found that the accused was armed with a knife and, finding that the accused had committed an offence Under Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act, a challan was filed before the competent Court.Ground No. 8 again refers to lodgement of a complaint against the detenu Under Section 110 of Cr.P.C. in the Court of S.D.O. Ground No. 9 is a sanha report recorded by Satyawrat Pandey, the Station House Officer that on 5-8-1999 he was informed by the public that detenu Rinkusingh was regularly teasing the girls, the women and the girls because of fear of the detenu and the intimidation extended by him were unable to lodge the report.He was taking free provisions from the shopkeepers, was demanding money and if the amount was not paid, he was intimidating the shopkeepers.It is necessary to note that five challans have already been filed against the petitioner and a preventive action under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code was also taken against him.
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
126,941,364
Mothers of PW-1 and PW-2 went to the house of A1 and questioned about the obscene comments passed by the appellants.The 1st appellant has threatened them and also abused them calling by community name.She and her classmates went their home and reported the matter to their parents.The incident took place near Sunnambu Odai (rill/rivulet) on 12.11.2010 at about 5.30 pm, while they were returning from their school is spoken by PW-1/Suhasini, Defacto Complainant, PW-http://www.judis.nic.in 9 2/Thilagavathi, PW-3/Sumithra and PW-4 Keerthana.This Criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of the trial Court, which has sentenced and convicted the appellants for the offences under Sections 294(b) of IPC and 3The case of the prosecution is that when PW-1 along with her classmates were returning from school, the appellants were taking bath in the odai(rivulet) and had passed lewd comments.So, they reported the matter to their parents.Thereafter, complaint was made to the respondent police on 12.11.2010 and the same was registered.Investigation has been conducted by PW-11 Deputy Superintendent of Police, after getting authorisation from the Superintendent of Police,http://www.judis.nic.in 3 Cuddalore.Before the trial Court, 11 witnesses were examined and 10 exhibits were marked.The trial Court, after considering the evidences has held that the accused were found guilty of the offences under Sections 294(b) of IPC and Section 3 (i) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and acquitted them for the offence under Section 3 (i) (xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for want of proof.When none of the witnesses have spoken about the presence of the public and PW-1 to PW-6 belong to same caste, who are all interested witnesses and related to each other cannot be considered as public.After hearing the obscene utterance of the appellants, they have reported the matter to their parents viz., PW-5-mother of PW 1 and PW-6-the mother of PW-2 and they all went to the house of A1 to question about their behaviour.At that time, A1 and A2 have insulted calling the community name.The victim belongs to scheduled caste community and the same is proved through the official witnesses and community certificate, which is marked as Ex.Therefore, the learned Government Advocate relying upon these evidence would submit that the investigation has been done in accordance with the procedure laid down which has culminated in filing of final report indicating commission of offence by the appellants.Accordingly, charges were framed against them and duly proved by the prosecution.When PW-1 to PW-6 were present during the appellants uttering abusive words calling the community name, the necessary ingredients to attract Section 3 (i) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Preventionhttp://www.judis.nic.in 10 of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are fully satisfied and therefore, the appellants cannot take a plea that the said utterance was not within the public view.Hence, prayed that the conviction and sentence passed against the appellants are bound to be confirmed.12. PW-1 is the Defacto complainant.She along with her classmates PW-2 to PW-4 were returning home on 12.11.2010, after attending the school, the appellants on seeing them were conversing between them using obscene words and making abusive comments on them.The witnesses PW-1 to PW-4 who have suffered the obscene comments are students of 10 standard aged between 14 -15 years reported the matter to their parents.They have questioned about the obscene words passed by them.There is some contraction regarding presence of A-2 at that time.This explanation offered by the appellants to PW-5 and PW-6 cannot be exonerate them from the crime of 294(b) of IPC.The words uttered by these appellants towards the teenage girls returning from school are obscene and vulgery.It is no doubt offensive of these modesty.The presence of A2 is also being doubtful.However, thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 12 evidence of PW-1 to PW-4 is sufficiently enough to hold them guilty for the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC.Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.The trial Court is directed to secure the appellants and to commit them into the prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence imposed by the trial Court.The period of sentence already undergone by the accused is set off.Bail bond, if any executed by the appellants, shall be cancelled.13.02.2019 Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order Index : yes/no Internet : yes/no vrn/arihttp://www.judis.nic.in 13 ToThe Principal Sessions Court, Cuddalore.2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police Vridhachalam Circle,Cuddalore District (Karuveppilankurichi Police Station).3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 14 DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J vrn/ari Crl.A.No.124 of 2012 13.02.2019http://www.judis.nic.in
['Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
194,613,336
Case diary is available.Arguments heard.This is first bail application filed by the applicant under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail.The applicant is in custody in connection with Crime No.44/2017 registered at Police Station Sondwa, District Alirajpur for offences punishable under Sections 307 and 302 of IPC.According to the prosecution story, at present applicant caused injury by a piece of Bamboo (Dhinga) on head and due to which the single injury caused on the deceased and then he was sifted on 18/03/2017 to the hospital.Subsequently, during the treatment he died.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant lodged the report by a delay of four days.Initially the wife of the deceased told everybody in the village that he sustained injury due to a fall.Subsequently, her version was changed.He further submits that even if prosecution story is taken to be true, a case U/s 325 of IPC at most U/s 304 Part II of IPC is made out.The cause of incident, as stated in the FIR was loan of Rs.3000/- allegedly given by the deceased to the father of the present applicant which was not paid and the present applicant was unhappy as the deceased used to claim to amount back repeatedly.Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the application.Accordingly, the application is allowed.Applicant Rumalsingh @ Rumaliya is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.75,000/- with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of JMFC concerned or CJM for his appearance in the trial Court on the dates so fixed by that Court during the trial.
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
194,620,976
This is third bail application u/S 439 of Cr.P.C filed by the applicants for grant of bail.The applicants have been arrested on 11.12.2019 by Police Station Bhitarwar District Gwalior in connection with Crime No.256/2019 registered in relation to the offence punishable u/Ss. 147, 294, 323, 452 & 506 of IPC and further added Sec. 307 of IPC.It is alleged by learned counsel for applicants that earlier two bail applications were dismissed on merits vide order dated 12.02.2020 and 24.01.2020 passed in M.Cr.C Nos. 6254/2020 & 2018/2020 respectively with liberty to renew his prayer for bail after filing all the documents on which is placing reliance.It is submitted that there is a cross case registered bearing Crime No.257/2019 for offence under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 325, 506, 294 and 307 of IPC at the same police station, wherein this Court has already granted bail to the accused in that case vide order dated 03.02.2020 and 28.01.2020 passed in M.Cr.C Nos. 4868/2020 & 2520/2020 respectively.Upon these grounds, they pray for bail.P er contra, learned counsel for State has opposed the prayer and 2 MCRC-8304-2020 submits that earlier bail application was dismissed on merits with liberty to repeat the same after recording the material witnesses, but, there is no witnesses have been examined before the trial Court after rejection of earlier bail application.as per rules.(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE (LJ*) LOKENDRA JAIN 2020.02.27 10:22:36 +05'30'
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,946,272
The respondent Moti Ram filed a complaint in the court ofthe Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Delhi against the sevenappellants under section 500 I. P. C. alleging that theymade certain allegations against him which were defamatoryin character and had also passed a resolution placing therespondent under suspension.The complaint filed by the respondent is a fairly lengthyone and refers to various matters.But the relevant factswhich could be gathered from the same appear to be asfollows :The respondent during December, 1964 was serving as aLiaison Officer, Municipal Corporation, Delhi.Theappellants were among the members of the Standing Committeeof the Corporation at that time.The first appellant BalrajKhanna was bitterly inimical towards the respondent and wasbent upon causing harm to him.He wielded considerableinfluence over the members of the Standing Committee.Athis instance a requisition was given by the members of theStanding Committee to its Chairman to summon a meeting ofthe Committee to enable them to move a resolution for theimmediate suspension of the respondent from his office.The said meeting was attended, not onlyby the Commissioner and other officers of the Corporation,but also by the press reporters.In that meeting the appel-lants made very serious allegations of a defamatory natureagainst the respondent and passed unanimously a resolutionplacing him under immediate suspension.The allegationsmade against the respondent and the fact of his suspensionfrom office were given wide publicity, with the result thatit brought down the respondent in the estimation of hisfriends causing harm to his reputation.P. W. 3, who wasthe Secretary of the Corporation, and who attended themeeting of the Standing Committee on December 10, 1964 senta report the next day Ex. P. W. 3 / B to the Commissionerregarding the allegations stated to have been made againstthe respondent by the appellants.It is further stated that apart from the 'sevenappellants, three other members of the Standing Committeewere also parties to this resolution In particular, it isalleged in the complaint that in the course of discussionrelating to the passing of the resolution-, all the sevenappellants made wild and baseless allegations involvingmoral turpitude against the respondent.After passing theresolution the appellants with the ulterior motive ofmaligning the respondent and lowering him in the estimationof the public gave publicity to the resolution in the localnewspapers with large circulation.But that is not theallegation in the complaint.We have already referred tothe fact that it is specifically stated in the complaintthat during the course of the discussion of the resolution,all the seven appellants made a wild and baseless allegationagainst the complainant involving moral turpitude.According to him those statements are contained in Ex. P. W.3/B. The evidentiary value of Ex. P.- W. 3 / B does notarise for consideration at this stage.The furtherquestion.C. K. Daphtary and B. P. Moheshwari, for the appellants.The respondent appeared in person.The Judgment of the Court was delivered byVaidialingam J--This appeal, by special leave, is directedagainst the judgment and order dated August 26, 1970 of theDelhi High Court in Criminal Revision No. 138 of 1968dismissing under-Section 203 Cr. P. C. the complaint filed by the respondentunder Section 500 I. P. C.The allegations referredto in P. W. 3 1 B are as follows :Since its inception in 1958 the Corporation has executed a very heavy programme of works for improving the sanitation of the Corporation and provide other civic amenities, but no publicity was given to these activities and the public has remained more or less in the dark.On the other hand the Corporation is adversely criticised even for minor omissions and commissions.The L.O. has, thus not performed the duties which are required of the post he has been holding and has been deficient in the performance of his duties.He has even been trying to sow seeds of estrangement between the Mysore and the Commissioners.In the days when he was Chief Reporter to the Hindustan Times.he resorted to undesirable means to achieve, his desired ends.His association with some of the non Official Presidents of the erstwhile Delhi Municipal Committee has brought nothing but slur to their good names.The allegations statedto have been made by the appellants are those referred to inEx.P. W. 3/B. The respondent alleged that the appellantsknowingly and maliciously made false and defamatoryallegations against him and prayed for taking action againstthem.The Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, dismissed the revisionof the respondent summarily stating that the material onrecord was not sufficient to justify any direction beinggiven to the trial Magistrate, to make further inquiry intothe complaint.The Sessions Judge has further stated thatthe evidence produced by the respondent is too general tomake out a case to summon any one of the appellants.The High Court, after a reference to the material evidenceon record, as well as the allegations stated to have beenmade by the appellants, has held that the approach made bythe Magistrate for dismissing the complaint was erroneous.However, in the swornstatement the complainant had given aslightly different version.In his evidence before thecourt the complainant attributedto the different accuseddifferent statements.
['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
194,633,806
Co-accused Jagdish and Naresh also inflicted injuries by lathi.On his report crime was registered.This is the First application for regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The applicants have been arrested on 3.9.2015 in connection with Crime No.208/2015, registered at Police Station Kumbhraj District Guna for the offences punishable under Section 323, 324, 326, 506-B of IPC.It is alleged that Mardan lodged a report that the co-accused, because of land dispute came with common intention armed with farsi (a weapon), lathi (wooden stick) and inflicted injury to him on his head and back.(S.K. Palo) JUDGE dcs/-
['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
19,463,404
Heard on the question of admission.Also heard on IA No.19102/2017, an application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C.All the accused/applicants (Vinod, Radheshyam, Pappu, Ramlal & Gangaram) are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326/34, 323/34 (two counts) of IPC and sentenced to undergo 3 years RI for 326/34 of IPC and 6-6 months R.I. for 323/34 of IPC and fine of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.500/- respectively for each section with default stipulation and in addition, accused/Ramlal has also been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC and sentenced 3 years R.I. with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.According to the prosecution story, on 18.03.2016, the complainant lodged a report that she alongwith one Bhulibai were working on their agriculture field.Some dispute was pending between the complainant and the accused party for the same agriculture land.Due to this dispute on the date of incident, in the evening, at about 6:00 P.M., the accused persons came at their house armed with sticks and after uttering abuses the accused Ramlal assaulted the complainant by stick when Hariram and Ramesh tried to save her, the co-accused persons/Vinod, Pappu, Gangaram and Radheshyam also assaulted them with sticks.They sustained injuries on their head and hand.The learned trial Court has convicted the accused/applicants as stated above.Learned counsel for the appellants/applicants submits that during the trial they were on bail.They are in jail since 25.09.2017 i.e. from the date of judgment.It is submitted that conclusion of trial is likely to take some time and appellants have a good case in appeal, hence jail sentence be suspended during pendency of the appeal.Learned public prosecutor has opposed the prayer.It is directed that on deposition of fine amount and also on furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) by each with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before this Court/Registry on 25/03/2018 and on all other subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf, the execution of substantial jail sentence imposed on the accused-applicants/Vinod, Radheshyam, Pappu, Ramlal & Gangaram shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.A copy of this order be sent to Court concerned for it's compliance.Certified copy today on payment of necessary charges.List for final hearing in due course.(VIRENDER SINGH)
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
194,636,002
Record of both the courts below is received.Today this case is listed for admission and on I.A.No.10448/2019 which is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.However, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in custody since 30.5.2019 and he does not want to press this revision on merits and only wants to argue on the point of sentence, therefore, this revision may kindly be heard finally.With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this revision petition is finally heard.This revision petition has been filed by the applicant under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.5.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Teonthar, District Rewa in Criminal Appeal No.19/18 affirming the judgment dated 3.8.2018 passed by the JMFC, Teonthar, District Rewa in RCT no.632/15 whereby the applicant has been convicted under Section 325 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 6 months with fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation as mentioned in the impugned judgment.Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 16.09.2015 at around 5 O'clock in the evening complainant Arjun Singh @ Neemu Singh was going on motorcycle to village Bhungaon, Police station Jawa, District Rewa, as soon he reached near culvert called as Saatiteer, the applicant assaulted the complainant with a lathi and caused fracture on the wrist of the right hand, about which crime no.157/15 was registered at Police Station Jawa, District Rewa and after completing all due formalities, charge sheet was filed before the concerned Magistrate and the applicant was tried.The defence of the applicant was that there was an enmity with the complainant; therefore, he has been falsely implicated.Being aggrieved thereby, the applicant preferred a criminal appeal bearing no. 19/18 before Additional Sessions Judge, Teonthar, District Rewa.The learned appellate Court by the impugned judgment affirmed the judgment passed by the trial court.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is a first offender and the incident was not preplanned and no assault was made on the vital part of the person of the complainant.At the time of incident, he was 25 years young boy and he is in custody since 30.5.2019 and has got sufficient lesson about the misdeed committed by him.If he is kept in custody for a long time he will come in the contact of hardcore criminals and there will be no possibility of the applicant to reform himself and no purpose will be served.He is also ready to pay the compensation to the complainant for the injuries sustained by him in the incident.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the judgment and order passed by the Courts below and also perused the record.However, in the present case, it would be appropriate to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by him and enhance the fine amount from Rs.1000/- to Rs.25,000/-.Consequently, the criminal revision is partly allowed.The conviction of the applicant recorded by the Courts below for the offence under Section 325 of the IPC is affirmed but the sentenced is modified and reduced with a direction that he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him and the fine amount is enhanced to Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only).On realization of the aforesaid enhanced fine amount, Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) be paid to the complainant Arjun Singh Digitally signed by JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Date: 11/09/2019 18:15:30 3 CRR-2738-2019 (PW-3) as compensation for sustaining injury.In default of payment of enhanced fine amount, the applicant will have to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.The amount of fine already deposited shall be adjusted.On deposit of the aforesaid enhanced fine amount by the applicant, he be released forthwith, if not required in any other offence.Injured Arjun Singh (PW-3) be informed about the entitlement of the aforesaid compensation before sending the record to the record room.Record of the trial Court be sent back immediately to the concerned court below along with a copy of this order for its compliance and necessary action.C.C. as per rules.(J. P. GUPTA) JUDGE JP Digitally signed by JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Date: 11/09/2019 18:15:30
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
23,412,019
1. Heard Sri Gaurav Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Nishant Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the lower court record.This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 25.04.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, No. 3, Basti in Special Sessions Trial No. 12 of 1995, whereby appellant has been convicted and sentenced for committing offence under Section 304-I/34 I.P.C. for a period of 10 year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and under Section 3(2)(V) of S.C./S.T. Act for a period of 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- along with default clauses.The prosecution case is that the first informant, Dhobi, gave an application dated 24.04.1995 before Kotwali, Khalilabad stating that his wheat crop was harvested and kept; that its thrashing was required and he went to the machine of appellant, Lutawan, with 4-5 bundles of wheat on 23.04.1995 at about 10:00 p.m along with his father and brother, Pramod; that appellant and his son, Tara Lal Nishad, stated that first you pay the cost of thrashing of wheat and only then they will do the same; that first informant stated that he will pay the cost and asked them to do his work; that appellant got annoyed and after abusing the informant and others accompanying him, exhorted his son, Tara Lal Nishad, who caused injury by sariya (rod) on his brother, Pramod, and he got injured; that informant took Pramod to Medical College, Gorakhpur, for treatment and he died in the Medical College, Gorakhpur; that after post-mortem of the deceased he went to the police station and lodged the report at 24.04.1995 at 20:30 hours; that the aforesaid F.I.R. was registered as Case Crime No. 140 of 1995, under Section 304 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of S.C./S.T.Co-accused, Tara Lal Nishad, was declared juvenile during the trial and he was sent for trial before the Juvenile Justice Board.The appellant was tried by the Sessions Court.The appellant was charged for offences under Section 304-I/34 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of S.C./S.T. Act to which the appellant denied and sought trial.Before the trial court the first informant was examined as P.W.-1; Ram Pyare, father of the deceased, was examined as P.W.-2; Sri Ram, eye-witness was examined as P.W.-3; Vinay Krishna Biswas, the doctor, who first treated the injured proved that he first attended the injured and stitched his wound; that P.W.5, the Dr. Prakash Chandra, was examined as P.W.-5, and he proved that on 24.04.1995, he conducted medical examination of the deceased at 06:50 a.m; P.W.-6, Dr. A.K. Srivastava, who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased, proved the ante-mortem injury of the deceased.He found stitched wound of 10 cm on left parietal bone of the deceased and found his parietal bone fractured.Another wound of 3 cm x 2 cm was found on left cheek of the deceased.He found blood clot in the brain membrane of the deceased.He testified that the death of the deceased took place due to shock and hemorrhage and he stated that such an injury can be caused by falling on a hard object, collision or assault; P.W.-7, Vijay Bahadur Mall, the scribe of F.I.R., was examined and he proved the F.I.R. lodged by the informant; that the Investigating Officer, Ram Krishna, was examined as P.W.-8, who proved the investigation record and charge sheet submitted before the court.The statement of the accused-appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. who stated that he was not present at the scene of occurrence, when the incident took place and he has no knowledge about the same; that he admitted that he accompanied the deceased, Pramod, to the doctor and the injury was caused by the handle of the machine; that he denied the other allegations and stated that the statements of the witnesses against him are false; that he further stated that only to get compensation from the government false case has been lodged against him by the informant.D.W.-1, Ram Bhajan, stated that on the date of incident the informant and others came with their wheat crop on the machine of the appellant and he informed them that appellant has gone to take his dinner; that despite his instructions to the contrary, Pramod, started the machine and the handle of the engine got struck in the machine; that as a result of the shock from the machine Pramod could not maintain his balance and fell down and suffered head injury; that on hearing the noise the appellant came and took Pramod to the doctor along with his family members; that in his cross-examination he admitted that he used to work as labour on daily wages on the machine of the appellant but he denied any influence of the appellant on his statement.The witnesses of fact, P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3, have proved the prosecution case to the hilt.This court has gone through their evidence and has found that there is nothing in their statements which may suggest that the witnesses have not deposed truly before the trial court.The findings recorded by the trial court regarding consideration of their evidence does not suffers from any error.The trial court has also considered the statements of the other witnesses correctly and has arrived at correct conclusion of the guilt of the appellant.P.W.-1, has only stated that the appellant directed him to beat and we will see what happens.P.W.-2 and P.W.-3, have also not made any specific allegation that the appellant exhorted his son to cause the murder of the deceased.It appears that only abuses were hurled by the appellant and his son and on sudden provocation the son of the appellant, who was a juvenile, caused single blow on the head of the injured which proved fatal.Nasir Vs.The occurrence had taken place about 29-years ago and the appellant remained in custody for more than six months, therefore, the sentence awarded to the appellant was reduced to the period already undergone by him.State of U. P. Vs.Siyaram and another (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 137 - in this case appellant Jiya Lal was found guilty for the offence punishable u/s 307/34 IPC, however considering the fact that the incident had taken place in the year 1988, appellant has now become an aged person and there is nothing on record to show that he is either habitual offender or previous convict, his sentence was reduced to already under gone but fine was increased to Rs. 10,000/-.In State appeal, the Apex Court did not approve the reduction of sentence, however refused to interfere because the prosecution had been initiated in the year 1988, but fine was enhanced to Rs. 25,000/-.Labh Singh & others Vs.The appellants were very old I. e. 82, 72 and 62 years respectively, incident was 27-years old and they had undergone part of the sentence, therefore, the Apex Court directed each appellant to pay Rs. One lakh compensation to the complainant/injured persons and their sentence was reduced to period already undergone by each of them.Jagpal Singh & others Vs.State of U. P. 2004 (5) ACC 310 - this Court vide judgment dated 26.6.2004 found that the incident had taken on 1.9.1977, the appellants were convicted on 23.4.1981 u/s 325/34 and 324 IPC and so each was sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- u/s 324 IPC and Rs. 4,000/- u/s 325/34 IPC.Raghuvera & Ors Vs.Satsen Vs.State of U. P. 2014 (84) ACC 606, - in this case the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable u/s 307 IPC, but considering the fact that the incident is 33 years' old, appeal came up for hearing after 32-years and the appellant is also ill, the sentence of three years' R.I. awarded by the trial Court was converted into fine of Rs. 30,000/-, out of which Rs. 25,000/- was to be paid to the injured, if he is alive or his legal heirs.Having an overall consideration of the fact situation and also time lag in between, the court is of the view that sentence of imprisonment of revisionist for offence under section 304-II/34 I.P.C. is reduced to the period already undergone to meet the ends of justice.The fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- is directed to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased, Pramod Kumar, as compensation.The appellant, Lutawan, is directed to deposit Rs. 2,00,000 (Two lakhs) before the trial court within two months and on receipt of the amount same shall be released in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased, Pramod.Any amount deposited towards fine by the appellant shall be adjusted.This amount shall be paid to the mother of the deceased or if she is not alive to her legal heirs.In case of failure of deposit of the amount by the appellant he shall be taken into custody forthwith and required to serve out the remaining sentence as per the order of the trial court except for offence under Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act.The judgment and order of the trial court is set aside.The appellant is on bail his bail bond and sureties are discharged.The office is directed to send back the record of the court below along with copy of this judgment and order for compliance.This criminal appeal is partly allowed.
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
234,180
She was married several years ago to one Inder Singh.While Inder Singh was carrying on a shop at Joshi-math his family used to live at village Bhagoli in the district of Garhwal.About the middle of Phagun, 1945, Inder Singh's mother sent her sister's son Alam Singh along with Alam Singh's son and Mt. Chanchari and a daughter-in-law of Alam Singh, a deaf and dumb woman called Mt. Lati, and two other children to a village of the name of Garur to buy salt and gur.These persons camped at a place called Kulaun in Almora district on their way to Garur.The party was camping in one of the huts about half a mile from the village.The women were inside the hut and Alam Singh and pack animals were outside.Hayat Singh accused came over to the hut with a gun in his hands and asked Alam Singh whether they had certain woollen articles, such as Thulmas, Chutkas and Gudmas for sale.Alam Singh replied that they had not got those articles.Thereafter at about midnight 10 or 12 men descended on the hut where Alam Singh and party were staying.Some of them held Alam Singh, who was outside the hut, and some of them carried off Mt. Chanchari and Mt. Lati by force.They, however, released Mt. Lati soon after as she was not attractive at all and was deaf and dumb, and was considered not worth the trouble of a forcible abduction.Alam Singh went a little distance after the miscreants, but had to return back on being threatend by them.Then Alam Singh returned to Garhwal without going to Garur and in due course Inder Singh was informed at Joshimath of what had happened.The four accused were among the 10 or 12 men who had taken part in the incident.According to Mt. Chanchari the four accused and one Chintua carried her between them to a place called Gana Mungari.That night Mt. Chanchari stopped at Gana Mungari at the house of one Mohan Singh and Dalip Singh stopped in another house in the same village.Mt. Chanchari stopped there for two nights and Dalip Singh promised' to provide her with food and clothes.The next day they moved on to Kapkot and there Dalip Singh made the woman change the clothes which she had been wearing and gave her a chadar and a petticoat to wear.From there Dalip Singh took her to Shyamadhura and from that place to his house in Bhainskhal.Upon Inder Singh making a report to the police, the police arrived at Bhainskhal on 27th March.There Mt. Chanchari was found in the house of Dalip Singh with Dalip Singh; there was no one else in the house.He need not surrender to his bail.JUDGMENT Agarwala, J.The offences mentioned in the charge against them were under Sections 366 and 498, Penal Code, in the case of all and Section 392, Penal Code, in the case of Hayat Singh only.All these accused have been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge of offences under Section 366, Penal Code, Hayat Singh has been acquitted of the offence under Section 392, Penal Code.All the accused except Dalip Singh, have been acquitted of the offence under Section 498, Penal Code.Dalip Singh alone has been convicted for an offence under Section 498, Penal Code, and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment.Dalip Singh has come up in appeal to this Court.Dalip Singh was arrested and later the other accused were also arrested; and then they were prosecuted as stated above.Mt. Chanchari, Alam Singh.Padam Singh and Gaje Singh, the four eye-witnesses, were produced by the prosecution in support of its case.The other witnesses produced were more or less formal or proved attendant circumstances.Of these four witnesses, Gaje Singh did not identify any of the accused.His evidence was, therefore, practically useless.As the other three accused have been acquitted I need not consider their case.Dalip Singh appellant admitted that Mt. Chanchari was recovered from his house at Bhainskhal on 27th March 1945, but he alleged that he had not carried her away to that place from Kulaun.He said that he had met Mt. Chanchari in Gana Mungari where he had gone to collect his dues, about a mile away from the abadi, and that thereafter he had gone to the house of Mohan Singh where he was afterwards joined by her, and that she told him that one of her sisters-in-law had gone to Johar last year and that she also wanted to go there.Both of them stopped at Mohan Singh's house as there was a Katha of Satyanarain.The next day was the sacred thread ceremony of his (Mohan Singh's) son.He said to Mt. Chanchari that day that if she wanted to go to her sister-in-law she could go with him.Mt. Chanchari asked him to find out her sister-in-law and take her there as he was a resident of Johar.Next day he went to Kapkot and Mt. Chanchari went with him.He made a search for the sister-in-law of Mt. Chanchari but no trace of her could be found.He further said that he had then told Mt. Chanchari that her deorani could not be traced out and had asked her whether she wanted to return or not.She told him that she did not want to go back, and that she would make a search for her deorani for some Says more; that the following day he had gone to Shyamadhura, and that nothing could be heard of the deorani of Mt. Chanchari at that place; that the following day he went to his house at Bhainskhal, that on the third day he had sent men at various places in search of the deorani of Mt. Chanchari; that it was learnt from a man that the deorani of Mt. Chanchari was in Bichala Danpur Mauza Churia Dhara, and that when he was arranging to send Mt. Chanchari there, the police arrived and arrested him.His case further was that Mt. Chanchari was not a married woman at all, that she had been married to one Kala, brother of Inder Singh, that Kala had died and that she was never re-married to Inder Singh, and that therefore, no offence under Section 498, Penal Code, could have been committed.No witness was produced by Dalip Singh in defence.The learned Sessions Judge examined Mohan Singh, at whose house admittedly Mt. Chanchari had stayed for two days, as a court witness.Mohan Singh stated that there was a Katha of Satyanarain going on in his house, that both Dalip Singh and Mt. Chanchari had stopped in the village, that while Mt. Chanchari had stopped at his house, Dalip Singh stayed in some other house, and that Mt. Chanchari did not raise any alarm or attempt to escape though she might easily have done so.He further stated that Mt. Chanchari told the boys in the village that she had come from Garhwal and that her husband was dead.The assessors were of opinion that none of the accused was guilty under Section 366, Penal Code, and that Hayat Singh was not guilty" under Section 392, Penal Code.They were further of opinion that Mt. Chanchari went with Dalip Singh of her own free will although she must have been given some enticement by Dalip Singh and theft, therefore, Dalip Singh was guilty under Section 498 Penal Code.The learned Sessions Judge found that the story about the raid at the place where Alam Singh and party were putting up and of the forcible abduction of Mt. Chanchari and Mt. Lati or of the robbing of Alam Singh of a sum of Rs. 120 was doubtful and not satisfactorily established.He further found that Mt. Chanchari went away with, and was living with, Dalip Singh willingly but he found that Dalip Singh must have taken her.away by some allurement.He further found that Mt. Chanchari was first married to Kala, brother of Inder Singh, and after Kala's death she was living with Inder Singh as his wife, and that she must be deemed to be the wife of Inder Singh.He, therefore, convicted.Dalip Singh for an offence under Section 498, Penal Code.Now Section 498, Penal Code, runs as follows:Whoever takes or entices away any woman who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of any other man, from that man, or from any person having the care of her on behalf of that man, with intent that she may have illicit intercourse with any person, or conceals or detains with that intent any such woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.It is clear that four things have to be proved in order to sustain a charge under this Section (1) that the woman in relation to whom the crime was committed was the wife of another man; (2) that she was taken or enticed away or concealed or detained from (a) that man, or (b) any person having a care of her on behalf of that man; (3) knowledge or reason to believe that she was a wife; and (4) such taking, enticing, concealing or detaining was with intent that she may have illicit intercourse with any person.Now the evidence to prove that Mt. Chanchari was the wife of Inder Singh consists of the statements of Inder Singh and Mt. Chanchari.Inder Singh denied the very existence of his brother Kala.This shows that Inder Singh had a brother of the name of Kala.The learned Sessions Judge says that Inder Singh has lied on this point.The 'Phant' also shows that the wife of Kala came to Inder Singh.The learned Sessions Judge says that this wife of Kala must have been Mt. Chanchari.Both of them, Inder Singh and Mt. Chanchari, declare that they were married and bride price of Rs. 400 or Rs. 450 was given.They say that anchal was formed and pheris (rounds) were gone through and that subsequently there was a ceremony of durgun.In the Magistrate's Court Mt. Chanehari said that it was a Kanyadan marriage.In the Sessions Court, both these witnesses said that it was not a Kanyadan marriage.75 at p. 315, (Edn. 11) "A 'Karewa' marriage with the brother or some other male relative of the deceased husband ret quires no religious ceremonies, and confers all the rights of a valid marriage." In a case of this, kind, proof of cohabitation for a number of years as husband and wife and its recognition as a; valid marriage by the brotherhood or the officials concerned, would be sufficient proof of marriage even for the purposes of a criminal case.That Mst.Chanchari went with Dalip Singh of her own accord appears from her conduct at Ganga Mangari.There she stayed for two days at the house of Mohan Singh.Dalip Singh was staying in some other house.Chanchari decided to go with him and live with him.Chanchari was the wife of Inder Singh.Mohan Singh stated that at his place Mst.Chanchari had given out that her husband was dead.She learned Sessions Judge says that she might have made this statement in order to give an excuse for her arrival in the village.
['Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
23,429,576
APP for Applicant : Ms. V. S. Choudhary.The proceeding is filed for grant of leave to file appeal againstthe Judgment and order of Sessions Case No. 92 of 2012 which waspending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Beed.The learnedtrial Court has acquitted all the three respondents of the offencepunishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code.To challenge the decision, the convictedaccused have filed appeal.This Court has seenthe reasoning given by the learned trial Court.The evidence given shows that, respondent No.2 Shaikh JalilShaikh Nasir whose nickname is given as Jallu in the record usedrazor against two injured witnesses including the P.W.3 and P.W.4.Niteen sustained incise wound on left side of cheek and contusedabrasion over occipital region.Other injured Shivaraj / Shivram ::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/12/2018 08:02:42 ::: 2 Cri.Apln 3196-2016sustained two incise wounds over right side of neck and middle ofneck.Though the injuries are described as simple, in view of theside where they were inflicted and the circumstance that the razorwas used against two persons, and aforesaid injuries were caused,this Court holds that leave needs to be granted to file appeal asagainst respondent No.2 Shaikh Jalil for the offence punishableunder Section 307 of Indian Penal Code.As nothing is there to inferthe same intention as against respondents No.1 and 3, this Courtholds that, leave cannot be granted against respondents No.1 and 3.In the result the application of State filed as against respondentNo.2 Shaikh Jalil is allowed, leave is granted.The application filed asagainst respondents No.1 and 3 stands dismissed.Application isdisposed of accordingly.::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/12/2018 08:02:42 :::This Court has granted leave to State to file appeal as againstrespondent No.2 Shaikh Jalil and for that the reasons are given.Forthe same reasons, the appeal is admitted as against respondentNo.2 only.Order of Senior most Judge of this Court needs to be obtainedfor assigning the other two matters to this Court.::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/12/2018 08:02:42 :::
['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.
234,297
Shyam Babu (A-1) is convicted under Sections 333 and 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code ('Code' for short) and other appellants are convicted under Sections 333/34 and 325/34 of the Code.They have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to undergo R.I. for one month on each count.As per prosecution Brijmohan (P.W. 2) is posted as E.D.N.C. in Post Office, Ramnagar.He carries the post bag from post office to load the same to bus and distributes the letters and other postal articles.On dispute of land, some civil litigation was pending between him and the appellants in which he was successful in the Court of Civil Judge but on appeal, appellants were successful.Anyhow, on 16-11-90, at about 7 A.M. when Brijmohan (P.W. 2) was going by bicycle with a post bag to Bhaura Chauraha, he was surrounded by all the appellants, was abused and belabored.Shyam Babu (A-1) was armed with Farsiy while other appellants were armed with lathis.On shouts of Brijmohan (PAY. 2) his father, Kaluram rushed to the spot but he Loo was beaten badly.Post bag and some letters were torn.Gangaram (P.W. 3), Rambharosa (P.W. 4) and Dayaram rushed to the spot and pacified.Brijmohan (P.W. 2) reported the matter to Police Station, Fatchgarh situalc at a distance of 12 kms.Brijmohan (P.W. 2) was medically examined by Dr. H.H.N. Garg (P.W. 1) who noted in all 10 injuries on different parts of body.There were two lacerated wounds and rest contusions.His father Kaluram had seven contusions on the body.On X-ray photographs being taken, R.K. Jain (P.W. 7), radiologist found fractures of left ulna and right fibula on Brijmohan (P.W. 2) and fractures of left radius and index finger of Kaluram.X-ray plates relating to Kaluram arc there on record though X-ray plates pertaining to Brijmohan (P.W. 2) arc not there on record, yet, X-ray reports are there.Certificate about employment of Brijmohan (P.W. 2) in Post Office, Ramnagar was taken from R.P. Shrivastava (P.W. 5), Inspector, Post Office.Thus, after due investigation charge-sheet under Sections 353, 341, 294, 186, 426 and 333 was filed against the appellants.Appellants pleaded not guilty.They claim that they have been falsely implicated.The Trial Court relying upon prosecution evidence has found the appellants guilty and sentenced them as aforesaid.Prosecution story was fully supported by Brijmohan (P.W. 2), injured complainant, Gangaram (P.W. 3) and Rambharosa (P.W. 4).Their statements have been consistent, natural and probable.FIR (Ex. P-3) is lodged by Brijmohan (P.W. 2) on the same date at P.S. Fatehgarh, situate at a distance of 12 kms.from the spot which takes the case of prosecution very far.Dr. H.H.N. Garg (P.W. 1) has medically examined Brijmohan (P.W. 2) and his father Kaluram on 17-11-90 and has noted several injuries on their persons which could be caused by hard and blunt objects.Obviously, these injuries were neither self inflicted nor artificial.Dr. R.K. Jain (P.W. 7), radiologist has noted fractures on persons of both Brijmohan (P.W. 2) and his father Kaluram.It is noteworthy, that Kaluram had died before his statement could be recorded in Trial Court and thus he was not available for his examination.The appellants have merely denied the offence and claim that they have been falsely implicated.They would pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each, in default of payment of which they shall undergo R.I. for 6 months.Thus, appeal allowed in part.
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
23,432,807
Seeking to transfer the investigation in Crime No.2 of 2012 from the file of third respondent to the fourth respondent and the fourth respondent may take up further investigation and file additional charge sheet in C.C. No.2 of 2013 pending on the file of the Magalir Court, Ooty, the petitioner has come up with this petition.2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.It appears that on a compliant lodged by the petitioner, the third respondent registered a case in Cr.No.2/2012 for offence under Sections 147, 148, 323, 448, 436, 307 I.P.C., and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act and 32 persons were shown as accused in the F.I.R. After completing investigation, the third respondent filed final report against 40 persons for offence under Sections 147, 148, 448, 352, 323, 436, 506(i) & 3(1) TNPPDL Act, 1992 and 352 r/w 149 I.P.C., 323 r/w 149 I.P.C., 436 r/w 149 I.P.C., 3(1) of TNPPDL Act r/w 149 I.P.C. Cognizance was taken on file by the learned Magistrate concerned in C.C.No.2/2013 and charges were framed against the accused and summons were issued to the petitioner and other witnesses for giving evidence.At that time, the petitioner filed a letter dated 01.04.2015 before the trial Court requesting the trial Judge to transfer the case from the file of the third respondent to the Central Branch- Criminal Investigation Department (CB-CID).In the said letter, the petitioner has not given any cogent reasons for transferring the case to CB-CID and she has made only vague allegations against the police officials who have conducted investigation.It is seen that though the F.I.R., was registered including for offence under Section 307 I.P.C., the same was omitted in the final report.4.The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the respondent police included the name of Anish and Rajkannan also as accused in the F.I.R. But, in the final report, the name of Anish has been deleted and Rajkannan name has been changed to Rajkumar.The trial Court had rightly dismissed the said letter of the petitioner dated 01.04.2015 stating that it does not have the power to transfer the case to CB-CID.Hence, the petitioner has come up with this petition with the prayer to transfer the present case to CB-CID.Though only 32 persons have been named in the F.I.R., the third respondent filed final report as against 40 persons.Even the discharge summary relied upon by the petitioner shows that the petitioner was assaulted by four known females at about 1.30 p.m., on the occurrence date, but, no serious injuries were suffered by the petitioner.7.Be that as it may, it appears that the Police have conducted investigation with the available materials and they have filed charge sheet against 40 persons for various offences aforesaid.At this juncture, it may not be desirable for this Court to transfer the case to CB-CID.If it is the grievance of the petitioner that the name of one person has been omitted in the charge sheet, it is open for the petitioner to file a protest petition before the concerned Court giving full details and on such protest petition being filed, the trial Court may pass orders in accordance with law.8.At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is a threat to the life of the petitioner.In my considered opinion, it is always open for the petitioner to make petition to the police seeking protection.If any such petition being filed by the petitioner, it is for the police to take action on the same in accordance with law.9.With the above observations, the Criminal Original Petition is closed.28.04.2015Index:yes/noInternet:yesjbmTo1.The Director General of Police, Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore, Chennai.2.The Superintendent of Police, Nilgiris, Nilgiris District.3.The Inspector of Police, E1, Kandal Police Station, Ooty Rural, Nilgiris District.4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Nilgiris District.5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.P.N.PRAKASH, J.
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
23,433,538
Heard finally.This is the first application filed by applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C for grant of bail.Applicant has been arrested on 3/04/13 in connection with Crime No. 39/13 registered at P.S. Tendukheda, District Damoh for the offence punishable under sections 392, 397 of IPC and section 25-1 (1-B) A of Arms Act.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case.The similarly placed co-accused Vikram has already been enlarged on bail by the trial Court.Trial would take considerable time to be disposed of finally therefore, he prays for bail to the applicant.Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.Certified copy as per rules.
['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
234,337
JUDGMENT Rajamannar Offg.In Sessions case No. 36 of 1947 in the Court of Session, South Kanara Division, there were four accused.The deceased reiterated that accused 1 should not have been saying that the children were stealing cocoanuts from big garden unless he had seen the same with his own eyes if he had been born to a true father.Accused 1 saying that the reply was an insolent one, caught hold of the deceased and gave him two or three blows with an iron rod.The deceased dropped down and expired soon after.Subsequently, sometime after midnight, accused 1, 2 and 3 went to the house of the deceased and removed the body, accused 1 and 3 carrying the body and accused 2 following with a lantern.The body was cremated a short distance behind the house of the deceased.Accused 1 was charged for an offence under Section 302, Penal Code.Accused 1 to 3 were charged for an offence under Section 201, Penal Code, and accused for an offence under Section 201 read with Section 109, Penal Code.The learned Sessions Judge acquitted accused 1 of the offence under Section 302 but convicted him of an offence under Section 326, Penal Code, and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for five years.He found accused 1 to 3 guilty under Section 201 and sentenced each of them to rigorous imprisonment for 18 months, the sentences on accused l to run concurrently.Accused 4 was acquitted.A. Nos. 627 of 1947 and 664 of 1947 are by accused 2 and 3 respectively.C. A. no, 91 of 1948 is by the Crown against the acquittal of accused 1 of the offence under Section 802, Penal Code.When these appeals first came on for hearing before Horwill and Mack JJ.an objection was taken on behalf of accused 1 that the trial was illegal because of a misjoinder of charges.The learned Judges thought that the case raised a point of considerable importance and that it was desirable that it should be disposed of by a Full Bench.As the objection raised relates to a misjoinder of charges it is necessary to state the charges as framed.They ran as follows:Firstly,That you, accused 1 (Mambady Krishna Bhatta) on 18th December 1946 at about 7-80 p. m. at Padyana in Korepady village did commit murder by intentionally causing the death of Thyampa Shetty, son of Sankar Shetty of Korepady village, Puttui taluk, by beating him with an iron rod and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302, Penal Code, and within my cognizance.That you, accused 1 to 3 at the said place and in the course of the same transaction during the later hours of the same night and the early hours of the following morning knowing or having reason to believe that the offence of murder has been committed by accused 1, caused the disappearance of the evidence of the commission of the said offence of murder by accused 1 by secretely cremating the body of the said Thyampa Shetty in Padyana on a hill, behind the house of the deceased, with intention of screening accused from legal punishment and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 201, Penal Code, and within my cognizance.Thirdly That you, accused 4 on the said day, time and place and in the course of the same translation abetted the commission of the offence under Section 201, Penal Code, by accused 1 to 3 mentioned in charge 2 which was committed in consequence of your abetment and that you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 201, Penal Code, read with Section 109, Penal Code and within my cognisance.The case foe the prosecution on which the above charges were framed was shortly as follows.The deceased Thyampa Shetty was a cooly working in the areca gardens in Korapadi Tillage.He was living there with his wife and three children.Shortly before his death, he heard that accused 1 who is a Brahmin resident of the same village, had been complaining that his (the deceased's) children were stealing cocoanuts from accused l's garden.On the evening of the day of occurrence, the deceased was told about the complaint of accused l and the deceased is said to have remarked that accused 1 would not say such things unless he had seen the same personally if he was born of a true father.Accused 1 on hearing this went to the residence of the deceased at about 7-30 p. m, that night and asked the deceased as to what he had been saying.
['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
23,440,593
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 95/2018 Page 2 of 6"12.1 The testimonies, on record, which are complete and can be read are that of petitioner (PW-1), ASI Satya Vir (PW-2) and HC Sandeep (PW-3).As noticed above, PW-2 and PW-3 have only proved FIRs u/sec.-498-A/406 IPC r/w/sec.- 34 IPC lodged by the petitioner against the respondent and his family and the FIR by estranged wife of the respondent's brother Anurag against Anurag and other family members.PW-1 in her affidavit Ex.SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)A perusal of the impugned judgment and order clearly and unequivocally reflects that, the wife from her pleadings and evidence, which MAT.APP.(F.C.) 95/2018 Page 2 of 6 have gone unrebutted, been able to establish that the husband under the influence of liquor, sexually harassed and abused her and further that the latter encouraged his brother and brother-in-law to sexually harass and abuse the wife.The specific incidents pleaded and deposed by the wife have remained unchallenged.Furthermore, the wife's testimony that she was forced to consume liquor and that husband performed sexual intercourse with one Ms. Neha in her presence has also remained unrebutted.PW-1/1 has reproduced the contents of her petition, alleging demand of dowry to the extent of Rs.25 Lakhs for purchase of flat.She has also deposed about fraud committed upon her regarding concealment of material facts of marriage, at the time of solemnization of marriage.She has next deposed about the routine consumption of liquor by the respondent with his brother Anurag and brother-in-law Chander Prakash in the matrimonial home.It has also been deposed by her that under the influence of liquor, respondent's brother and brother-in-law attempted to rape the petitioner and also molested her, which was to the knowledge of the respondent.Instead of discouraging MAT.APP.(F.C.) 95/2018 Page 3 of 6 or challenging his brother and brother-in-law, he encouraged them to carry on with their nefarious activities and on petitioner's refusal for the same, he would beat her.Petitioner's complaint to her mother-in- law and sister-in-law about these incidents brought no fruitful results.It is also her case that respondent performed sexual intercourse with one Neha in her presence.MAT.APP.(F.C.) 95/2018 Page 3 of 612.2 Petitioner's affidavit also contains averments about she having been cheated at the time of marriage by concealment of material facts.She has also proved her complaints dated 06.06.2011 and 27.03.2012 to the Police about the cruelties committed by the respondent and his family members.She has also proved DD No.641/B dated 21.06.2011, as Ex.PW-1/F. During the cross-examination which was conducted on 2 dates of hearings, the main complaints on the major incidents of cruelty, pleaded and deposed by the petitioner were not touched by respondent's counsel.The petitioner's case regarding the respondent, his brother, his brother-in-law consuming liquor and sexually harassing and abusing the petitioner have gone unrebutted.She was confronted with her statement Ex.Petitioner's further case that respondent encouraged his brother and his brother-in-law to sexually harass and abuse the petitioner have also remained unchallenged.The specific incidents pleaded and deposed by the petitioner, when respondent's brother Anurag tried to impose himself upon her and similarly, Chander Prakash respondent's brother-in-law tried to force himself upon the petitioner have remained unchallenged.Petitioner's MAT.APP.(F.C.) 95/2018 Page 4 of 6 case that respondent performed sexual intercourse with one Neha in her presence; has also remained unchallenged.In such circumstances, the court is left with a clear case, where, the petitioner was subjected to extreme cruelty at the hand of her husband, who instead of saving her honour and coming to her rescue, pushed her into situations, which exposed her to a possible sexual assault.Though, the allegations seemed to be too bizarre but since the same have remained unassailed, the same shall have to be accepted to be true and established.The other allegations regarding demand of dowry or concealment of material facts fade into insignificance, when such glaring incidents of cruelty have gone unchallenged.MAT.APP.(F.C.) 95/2018 Page 4 of 6(2) ReliefThe marriage between the petitioner/wife and respondent/husband AV is, hereby, dissolved u/sec.-13(1)(i-a) of the HMA, with immediate effect."No other issue apart from the one first mentioned has been raised in the present appeal before us.In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered view that MAT.APP.(F.C.) 95/2018 Page 5 of 6 the unrebutted and unchallenged testimony of the wife is credible and leads to but one inescapable conclusion that by his admitted conduct as established by her unchallenged and unrebutted testimony, the husband inflicted extreme cruelty and trauma upon her.Resultantly, we see no reason to interfere with the finding arrived at by the learned Family Court, in the present appeal.MAT.APP.(F.C.) 95/2018 Page 5 of 6The appeal is accordingly dismissed.The pending applications also stand disposed of.
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
234,444
In short, the prosecution case is that on 19.3.2002 at about 8 O' clock in the morning when Halkeram (PW7) and Yeshwant (PW8) were going towards Hiragarhi, they passed from front of the house of accused.Accused invited them to his house and served them liquor.Accused then asked his wife Muliyabai to serve lunch, but she did not do it.Being annoyed accused assaulted his wife with lathi.When Halkeram and Yeshwant tried to intervene, he also attempted to assault them, whereupon they left his house.This (2) Cr.A.1343/2002 incident was witnessed by Abdul Kadir (PW6) also.As a result of injuries, Muliyabai died.On 20.3.2002 at about 7.00 A.M. Abdul Kahar (PW1) went to the house of accused and saw Muliyabai dead.A merg intimation Ex. P/1 was also recorded.Head Constable Santram Tiwari (PW10) along with his staff went to the house of accused and conducted inquest.Next day morning i.e. 21.3.2002 dead body of Muliyabai was sent for postmortem examination to Community Health Centre, Ghansaur.Dr. S.C.Jain (PW11) conducted the postmortem examination and found six injuries on the body caused by hard and blunt object.Fourth, fifth, eleventh, and twelveth ribs of the left side were found fracture.Spleen of the deceased was also ruptured.Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 31.7.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Lakhnadaun in Sessions Trial No. 50/2002, convicting him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment for two years.Death was homicidal in nature.After investigation, charge sheet was filed and the case was committed for trial.Accused pleaded false implication.According to him, deceased had consumed liquor.Under the spell of liquor, she had fallen down on woods and stones and contracted injuries which resulted into her death.Prosecution examined Abdul Kadir (PW6), Halkeram (PW7) and Yeshwant (PW8) as eye witnesses of the incident.Halkeram and Yeshwant did not support the prosecution case.However, relying on the evidence of Abdul Kadir (PW6) and finding his evidence corroborated by the evidence of Dr. S.C. Jain (PW11) trial Judge held the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.Smt. Durgesh Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that eye witnesses Halkeram (PW7) and Yeshwant (PW8), who are said to be (3) Cr.A.1343/2002 present in the house of accused did not support the prosecution case.Abdul Kadir (PW6), who resided at some distance from the house of accused, in fact did not see the incident, but falsely implicated the accused in the case.His evidence was not reliable.Learned counsel further submitted that in view of the evidence on record and the nature of injuries found on the body of deceased, the conviction of accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was not justified.Since there was no evidence on record to indicate that accused intended to cause death of his wife, at the most accused could have been held liable for the offence under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code.Accused had been in custody since about 8 years.On the other hand, Shri S.K.Rai, learned Govt. Advocate for the State contended that the evidence of Abdul Kadir (PW6) was fully reliable.The contradictions found in his statement were in fact not material.There was sufficient evidence against the accused and the trial Court rightly convicted the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.It is true that alleged eye witnesses Halkeram (PW7) and Yeshwant (PW8), who were admittedly present in the house of deceased, did not support the prosecution story.According to them, deceased was not present in the house, therefore, they did not see the incident.However Abdul Kadir (PW6) categorically stated that when he was present in his `Badi' he heard accused asking for food from his wife.He saw Muliyabai running out of the house and accused chasing her wielding a lathi.Accused assaulted Muliyabai with lathi, due to which she fell down.Accused repeatedly assaulted her with lathi.Thereafter, he went inside the house.Though, certain contradictions were pointed out by learned counsel for the accused in the statement of this witness, but in our opinion they were (4) Cr.A.1343/2002 not on material parts of the prosecution story and did not effect the credibility of this witness.There appeared no reason for this witness to have falsely implicated the accused for causing death of his wife.Trial Court after closely appreciating the evidence of this witness, rightly concluded that his evidence was trustworthy.The evidence of this witness is also corroborated by the evidence of Dr. S.C.Jain (PW11), who performed the postmortem examination of the body of deceased.As per postmortem examination report Ex. P/17-A, he found following injuries on the body of deceased:(i) One contusion on left axillary region above ilium bone on 11th and 12th rib size 2"x1",(ii) bruise on the back of fourth left thoracic spine 1 1/2"x1/2",(iii) bruise on the back of seventh thoracic vertebra 2"x1.5",(iv) bruise on the left side of back on 10th thoracic spine 2"x1/2",(v) bruise on left side of chest 2"x1/2" &(vi) bruise on left arm near acromial angle 2x1/2".On internal examination, Dr. Jain found that 4th, 5th, 11th and 12th ribs of the left side of the deceased were fractured.Spleen was also ruptured.Cause of death of deceased was excessive haemorrhage and shock due to injury of spleen.The death was homicidal in nature.The injuries were grievous in nature.After examining the evidence of Abdul Kadir (PW6), the eye witness, in the light of evidence of Dr. S.C. Jain (PW11), we find that it is amply established that it was accused only, who had caused injuries to deceased which resulted into her death.The next question before us is whether the accused was rightly convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.(5) Cr.From the evidence of Abdul Kadir (PW6), it appears that the incident had occurred on a sudden altercation between the accused and the deceased for giving food to him.There is nothing on record to indicate that accused had any intention or motive to commit murder of his wife.The incident had occurred suddenly without any premeditation.Apart from it, none of the injuries found on the body of deceased was on any vital part of the body.Dr. Jain opined that the injuries were grievous in nature.The cause of death was haemorrhage by rupture of spleen.In these circumstances, we are of the view that the conviction of appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was not justified.However, since accused assaulted the deceased with lathi, it can be held that he had knowledge that by his act he was likely to cause death of deceased.Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside.Instead he is convicted under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code.He be released forthwith if not required in any other case.Appeal partly allowed.
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
234,452
Tameshwar Sahi (55) Ram Naresh (6), Harihar Alias Harendra Nath Sahi (23), Jagdish Sahi (43).Dudhai--Budhnath Sahi (7), Garib @ Lal Bahadur Sahi (22), Jagat Sahi (40) Arjun Sahi (25) and Bhandari Sahi (45), Sita Ram Sahi (40), were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur for the members of Chandrabali and Ram Adhar, and for allied offences.The prosecution case as unfolded at the trial by PW3, Raj Ballabh, is as follows:One Janki owned a house in village Bairia-Dih.He executed an unregistered sale deed (Kha 10) in the year 1954 in favour of Sita Saran, the acquitted co-accused.On October 6, 1964, at about 9.30 a.m. deceased persons, Chandrabali, and his son, Ram Adhar, started removing tiles from the roof of the said house.Sita Saran accompanied by the nine accused, all armed with spears,came there.Sita Saran asked the deceased to stop the demolition of the house asserting that he was its owner by virtue of the purchase from Janki.A heated altercation ensued between the deceased and the accused.The deceased came down from the roof.As sharp exchange of abuse between the parties followed Expecting his companions to deal with the deceased, Tameshwar hit Chandrabali with the spear, while Ram Naresh struck his spear on Ram Adhar Ram Naresh dealt a spear blow to Chandrabali, also.Raj Ballabh, PW, interceded and asked the assailants to desist from the assault.Thereupon, Harihar G Harender appellant gave a spear blow to Raj Ballabh, followed by another blow by one of the accused.While the appellants were striking blows on the victim, their companions continued to instigate them saying "'Maro, Maro".On receiving these injuries, all the three victims fell to the ground.The assailants then ran away taking their weapons with them.Apart from PW3, the occurrence was witnessed by Hargovind (CW1), Chaturgun, Sardar Sahi, Sheoshankar, Sheo Manga) Yadav, Uppu and others who had come to the support on hearing the altercation.Chandrabali and Ram Adhar died at the spot.The First Information Report of this case was laid by Sheo Shankar (P.W. 12) son of Raj Ballabh (P.W. 3) at the Police Station Barhalganj, 7 miles away, at 1.45 p.m. the same day, it was recorded by Head Constable Girish Dutt as the Sub-Inspector was away.At 2.45 p.m. Jagdish, the acquitted co-accused, also lodged a report (Ex. Kha 18; in the Police Station, complaining that Chandrabali and Ram Adhar deceased alongwith P.Ws.Raj Ballabh, Sheo Shankar, Mangal, Laxmi Shankar, Mahatrna Sahi and others were dismantling the tiles of the informant's house which had been purchased by the informant's brother Sita Saran.The informant and his brother stopped them, whereupon the deceased and their associates, all began plying ballams One of the blown given by Ram Adhar hit the informant on the thigh.The informant and his brother wielded their ballams in self-defence.On account of the hue cry raised, the villagers collected and intervened.AH the ten were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149, Penal Code on two Counts, and sentenced to imprisonment for life, each They were further convicted for the attempted murder of Raj Ballabh (P.W.3).Harihar under Section 307 and the rest under Sections 307/149, and each sentenced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment.A sentence of 3 years rigorous imprisonment was also imposed da each of them under Section 148, Penal Code.The sentences were directed to fun concurrently.On appeal, the High Court of Allahabad altered the conviction of Tameshwar Sahi and Ram Naresh to one under Section 302 read with Section 34 Penal Code but maintained their sentences of life imprisonment.Their convictions on the other counts were set aside.The conviction of the other eight under Sections 148, 302/149, Penal Code was also set aside.The conviction of Harihar under Section 307 Penal Code was upheld.Tameshwar, Ram Naresh and Harihar have come in appeal to this Court by special leave.Raj Ballabh injured was removed to Barhalganj Hospital where he was examined by Dr. Paresh Chandra Chaudhury (PW 5) on the same day at 2.30 p.m. The Doctor found one punctured wound on the left side of his chest and another punctured wound on the outer side of his right thigh.The chest wound was grievous while the other was simple.The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of Hargovind, Budhu, Pardnman, Mst.Dhanpati, Mat, Attariwali and others, at the spot.After, inspecting the spot and removing the blood soaked earth, he recorded the statements of PWs.Mangal Chaturgun, Sheo Shankar and others.On receiving a copy of the report given by Jagdish, accused, the Investigating Officer rushed to the Police Station, and on reaching there at 9 p.m. arrested Jagdish and interrogated him.Tameshwar, Ram Naresh, Harihar, Garib, Arjun, Jagat and Bhandari could not be found despite search.Therefore proceedings under Sections 87 and 88 Cr PC against them were set afoot.The inquest reports (Ka 9 and 1p) regarding the deaths of Chandrabali and Ram Adhar were prepared by Head Constable Girjesh Dutt.The post-mortem examination of the dead bodies was conducted by Dr. P.N. Mehrotra (PW 6) on 27-10-1964 at 11.30 onwards.The Doctor found three wounds, on the body of Ram Adhar which, in his opinion, had been caused with a sharp-edged pointed weapon, like a spear and the death was due so shock and by a cope as a result of the chest injury (No. 1) and haemorrhage.On the body of Chandrabali the Doctor found two penetrating wounds on the chest, and an abrasion on the left shoulder.The penetrating wounds in the Doctor's opinion, had been caused with a sharp-edged pointed weapon like a spear and the death was due to shock and any scope as a result of injury to both the lungs and haemorrhage.17 The plea of the accused was one of denial of the prosecution case.Sita Saran pleaded alibi.Sita Saran however owned the shirt Ex. 7 and alleged that he had been beaten by the Sub-Inspector and the blood, if any of this shirt; was of the accused Jagdish disowned the F.I.R., Ex Ka 18, although he repeated the allegation that he had been assaulted by the deceased and others when he prevented them from dismanting the tiles from the roof of the house.The Trial Court found that the presence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 12 and 13 at the time and place of occurrence could not be doubled It did not rely on the testimony of Budhu who, in its opinion, had colluded with the accused, and had been allowed to be cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor.It further held that Sardar P.W. 4 was a "got up" witness and no reliance could safely be placed of the aforesaid witnesses, corroborated by the medical evidence, had fully brought home the charges to the accused.It therefore convicted them as aforesaid.The learned Judges of the High Court, however, in disagreement with the Trial Court, found that the evidence of P.W. 4, also, was creditworthy.Although it found that all the 10 accused may have been present at the spot, yet it doubted whether all of them had spears or had intended participating in the occurrence.It held that the fatal assault on the deceased persons was made by Tameshwar and Ramnaresh on the exhortation of Tarmshwar, that Harihar had intervened only to attack Raj ballabh and that in these circumstances, each accused was responsible for his own individual Act. On this reasoning all the accused, excepting the appellants, were acquitted.Mr. Frank Anthony, learned Counsel for the appellants, contends that all the eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution were partisans of the deceased, and even according to the High Court it was not safe to act upon their testimony without seeking independent corroboration.The point pressed into service is, that the evidence of P.W. 4, as found by the trial Court, was unreliable and it could not impart any assurance to the other evidence, which it itself did not have.It is pointed out that P.W. 4's statement was recorded by the investigating officer about two months after the occurrence although this witness was available at the time of recording the First information and was also present at the time of recording the first information and was also present at the time of the inquest and signed be the inquest reports.It is emphasized that his name does not find mention in the F.I.R. Further infirmities in his evidence pointed out by the Counsel are: that he had the sudacity to deny that Jagdish accused had received any injury at or about the time of the occurrence; that he had seen the incident from a distance when all the 10 accused persons were allegedly surrounding the deceased and brandishing their weapons.In sum, it is maintained that if the evidence of P.W. 4 is knocked out there will be no independent evidence to corroborate the partisan witnesses.Doubtless, the evidence of PW 4 suffers from several infirmities, and could not, as rightly held by the trial court, be safely relied upon.But that does not mean, that the prosecution case would collapse on that score.corroborated by the medical evidence, would, in our opinion, be sufficient to sustain the conviction 'of the appellants The testimony of P.W. 3, who is the chosen Sabhapati of the village Panchayat strikes us as true, Although he is a partisan witness and in proceedings under Section 107, Cr.P.C. he was arrayed alongwith P.Ws. 1, 2, 11, 13 against the party of the accused, yet that is not ground, in the circumstances of the ease, to disbelieve him, He gave his evidence with due restraint and responsibility.The very tenor of his testimony bears in impress of truth.He physically interceded to stop the assault of the deceased persons and in the process himself received two injuries.He was closest to the deceased and had the best opportunity to see as who out of the several accused dealt blows to the deceased persons, and to him.He did not, as his son PW 12 did who had probably seen the incident from a distance, irresponsibly and recklessly say that all the ten accused assaulted the deceased persons.He ascribes the injuries of Chandrabali and Ram, Adhar to Tameshwar and Ram Naresh appellants only, although he had the opportunity to ascribe the six injuries found on the deceased persons to six different persons out of the ten accused.He, himself had received two spear injuries.He could if he had been actuated by untruthful and vindictive motive, attribute his two injuries to two different persons.But he did nothing of this kind even with regard to, his own injuries, he did not give up that restraint.He attributes only one of the injuries to Harinder appellant.In regard to is second injury, all that he said was that one of the accused inflicted that injury, The medical testimony furnished by PWs 5 and 6, confirms that all the injuries for the deceased excepting one on Chandrabali which was an abrasion, and both the injuries of Raj Ballabh had been caused with sharpedged pointed weapons like spears.The corroboration furnished by the medical evidence, in the circumstances of the case, was sufficient to make Raj Ballah's testimony safe for basing a conviction thereon.Nor does the acquittal of the seven accused who according to Raj Ballabh were instigating the appellant? necessarily show that he had falsely implicated them.The High Court did not find it so, it acquitted those accused only as a matter of abundant caution.In their ease, the medical evidence could not furnish any corroboration as it has done against appellants.Nor do we find any substance in the contention that the story at the trial was materially changed from that narrated in the F.I.R, lodged by P.W.12, in the F.I.R. the parts played by each of the accused were not parti cularised.It was not stated with specificity as to who belaboured whom.It was stated in a somewhat consolidated manner that all the ten accused surrounded the deceased and were seen plying their spears at them.The informant was the son of Raj Ballabh.Obviously he had seen the occurrence, if at all, from a distance.If his presence at the scene of occurrence cannot be doubted and his evidence is consistent with the surrounding circumstances and the probabilities of the case and strikes the court as true, it can he a good foundation for a conviction, more so if some assurance for it is available from the medical evidence.In the light of what has been said above, we have no hesitation in holding that Tameshwar and Ram Naresh were rightly convicted for the murders of Chandrabali and Ram Adhar.As against Harihar, we think, the offence made out was one under Section 324, Penal Code and not under Section 307, Penal Code for which he has been convicted.Out of the two injuries found on the person of Raj Ballabh, one that is, injury No. 1 only, located on the chest, was grievous, while the other on the thigh was simple.Raj Ballabh did not specify as to which of these injuries was inflicted by Harihar.There, fore, as a matter of caution, he should have been convicted for causing simple hurt only with a sharp weapon.Accordingly, we alter his conviction from one under Section 307 Penal Code to that under 324, Penal Code and reduce his sentence to 3 years rigorous imprisonment.Excepting this modification qua-Harihar appellant, the appeal is dismissed.
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 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.
2,344,621
This is the first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for regular bail.The applicant is in custody since 05.08.2015 in connection with Crime No.285/2015 registered at Police Station Kumbhraj, District Guna for the offences punishable under Sections 307/34 of IPC & 25/27 of Arms Act.It is alleged that on 05.08.2015 on a tip from the informer, the police party had gone to arrest the proclaimed offender in connection with crime no.225/2015 for offence u/S.302 of IPC., two persons were seen one armed with Farsa and another armed with country made pistol.One person the applicant inflicted Farsi injury on Nirmal Singh and second person the accused Monu fired gun shot.Farsi was recovered from the applicant.On behalf of the applicant, it is stated that he is attributed to have caused injury by Farsi to Nirmal Singh.However, no MLC of Nirmal Singh is annexed.Therefore, the applicant be given the benefit of bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State opposed the application on the ground that the applicant is habitual offender.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant:-The applicant will not interfere or influence the prosecution witnesses;The applicant will make himself available or represent through his counsel on early date of proceedings.The applicant will not indulge in any similar offences during the pendency of the trial.(S.K. Palo) Judge AK/-
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
102,320,556
(iii) The Applicant shall furnish his permanent as well as residential address, if any, and his contact details to the concerned Investigation Officer.(iv) The Applicant shall not change his residential address, without prior intimation to the concerned Investigation Officer.Perusal of the FIR primafacie reveals that the first informant had taken loan from severalpersons and despite payment of the same those persons were harassinghim, his brothers and father for returning the loan.The first informanthas stated that 4 to 5 months prior to suicide by the deceased, theApplicant had forcibly taken the motorcycle of the deceased as he hadfailed to repay the loan.The first informant claims that his brother hascommitted suicide on account of the harassment meted out to him bythe Applicant and others.Having perused the records, in my considered view theallegations levelled against the Applicant do not prima facie discloseessential ingredients to abetment under Section 107 of the IPC.The material on record does not indicate that the Applicantwas involved in abetting the suicide.Prima facie there are noreasonable grounds to show that the Applicant is involved inMegha 2/4 Megha 39_aba_49_2018.doccommitting the alleged offence.The learned counsel for the Applicanthas placed reliance on the order dated 20th February, 2018 passed inAnticipatory Bail Application No.18 of 2018 whereby pre-arrest bailhas been granted to the similarly placed co-accused.The Applicant is apermanent resident of Taluka-Indapur and hence, there is nopossibility of his absconding.Hence, thefollowing order:-(i) In the event of arrest of the Applicant in C.R. No.856 of 2017 registered with Indapur Police Station, District-Pune (Rural), the Applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.25,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount.(ii) The Applicant shall report to the Investigation Officer or Sr.P.I. of the Indapur Police Station for a period of four days from 15.10.2018 between 11.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. and thereafter as and when calledMegha 3/4 Megha 39_aba_49_2018.doc and required by the Investigation Officer.(v) The Applicant shall not interfere with the witnesses in any manner.
['Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
102,322,709
The marriage of the petitioner with respondent no. 2 was solemnized on 09.02.2000 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies in Delhi.Out of the said wedlock, two children namely Dev Shokeen and Aashima were born on 18.03.2001 on 22.03.2007 respectively.The following terms and conditions of settlement were recorded by the learned Mediator: -It is stated by the husband Sh.Rahul Shokeen and wife Smt.Respondent No.2 and respondent No.3 also agree to give 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) per month to the complainant Pooja Shokeen and that amount shall be deposited in the bank account of the complainant Pooja Shokeen on or before 2nd day of each English calendar month for a period of one year, if the complainant and respondent NO.1 maintain good relations, then in that case, the said amount will be continued to be paid to Pooja Shokeen.Respondent no.2 and respondent No.3 also agreed that they shall given respective share of all properties owned by them along with ancestral properties to their grandchildren in case respondent No.1 fails to discharge his responsibilities towards his children and wife/complainant.Complainant wants to wait and watch their relationship and seeks one year time to withdraw the present matter.It is also undertaken by both the parties that they both will give respect to the family members, relatives of each other.It is agreed between both the parties that in-laws are free to visit the property at Amrit Nagar, South Extension Part-1 to meet their grandchildren whenever they feel like and also the complainant agrees that she will not object to such visitation.However, it is agreed by the respondents No.2 that he will not stay in the above-mentioned property for more than three days in any given month.Further, the respondent W.P. (Crl.) No. 3029/2017 Page 3 of 7 No.3 shall be free to visit the above-mentioned property to see her grandchildren or otherwise at any time she feels like.The respondent no. 2, who is present in court and duly identified by the IO, submits that she has amicably settled the matter with the petitioner and is living with him happily.She further submits that she has been receiving Rs.20,000/- every month from the petitioner.The petitioner has submitted that he is earning Rs.30,000/- per month.Both the parties being husband and wife have amicably settled their disputes before the learned Mediator, Mediation Centre, Saket Courts, Delhi.Terms and conditions of settlement are exhaustive.The quarrel took place between husband and wife (petitioner no. 1 and respondent no.2).They are having two children aged 16 and 10 years of age.The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.PC) for quashing of FIR No. 548/2014, registered on 01.07.2014 with Police Station Kotla Mubarakpur, Delhi, under Section 307 IPC.On 30.06.2014, there was an altercation between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 and the petitioner caused multiple stab injuries on the face, neck, right wrist and right hand of respondent No.2 with a knife.The Medical Officer described nature of injuries as "simple" and kind of weapon used as "sharp".W.P. (Crl.) No. 3029/2017 Page 1 of 7Status report has been filed.Learned ASC through the IO submits that the charge sheet has so far not been filed.Respondent No.2 had filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.PC for maintenance against the petitioner before Principal Judge, Family Court, Saket, New Delhi.She had also filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short DV Act) before the court of learned MM, Mahila Court, Saket, New Delhi.The parties have arrived at a settlement before the learned Mediator, Mediation Centre, Saket Courts, New Delhi, on 03.06.2015 on making a reference by learned MM, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, where petition under Section 12 of D.V. Act was pending.W.P. (Crl.) No. 3029/2017 Page 2 of 7They both agree to discharge their responsibilities towards each other and other family members also.Respondent No.1 Rahul Shokeen agree to maintain good relationship and take care of the children and complainant/wife in all means.W.P. (Crl.) No. 3029/2017 Page 3 of 7Both the petitioner and the respondent no. 2 submits that they are taking care of each other and family members and they are living happily and therefore she does not want to pursue with the FIR.She requests that FIR may be quashed.Learned ASC submits that in his bail application the petitioner had admitted having caused injuries to the respondent no. 2 in the scuffle.Para 2 of the application reads as under: -That the victim..............and has extra marital relations and on being caught behaved violently and had provoked the accused which resulted in the minor injuries to the victim in W.P. (Crl.) No. 3029/2017 Page 4 of 7 this scuffle and accused also received injuries."W.P. (Crl.) No. 3029/2017 Page 4 of 7He submits that the petitioner requires counselling and such type of people repeat their behaviour.He submits that before quashing the FIR, the petitioner should be referred to Institute of Human Behaviour & Allied Sciences (IHBAS), Dilshad Garden, Delhi for counselling.He submits that the petitioner should be directed to deposit some amount in the name of wife and both children so that he performs his family obligations.For these reasons, he opposes prayer to quash the FIR.
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
10,232,295
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.The applicant has filed this first application u/S 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested on 28.01.2017 by Police Station De-par, District Datia in connection with Crime No. 07/2017 registered in relation to the offences punishable u/Ss.420 IPC and further added Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC.
['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
102,325,063
M Shri D.K. Sharma, counsel for the objector in both cases.of Heard on this first application filed by petitioner Sabharaj Dahiya and second application filed on behalf rt of the petitioner Ram Chandra Kushwaha under ou Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in crime C no. 05/2017 registered by P.S.Saleha, District-Panna h under Sections 364-A, 307, 394 and 397 of the IPC.ig The first application for the same relief filed by Ramchandra was H dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 24.04.2017 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C.No.6597/2017; therefore, both the applications are being considered on merits.As per the prosecution case, on 11.01.2017, petitioner Subharaj Dahiya and co-accused Anil Pandey came to victim Arvind Kumar Namdeo in Tavera Vehicle No. M.P.20-H H.A. 8030 and asked him to accompany them on a jaunt.The victim refused to accompany them; however, they forcibly bundled him in the vehicle and took him to Satna bypass road.At that place, petitioner Ram Chandra also joined them.Thereafter, all three sh accused persons took petitioner Arvind to Vasudha and they asked the victim to make phone call to his relatives e to bring Rs.10,00,000/. They threatened that otherwise ad they would kill him but the victim refused to make the Pr phone calls; whereon, all three accused persons beat the victim with swords.As a result, victim sustained injuries a hy to his head and other parts of the body.Thereafter, co- accused Anil Pandey snatched two mobile phones and ad Rs.500/- from the victim and got down at Nagod.He M asked petitioners Sabharaj Dahiya and Ram Chandra to take the victim towards Pavai jungle.He also told them of that he would joined them later.Petitioners Ram rt Chandrra and Sabharaj Dahiya took the victim to Pavai ou Forest and detained him there.They kept repeatedly pressurizing the victim to call for money.They also C conspired to kill the victim.Thereafter, at the instance of h co-accused Anil, they put the victim in the vehicle.When ig they were passing from in front of P.S. Saleha, the police H caught them during the checking.Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner is an adult.It appears improbable that the accused persons would be able to take him by public roads forcibly for long time.There is no indication on the record that on the way, the victim raised any alarm.Thus, there is more to the incident than meets the eye.Injuries sustained by the victim are simple in nature.The petitioners have no criminal incidents.The trial would take a long time; therefore, it has been e prayed that the petitioners be released on bail.ad Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State Pr as well as learned counsel for the objector have opposed the application mainly on the ground that this is a a hy serious offence of abduction for ransom and the petitioners have also tried to kill the victim.However, ad learned Govt. Advocate has conceded that as per the M report received from the police station, the petitioners have no criminal antecedents.Therefore, learned of government advocate for the respondent/State have rt prayed that the petition be dismissed.ou However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the facts as C pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in h the opinion of this Court, the petitioners namely Ram ig Chandra Kushwaha and Sabharaj Dahiya deserve to H be released on bail.However, it will have to be ensured that they do not flee from justice.Consequently, these applications for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioners Ram Chandra Kushwaha and Sabharaj Dahiya, are allowed.It is directed that the petitioners shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two solvent, local sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each for their appearance before the trial sh Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of e ad the Code of Criminal Procedure and also for refraining from committing any more offences against human body during the pendency of the case.Certified copy as per rules.Pr a hy ad (C V SIRPURKAR) M JUDGE of rt ou vai C Digitally signed by VAISHALI AGRAWAL Date: 2017.11.30 22:00:44 h-08'00' ig H
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
102,327,452
A.No.209/1997 Page 1 of 14A.No.209/1997 Page 1 of 14Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 31 st August 1992 at about 11.20 a.m., on the receipt of information regarding a quarrel near House No.449, J. K. Tent House, A-II, Sector-8, Rohini, DD No. 14 was recorded at the Police Post Rohini which is Ex.PW12/B. Copy of the DD report was entrusted to SI Vir Singh for verification.SI Vir Singh alongwith Constable Ravinder Kumar went to the spot of occurrence, where he found that the injured Daya Ram (hereinafter referred to as deceased) had already been removed to hospital.Parag Madho (PW10) was present at the spot of occurrence who produced the appellant before SI Vir Singh and got recorded his statement Ex.PW10/A. SI Vir Singh appended his endorsement Ex.PW12/C on the said statement and sent it to the police station for the registration of the case.From the spot of occurrence, SI Vir Singh went to Jaipur Golden Hospital and collected the MLC of the deceased who was declared unfit for statement and had been removed for surgery.The Investigating Officer then returned back to the spot of occurrence.He prepared rough Site Plan (Ex.PW12/D), got the spot of occurrence photographed and recorded the statements of the witness Shankar Pandey and Raj Pal Sharma.He found blood on the leaf of door lying at the spot which was taken into possession.He also lifted blood stained earth as well as sample earth from the spot of occurrence and seized the samples vide memo Ex.PW10/E. Chaursi' was also taken into possession after preparing its sketch Ex.PW10/C and converted it into a sealed packet.A.No.209/1997 Page 2 of 14A.No.209/1997 Page 2 of 14Complainant Parag Madho in his statement Ex.PW10/A stated that Daya Ram had done some carpentry work for the appellant at Sector 5, Rohini and the appellant owed him Rs.80/- for the said work.Daya Ram demanded his dues several times but the appellant did not pay.On 31.08.92 at about 11:05 am, he (complainant) and PW8 Raj Pal Sharma accompanied Daya Ram to the house of the appellant to demand payment of the dues of Daya Ram.There they came to know that the appellant was working of door frames at House No.A-II/449, Sector 8, Rohini.Accordingly, they came to Rohini at 11:15 am.Appellant Shatrughan was making door frames under a tree near the said house.When Daya Ram demanded payment of his dues, the appellant started abusing him.He and Raj Pal Sharma tried to persuade the appellant to make the payment, on this, the appellant, while holding a chaursi' (a wood peeling instrument) and shouting that he would eliminate Daya Ram rushed towards him and struck him with the chaursi' on the abdomen and testicles resulting in injuries.Appellant was over-powered by the public persons and the injured Daya Ram was taken in a rickshaw' to Jaipur Golden Hospital.PW8 Raj Pal Sharma has turned hostile.He deposed that he came to know of the occurrence from his younger brother Krishan Kumar and one Harpal at 1.30 p.m. He denied that he had accompanied the deceased to Rohini or that he was present at the time of occurrence.PW10 Parag Madho has supported the prosecution version.He testified that in the year 1992, deceased Daya Ram had worked with the appellant for which a sum of Rs.80/- was due to him from the appellant.On the fateful day, he had accompanied the deceased to the appellant to demand payment of aforesaid dues.The appellant was sharpening a 'chaursi' (Ex.P1).The deceased Daya Ram demanded his money.On this, a heated exchange took place between the appellant and the deceased.The deceased, on being abused by the appellant, picked up a stick.Thereupon, the appellant stood up and inflicted an injury on the person of the deceased with the chaursi' and sat down at the spot.Somebody informed the police.The police came and arrested the appellant at the spot.HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKEWhether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest ?AJIT BHARIHOKE, J (ORAL)This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 21st March, 1997 in Sessions Case No. 99/1995, FIR No.546/1992, Police Station Mangol Puri in terms of which the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC as also the consequent order on sentence of even date.On completion of formalities of investigation, the appellant was challaned and sent for trial.He was charged for the offence under Section 302 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.A.No.209/1997 Page 3 of 14A.No.209/1997 Page 3 of 14In order to bring home the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution has examined 16 witnesses including the eye witnesses PW2 Shankar Pandey, PW8 Raj Pal Sharma and PW10 Parag Madho (complainant).He stated that the police recorded his statement Ex.PW10/A. PW2 Shankar Pandey is another eye witness of the occurrence.He has corroborated the version of PW10 on all material aspects of the case.A.No.209/1997 Page 4 of 14A.No.209/1997 Page 4 of 14On conclusion of prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence.The appellant denied the prosecution evidence and claimed to be innocent.He, however, has not come forward with any explanation as to why Parag Madho (PW10) and Shankar Pandey (PW2) have deposed against him.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on consideration of evidence, found the testimonies of Shankar Pandey (PW2) and Parag Madho (PW10) reliable and on the strength of the eye witness account of occurrence given by them, found the appellant guilty of murder of Daya Ram and convicted him under Section 302 IPC.Ms. Charu Verma, learned amicus curiae on behalf of the appellant have assailed the impugned judgment on facts as well as law.On merits, learned amicus curiae submitted that the learned Trial Court has committed a grave error in relying upon the testimony of Parag Madho (PW10) and Shankar Pandey (PW2), particularly when the other purported eye-witness Raj Pal Sharma (PW8) has not supported the prosecution story.She submitted that Trial Court has ignored the fact that the presence of Parag Madho (PW10) at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful as the Investigating Officer has not shown the position from where he saw the occurrence in the rough Site Plan Ex.PW12/D prepared by him.She further submitted that even the Crl.A.No.209/1997 Page 5 of 14 presence of Shankar Pandey (PW2) at the time of occurrence is doubtful because his name does not find mention as a witness in the FIR Ex.PW1/A or the complaint statement of Parag Madho (PW10) Ex.PW10/A. From this, she has urged us to treat the testimony of Shankar Pandey (PW2) as well as Parag Madho (PW10) unreliable and extend benefit of doubt to the appellant.Failure of the Investigating Officer to mark the position of Parag Madho (PW10) from where he saw the occurrence in the rough Site Plan (Ex.PW12/D) by itself cannot be taken as a reason to doubt the presence of Parag Madho (PW10) at the time of occurrence, particularly, when he is categoric in his testimony that he had accompanied the deceased on the fateful morning to the appellant and the occurrence took place in his presence.From the record, it is apparent that the incident took place on 31st August, 1992 at 11:15 a.m. The initial information about the incident was received at Police Post Rohini vide DD No. 14 (Ex.PW12/B) within few minutes i.e. at 11:20 a.m. Immediately after the recording of DD report, the Investigating Officer SI Vir Singh (PW12) reached at the spot of occurrence.SI Vir Singh (PW12) had deposed that on reaching the spot of occurrence, he met Parag Madho (PW10), who produced the appellant before him and also gave his statement Ex.PW10/A, which statement is the basis for the registration of formal FIR.Perusal of the statement of PW10 Parag Madho Ex.PW10/A reveals that it bears his signature and it was forwarded to Crl.A.No.209/1997 Page 6 of 14 the police station at 12:30 a.m. i.e. within slightly more than one hour after the occurrence.This sequence of events in itself is sufficient to establish the presence of Parag Madho (PW10) at the spot.A.No.209/1997 Page 6 of 14As regards Shankar Pandey (PW2), learned amicus curiae has submitted that his presence at the spot is doubtful because his name as a witness does not find mention in the FIR (Ex.PW1/A) or the complaint statement of Parag Madho (Ex.PW10/A).We are not convinced with this argument.First Information Report is basically an information about the commission of offence to the police, with a view to activate the Investigating Authorities for taking suitable steps for collecting evidence and bring the guilty person/persons to book.It need not be very elaborate to contain each and every minute detail relating to the offence so committed.It is not necessary that the FIR must detail the names of all the witnesses to the occurrence because it may very often happen that the first informant may not even be knowing the presence or the identity of the witnesses to the occurrence.In the instant case also, Shankar Pandey (PW2), as per his testimony, was not an acquaintance of the complainant Parag Madho (PW10).He was an employee of J.K. Tent House, Sector 8, Pocket A-II, Premises No. 458, Rohini.Parag Madho (PW10), obviously could not have known him, as Parag Madho (PW10) was resident of Rithala, Delhi and he had gone to the spot of occurrence per-chance with the deceased for demanding the payment of the amount owed by the appellant to the deceased.A.No.209/1997 Page 7 of 14 suspicious in non-mention of the presence of Shankar Pandey (PW2) at the time of occurrence in the FIR recorded on the basis of complaint of PW10 Parag Madho.Otherwise also, as per the Investigating Officer SI Vir Singh (PW12), he had prepared a rough Site Plan Ex.PW12/D at the spot of occurrence.Marginal notes appended in the said Site Plan, inter alia, reads "Point D shows the position of witness Shankar Pandey at the time of occurrence".From this evidence, it is established that Shankar Pandey (PW2) was present at the time of occurrence.Thus, we do not find any substance in the criticism of learned amicus curiae regarding his testimony.A.No.209/1997 Page 7 of 14Parag Madho (PW10) has fully supported the case of prosecution and his version is corroborated on all material aspects by the testimony of Shankar Pandey (PW2).Both these witnesses have been cross-examined at length by the learned defence counsel but nothing material to discredit the testimony has come out on record.Thus, under the circumstances, we find that the learned Trial Court has rightly relied upon the testimony of these two witnesses to conclude that the appellant Shatrughan had inflicted the fatal stab injury with chaursi' on the person of the deceased.The appeal is disposed of accordingly.The personal bond cum surety bond stands discharged.
['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', '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.
102,328,855
It is furthersubmitted that no role has been attributed to the applicant.My attention isalso drawn to the testimony of P.W.10 (whose name has been concealed)who appears to be an independent witness of the incident wherein it hascome on record that while cleaning the road just ahead Chaniya House,some gundas arrived on the spot in two four wheeler and on a bike.Therewere eight to ten persons.This is an application under section 389 of the CriminalProcedure Code (for short 'Cr. P.C.') seeking release of the applicant-original accused No.1 on bail, pending the appeal.The applicant-Dlinavaj Shafiq Ilahi has been convicted by theSpecial Judge under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act,Greater Bombay on 14th March, 2019 and sentenced as below;The applicant has been convicted along with accused No.2 ofan offence punishable under section 392 r/w 397 of the Indian Penal Code 1/8 ::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 10:38:28 ::: appa-554-2019.doc(for short 'I.P.C') and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for sevenyears with fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default, Rigorous Imprisonment for sixmonths.::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 10:38:28 :::The applicant has been convicted under section 394 of the I.P.Cand has been sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years withfine of Rs.20,000/-, in default Rigorous Imprisonment for six months.The applicant has been further convicted under section 135 r/wsection 37 (1) and (2) of the Maharashtra Police Act and sentenced to sufferRigorous Imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default,Rigorous Imprisonment for 15 days.The maximum sentence as per the impugned judgment isseven years.4. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant who has taken methrough the evidence of various prosecution witnesses in order todemonstrate as to how, even on merits, there is a good chance of the 2/8 ::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 10:38:28 ::: appa-554-2019.docapplicant getting acquitted as the trial Court has failed to appreciate theevidence.::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 10:38:28 :::The persons who got down from four wheelersand one motorbike were snatching the bags from the employees of AngadiyaThere was also a firing on the spot resulting into hitting the bullet to thepalm of one of the employees of Angadiya.The Police arrived after some time and took the employee ofAngadiya who had sustained injury on his palm.One of the accused wascaught by the employees who had abused this witness by saying;"bajume hat, rasta tumhare bap ka hai kya"Rest of the accused fled away.This witness had identified the applicant in 3/8 ::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 10:38:28 ::: appa-554-2019.docTest Identification Parade.However, she did not attribute any role qua theapplicant.This witness categorically admits that she did not tell theTehsildar role played by the applicant to whom she had identified at the timeof the incident.::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 10:38:28 :::The learned Counsel has also drawn my attention to thetestimony of P.W.31- A.P.I-Archana Naresh Shirsat who was attached toV.P. Nagar Police Station at the relevant time as P.S.I. She has provedcertain omissions from the testimony of P.W.11 to the effect that he did notstate before the Police that two persons came from the side and two to threepersons followed them and thereafter they asked them to hand over bag,else, they would kill them.She further testified that Informant-P.W.1 evendid not state that one person was snatching a bag from the hand of hiscolleagues and he raised hue and cry to save them and thereafter those fourpersons escaped from the spot in a white Bolero Jeep.P.W.28-Ashok Sanap who is Nayab Tahasildar testified that hesimply asked one Mancharam to identify the real suspect by touching theperson.He did not ask anything else to said Mancharam.Mancharam hadonly identified accused-Irshad.He specifically testified that Mancharam didnot identify the accused Dilnawaz and therefore, he sent back the witness.4/8 ::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 10:38:28 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 10:38:28 :::5/8 ::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 10:38:28 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 10:38:28 :::A Division Bench of this Court in Criminal ApplicationNo.1312 of 2018 in Criminal Appeal No.934 of 2018 in an order dated 20thFebruary, 2019 (Coram: A.S. Oka and A.S. Gadkari, JJ) which was also acase under MCOC Act took a similar view while suspending the substantivesentence, pending the appeal.Having considered the overall circumstances, the prayer of theapplicant needs to be granted.Now, to the order.[1] Pending the hearing and final disposal of the appeal, execution of the substantive sentence inflicted upon the applicant shall stand suspended.6/8 ::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 10:38:28 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 10:38:28 :::appa-554-2019.doc[2] The applicant shall furnish a P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two solvent local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge under MCOC, Mumbai.[3] The release of the applicant on bail is further granted on the condition that the applicant shall, on the first Monday commencing from 2nd March, 2020 and then July of every calendar year till disposal of the appeal shall report to the Special Judge at 11.00 a.m. In case, the aforesaid Mondays are Court holidays then the applicant shall report on the next working day of the Court.[4] In the event of any single default committed by the applicant, the learned Special Judge shall immediately submit a report to that effect to the Registrar (Judicial-1) of this Court who shall immediately place the report before the appropriate Bench for passing necessary orders.[5] The applicant is directed to deposit 50% of the fine amount in the trial Court, if not already deposited, within two months of passing of this order.7/8::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 10:38:28 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 10:38:28 :::appa-554-2019.doc [6] The applicant shall not, in any manner, establish or attempt to contact the victim or his family members.The applications stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.[PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.] 8/8 ::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 10:38:28 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 10:38:28 :::
['Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
102,328,882
The prosecution case begins with the evidence of Natarajan [P.W.1] who sensed a foul smell emanating from a water tank of an old Prawn Farm near Madha Koil Street, Poovam Kottucherry in Karaikkal on 30.12.2010 around 09.30 a.m., and out of curiosity, peeped into the tank and found a decomposed state of male body aged between 45 and 50 years floating in the tank.He was not able to identify the body and the name of the person.He went to the police station at Kottucherry and lodged a complaint [Ex.P.1] which was received by V.Purushothaman [P.W.25], the Sub Inspector of Police, who registered a case in Kottucherry Police Station Crime No.140 of 2010 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. on 30.12.2010 at 10.00 a.m. The printed F.I.R was marked as Ex.He organized to have photographs taken of the body by S.Murugan [P.W.22].He prepared an observation mahazar and rough sketch [Ex.P.2] in the presence of witnesses Parasuraman (not examined in court) and Pandiarajan [P.W.2].He found a pair of slippers [M.O.1], hundred rupee currency notes [100 X 4 = 400  M.O.2] and a visiting card of M/s.Malar Fabs [M.O.3] under the cover of mahazar [Ex.P.4].He recorded the statements of Natarajan [P.W.1], Pandiarajan [P.W.2] and Parasuraman [not examined in court] in the presence of panchayatars and conducted inquest over the dead body.The body was thereafter sent to the Government Hospital at Karaikal for autopsy.Narasima Murthi [P.W.21] conducted autopsy over the body and in his evidence as well as in the post-mortem certificate he noted as follows:-External Examination [including external injuries] Deceased in an adult male aged about 45 years of moderate built and nourishment.Eyes closed, pupils dilated and conjunctiva pale.Rigor mortis has passed off, adipocere formation appreciable on trunk on either side, found smelling, maggots seen through nostrils and mouth.External injuries Incised injury two in no. seen parallel to each other apart by less than 0.2 cms seen on anterior aspect of neck below the level of thyroid cartilage, horizontally situated 21 X 0.5 X 0.5 cms extending from left side of neck (deeper) to right side (shallow), edges are clear cut, even and everted.Lacerated injury 6 X 0.5 X 0.5 cms on left lateral aspect of vault on parietal region of scalp, Lesions are fresh and antemortem in nature.Internal Examination Head, Scalp, skull, meninges, brain, spinal cord Scalp described, skull... fissured fracture hair line 6 cms long seen on left parietal bone, running on coronal plane towards vault meninges... minimal extradural haemorrhages seen.Brain in tact, decomposed and pale.NECK, THORACIC WALL, PLEURA, LUNGS, HEART Underlying tissues including external jugular vein and superior thyroid artery seen incised at external lesion site on left side, trachea and pharynx intact, lungs intact, decomosed and pale, thoracic cavity contained minimal fluid, heart softened, contained scanty fluid blood, coronaries patent.ABDOMEN AND PELVIS Stomach contained 250 cc colourless fluid material, smell of alcohol present, mucosa congested, decomposed; liver, spleen, kidneys and intestines intact, decomposed and pale; bladder empty. After receiving the viscera report [Ex.P.20], he opined the cause of death as Hypovolaemic Shock as a result of cut throat injury.V.Purushothaman [P.W.25], the Sub Inspector of Police contacted Anburaj [P.W.13] whose name and the mobile number was found in the visiting card [M.O.3] and enquired him about Malar Fabs and also told him about the presence of a male body in the water tank of an old prawn farm.Since Anburaj [P.W.13] had quit from the partnership of Malar Fabs some time in March 2010, he was not able to provide any substantial clue to the police.It appears that Anburaj [P.W.13] seems to have shared the enquiry made by the Sub Inspector of Police [P.W.25] with Ramesh [P.W.14] who was working as Manager in Malar Fabs.Therefore, the news spread in Tiruppur area that the body of a person concerned with Malar Fabs has been found in Karaikal.On 31.12.2010, one Paul Durai (P.W.3) met the Sub Inspector of Police (P.W.25) and wanted to see the body of the person which was found dead in the water tank.He was taken to the mortuary where he identified the deceased as his own brother Ashok Kumar.A statement was recorded from Paul Durai based on which, the case was altered from one under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. to 302 of IPC and a report [Ex.P.24] was sent to the jurisdictional Magistrate.He enquired some witnesses and sent a further alteration report , altering the offence from one under Section 302 of IPC to Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC.On 01.01.2011 at 20.15 hours based on credible intelligence he arrested Kalayanasundaram (A1) near Poovam bus stand and brought him to the police station.In the presence of Gunasekaran (P.W.4), a revenue officer and M.S.Jeromne, the Village Administrative Officer [not examined in court] , he recorded the confession statement of Kalayanasundaram (A1) and came to know about the involvement of Kalaivanan (A2) and Kumaresan (A3).From the possession of Kalayanasundaram (A1), the investigating officer seized a mobile phone [M.O.8] under the cover of mahazar (Ex.P.6) on 01.01.2011 at 23.50 hours.On 02.01.2011 at 04.45 hours Kalaivanan (A2) was arrested and at 04.45 hours Kumaresan (A3) was arrested by the investigating officer at Manikandanallur.They were brought to the police station and their confession statements were recorded.On the disclosure made by A1, the investigating officer seized a sum of Rs.7,000/- from the sister's house of A1 under the cover of a mahazar (Ex.P.11) in the presence of witnesses Gunasekaran (P.W.4) and Jeromne (not examined in court).The investigating officer found that the mobile phone (M.O.8) had two SIM Cards viz., a Vodafone card [M.O.19] and Airtel card [M.O.20].It appears that on 02.01.2011 at about 12.15 hours, the Inspector of Police (P.W.26) went to the water tank and from near water tank, he seized a stone (M.O.9 blue metal), Supermax Blade (M.O.10), a white sleeveless Banian (M.O.11) and a black colour Sigmatel Cellphone (M.O.12) under the cover of a mahazar (Ex.P.10) in the presence of Gunasekaran (P.W.4) and Jeromne (not examined in court).At this juncture, it may be relevant to state that in Ex.P.10 Mahazar, it is stated that sigmatel cellphone belongs to Kalayanasundaram (A1) and that it was found on the floor of the water tank in which there was water as stated in the mahazar (Ex.P.10).On 02.01.2011 all the accused were produced before the Judicial Magistrate concerned for remand.In order to prove this fact, the prosecution examined Malathi (P.W.11) and Ramesh (P.W.14), who is the Manager of Malar Fabs.Even A1 in his 313 examination has accepted that the deceased Ashok Kumar and he were working in Malar Fabs.As regards amount of Rs.10,000/- allegedly obtained by A1 from the deceased as loan, we have the evidence of Malathi (P.W.11) and Ramesh (P.W.14).Malathi (P.W.11) in her evidence stated that her husband Ashok Kumar and Kalyanasundaram (A1) were friends and both of them were working in Malar Fabs and some time in the year 2007 A1 had borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000/- from her husband.Her husband was demanding from A1 to return the money, but, A1 was evading payment.It is her evidence that A1 hails from Sembanarkoil near Mayiladuthurai and they hail from Tiruppur.Here it is to be noted that the distance between Mayiladuthurai and Tiruppur is about 287 kms.Malathi (P.W.11) in her evidence stated that on 20.12.2010 her husband left the house around 7 O' clock in the evening telling her that he is going to Sembanarkoil to meet A1 for getting back the money lent by him.She also stated that on the next day i.e., on 21.10.2010 in the morning her husband called her over phone and told her that he had reached Mayiladuthurai.Thereafter, she did not receive any communication from her husband.On 21.12.2010, her attempts to contact her husband in his mobile phone proved futile as it was switched off.Her husband had told her that he would also go to his mother's house in Palangulam on his way back and so when she contacted there, she was told that her husband had not come there also.On 30.12.2010, she learnt through her brother-in-law Paul Durai (P.W.3) that Karaikkal police have been contacting people at Malar Fabs with regard to a body found there.On account of which, Paul Durai (P.W.3) went to Karaikkal and learnt about the death of Ashok Kumar and informed Malathi (P.W.11).Malathi (P.W.11) identified the slippers and the dresses of her husband, the deceased.We have no reasons to disbelieve the evidence of Malathi (P.W.11) and therefore, we hold that the prosecution has proved that Kalyanasundaram (A1) had borrowed Rs.10,000/- from the deceased and the deceased had left Tiruppur on 20.12.2010 to meet Kalyanasundaram (A1) at Sembanarkoil for collecting the money.In her cross examination, Malathi (P.W.11) has stated that on 23.12.2010, people from Malar Fabs came to her house and contacted Kalyanasundaram (A1) in his mobile phone and at that time A1 told them that the deceased had not come to meet him.The question that nags us is why and how the deceased went to Karaikkal which is in Puducherry, whereas Kalyanasundaram (A1) is a resident of Sembanarkoil in Tamil Nadu.Kavitha (P.W.6) in her evidence stated that she belongs to Poovam in Karaikkal and has a petty shop there.On 02.01.2011, between 09.30 and 10.30 a.m. police brought three accused to her shop and asked her as to whether she can identify any of them.In response to the same, she told the police that a week before A3 came to her shop and purchased one tobacco packet, two super max blade and one Anacin Tablet and paid Rs.20/-.Jayaprakash (P.W.7) in his evidence stated that he is running a toddy shop in Poovam Village in Karaikkal.He further stated that one day A1 came to his shop and had toddy.He also stated that one week prior to the date on which the body of the deceased was found in the water tank, A2 and A3 came to his toddy shop and had toddy.They gave Rs.100/- and picked up a quarrel with him asking for change.He gave them the change and sent them away.On 02.01.2011 around 10.00 in the morning, the police brought all the three accused and asked him as to whether he knows them.In the cross examination, he stated that all the three accused were brought to his toddy shop by the police with handcuffs.Haja Maraicar (P.W.8) in his evidence stated that he has a shop near Pondicherry Check-post where he sells briyani.He stated in his evidence that on 02.01.2011 around 11.00 a.m. police brought all the three accused in a jeep and asked him whether he knows the accused.He told them that a week or 10 days prior , accused came to his shop and were talking.He further stated himself in the chief examination that there were four persons.All the four were sitting near the shop and were talking and he asked them to move away from there.Hence, all the accused left towards a bar of one Selva.He further stated that A1, A2 and A3 came back and purchased briyani from him.Mohan (P.W.9) in his evidence stated that he is the cashier in the bar at Poovam.On 02.01.2011 around 10.00 O' clock in the morning the police brought all the three accused and asked whether he knows them.He told the police that he knew A2 and A3 and about 10 days before they came to his shop and had liquor.He also stated that A2 and A3 picked up quarrel with an old man in the bar and so he sent them out of the bar.Selvaraj (P.W.10) in his evidence stated that he runs a canteen in the liquor bar at Poovam.On 02.01.2011 around 10.00 a.m., the police brought three accused and asked him whether he knows them for which he told the police that a week or 10 days before A2 and A3 came and had tiffin in his canteen.They did not make payment and picked up quarrel with him.The Police had just like that brought them to their shops and asked them whether they have seen the accused ever before.They have not given the date and they simply stated that a week before the accused came and had liquor, ate tiffin in the canteen and picked up quarrel with someone.It is not known as to how the police came to know that these witnesses knew the accused.On 05.01.2011, the investigating officer examined Kavitha (P.W.6), Jayaprakash (P.W.7), Haja Maraicar (P.W.8), MohaN (P.W.9) and A.Selvaraj (P.W.10) and recorded their statements.On 06.01.2011, he went with a team of officers to Tiruppur and examined Mrs.Malathi (P.W.11), the wife of the deceased, Anburaj (P.W.13) and Ramesh (P.W.14) .On 07.01.2011, he examined P.Krishnan (P.W.12), a relative of the deceased, P.Sakthivel (P.W.15), V.Sridhar (P.W.16) and N.Vengadachalam (P.W.17) at Bhavani.On 10.01.2011, he recorded the statement of T.Sakthivel (P.W.18) and P.Arutselvam (P.W.19).He received from Arutselvam (P.W.19) an application dated 22.12.2010 (Ex.The investigating officer took steps to obtain call details relating to the vodafone SIM Card bearing Cell No. 9626026980 (M.O.14) from the company.Similarly, he also took steps to obtain call details from Aircel SIM Card bearing Cell number 9524473217, the mobile phone number that was used by the deceased.He received the calls details from the two companies.On 24.02.2011, he examined Sunil (P.W.20), the Manager of Vodafone and Vijayakumar (P.W.24), an Executive from Aircel with regard to the call details that he received from the mobile phone companies.On 08.03.2011, he examined the Doctor who conducted autopsy and collected the post-mortem certificate.On the appearance of the accused, the provision of Section 207 of Cr.P.C. was complied with and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Puducherry and later on, transferred to the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karaikkal where, a charge under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC was framed against all the accused.When questioned, they pleaded not guilty to the charge.It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased and A1 were friends; A1 had borrowed Rs.10,000/- from the deceased and when the deceased started demanding the return of the money, the accused assaulted him on 21.12.2010 at about 13.30 hours at DCM Old Prawn Water Tank, Karaikal and murdered him by slitting his throat with a blade and also by throwing a stone on him.During trial, the prosecution examined 26 Witnesses, marked 29 Exhibits and 20 Material Objects.When the accused were questioned about the incriminating sentences, they generally denied the same and A1 gave explanation for certain questions.No witness was, however, examined and no document was marked on the side of the accused.After having heard both sides and considering the evidence on record, the trial court convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid and hence, these appeals.6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for Puducherry.Through the evidence of S.Paul Durai (P.W.3), the brother of the deceased, the prosecution has satisfactorily established the identity of the dead body as that of Ashok Kumar.From the evidence of Natarajan (P.W.1) and V.Purushothaman (P.W.25), the Sub Inspector of Police, the prosecution has established that the body was found in the water tank in DCM Prawn Farm.Malathi (P.W.11), the wife of the deceased has in her evidence stated that her husband was using mobile phone [Aircel] bearing number 9524473217.Though, this connection does not stand in the name of the deceased, it is the evidence of Krishnan (P.W.12), the brother in law of Malathi (P.W.11) that he had obtained a SIM Card from Sophia Mobiles at Andhiyur and had given it to the deceased.Sakthivel (P.W.15), who runs Sophia Mobiles at Andhiyur in his evidence before the court stated that one Vengatachalam (P.W.17) had ordered for mobile connection bearing 9524473217 but, he did not come to collect the SIM Card for a long time.Hence, he sold it to Krishnan (P.W.12).Vengadachalam (P.W.17) in his evidence stated that he had ordered with Sophia Mobiles for purchasing a Aircel Sim Card, but he did not collect it from them.Therefore, we have no reason to doubt the evidence of Malathi (P.W.11) that her deceased husband was using mobile phone connection bearing Number 9524473217 (Aircel) .As regards the motive for the offence, it is the case of the prosecution that the deceased Ashok Kumar and Kalyanasundaram (A1) were working together in Malar Fabs in Tiruppur and Kalyanasundaram (A1) had borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the deceased.The distance between Sembanarkoil and Kotturcherry near Karaikkal is about 25 kms.If the body of the deceased was found somewhere near Sembanarkoil then, the needle of suspicion on A1 will be strong.The prosecution strongly relies upon the evidence of Kavitha (P.W.6) , Jayaprakash (P.W.7), Haja Maraicar (P.W.8), Mohan (P.W.9) and Selvaraj (P.W.10) in order to prove that A1 to A3 were found in the company of the deceased at Karaikkal.The prosecution relies upon the mobile call details of 9626026980 belonging to A1 and the call details of 9524473217 belong to the deceased which were proved through the evidence of Sunil (P.W.20) and Vijayakumar (P.W.24) and were marked as Ex.P.19 and Ex.P.20 respectively.On a careful perusal of Ex.P.19, the call details relating to Vodafone connection of A1, it could be seen that the last call was made on 30.12.2010 at 18.00 hours.Thereafter, there is no call details.According to the police A1 was arrested on 01.01.2011 whereas Paul Durai (P.W.3) , the brother of the deceased has in his cross examination stated that on 31.12.2010 when he went to the police station at 11.00 a.m. he found A1, A2 and A3 there.This clearly demolishes the prosecution evidence that A1 was arrested only on 01.01.2011 and coupled with this piece of evidence if we see the call details Ex.P.19, there is no call made after 30.12.2010 by A1 which shows that A1 had come into the custody of police from 30.12.2010 itself and that was why, Paul Durai (P.W.3) had been able to see A1, A2 and A3 in the police station on 31.12.2010 in the morning.The prosecution has not investigated the fact as to whom the deceased has spoken to in this number.The fact that A1 and the deceased have been speaking over mobile phone would itself show that they were not together.From Ex.P.19, it could be seen that on 21.12.2010, from 06.53 a.m. to 12.00 noon, the accused has been in Varichikudi and Poraiyar areas (Tower Locations), but whereas the deceased was in Kamaraj Salai, Kottucherry, Karaikkal area.The call details can at the most prove that the deceased and A1 were talking to each other over phone and it cannot prove anything beyond that, much less, the fact in issue.The investigating officer admitted that he went to the tank on 31.12.2010 and at that time also, he did not find any mobile phone in the tank.But, strangely, the mobile phone surfaced on 02.01.2011 which we are unable to believe.In order to prove that the accused had lost his mobile phone and had obtained a new SIM card with the same mobile number on 22.12.2010, the prosecution strongly relied upon the evidence of Arutselvam (P.W.19) and Ex.On a careful perusal of application form (Ex.P.17) that was submitted by A1, it could be seen that A1 has purchased a new SIM card with the same mobile number on the ground the old SIM card got damaged and not on the ground that it was lost.There are six columns in the application form (Ex.P.17) and they are (1) Blocked, (2) Damaged, (3) Lost, (4) Faulty, (5) Upgrade and (6) Other and the applicant was required to tick any one of them.A1 has ticked the column Damaged and not column Lost. Even in the 313 examination , A1 admitted that he changed the SIM Card on 22.12.2010 as his old SIM card got damaged.He did not give any false explanation.According to the police, mobile phone (M.O.12) that was recovered from the tank on 02.01.2011 also had two SIM Cards and one SIM Card is bearing Phone No.9524473217 (Aircel).In one breath, the prosecution says that M.O.12 belongs to A1, but in other breath they say that it contained SIM Card belonging to the deceased.To recapitulate, it is the specific case of the prosecution that the mobile (M.O.8) had two SIM Cards and the mobile (M.O.12) also had two SIM Cards.But, we have the call details of only two mobile numbers viz., 9626026980 [Ex.P.19] belonging to A1 and 9524473217 Aircel [Ex.P.22] belonging to the deceased.It is not known as to what happened to the other two SIM Cards and what those call details are and to whom they belong to.For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered view that none of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution even remotely point to the guilt of the accused and hence, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the Appellants/A1 to A3 is liable to be set aside.In the result, the Criminal Appeals are allowed and the judgment dated 09.09.2011 recorded by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge,Karaikal, in S.C.No.36 of 2011 convicting and sentencing the appellants to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- [Rupees Five Thousand] each in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for Three months each is hereby set aside.The Appellants/A1 to A3 are acquitted.
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
102,334,254
Learned counsel for the objector has also made a similar contention and has submitted that the applicant was threatening the prosecutrix that he would publish her photographers and marriage certificate if she did not accept his illegal demand.It is further submitted that the marriage certificate which has been filed alongwith the application does not have the signature of the prosecutrix and is a fake one.
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
102,190,648
Thereafter, respondent No.2 joined the company of applicant No.1 husband at her matrimonial home.But, there was marital discord in between the spouses.1] The applicants preferred the present application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash and set aside the criminal proceedings of RCC No. 598 of 2016, initiated, pursuant to FIR No. I-32 of 2016 registered with Camp Bhingar Police Station, Ahmednagar, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 & 506 of IPC.The respondent No.2 made allegations that she was ill-treated and harassed by the husband and members of matrimonial home on domestic reasons.Therefore, she approached to the concerned police station and lodged report.::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2017 00:41:29 :::investigated into the matter and preferred charge sheet, against husband and other members of the matrimonial home, vide RCC no. 598 of 2016, which is subjudice before the learned Magistrate, Ahmednagar for further trial.3] Pending the proceedings, applicants approached to this Court and filed the present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing and setting aside the allegations of criminal nature against them by the respondent No.2 Sonam.It has been brought to the notice of this Court that the respondent No.2 has also filed petition under the Domestic Violence Act and pursuant to the compromise, both the spouses have decided to cohabit with each other.4] Learned Counsels appearing for both sides submit that there is an amicable settlement between the spouses.They have filed an affidavit to that effect duly sworn by them.The same is taken on record and marked "X" for the purpose of identification.The spouses also suo-motu appeared before this Court.We have personally interacted with the petitioner No.1 Naresh and respondent No.2 Sonam.Both of them admitted that they have ::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2017 00:41:29 ::: {3} 908 sr.no..odt amicably settled their matrimonial dispute and started cohabiting together happily since last six months.::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2017 00:41:29 :::5] In theses peculiar circumstances, we do not find any impediment to nod in favour of spouses to quash and set aside the criminal proceedings initiated by respondent No.2 against the applicants.However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc, or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to victim and the offender and victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint of F.I.R. If it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of offender being convicted ::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2017 00:41:29 ::: {4} 908 sr.no..odt and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated."::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2017 00:41:29 :::In contrast, if the spouses are allowed to reside together and to enjoy the matrimonial life, it would bring peace and security in the family.Therefore, we are of the opinion that pursuant to the compromise in between the spouses, the criminal proceedings initiated by respondent No.2 against petitioners deserves to be quashed and set aside, in the interest of justice.Hence, we accept the contentions put forth on behalf of spouses and pass the following order.7] The Criminal application stands allowed in terms of prayer clause 'B'.There shall be no orders as to cost.::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2017 00:41:29 :::
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
102,191,300
Shri Navnidhi Parharya, learned counsel for the complainant.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.The applicant has filed this second application u/S. 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested on 26/12/2019 by Police Station- Civil Line, District- Vidisha in connection with Crime No.805/2019 registered in relation to the offences punishable under Sections 354-A, 354-D, 506 of IPC and Sections 67, 67-A of I.T. Act and further added Sections 354 ( x) and 509 of IPC and Sections 66- 2 D, 66-E and 72 of I.T. Act.It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that according to Cyber Cell report, no overtact has been assigned to the applicant.Applicant is in custody since 26/12/2019 and he is a permanent resident of District- Guna.There is no likelihood of his absconsion or tampering with the prosecution evidence and early conclusion of the trial is a bleak possibility and prolonged pre-trial detention is an anathema to the concept of liberty.Under these grounds, applicant prays for grant of bail.Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out.It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent/State that the applicant is the main accused who created forged ID and shared obscene photographs of the prosecutrix/victim to 3 her relatives including her father, which were taken by him when the applicant and prosecutrix/victim were in relationship.Accordingly, the second application u//S. 439 of Cr.P.C. stands rejected.
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
102,199,929
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.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)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.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.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.With regard to the super area in Ripple Mall, they restrict to their suggestion not to dispose of the area in the mall and also to give security of Rs.8,50,00,000/- with the satisfaction of the Registrar General of this Court and Rs.1 crore by way of Bank Guarantee.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.Bail Appl.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.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 32 of 34(iv) The petitioners shall provide their signatures before the IO for the purpose of comparing the same if so required in future.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.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 34 of 34
['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.
102,203,309
C.R.M.10798 of 2018 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 28/11/2018 in connection with Bowbazar P.S. Case No.303 of 2018 dated gd 10/10/2018 under Sections 341/354/354A/354D/509/506 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of: Kamal Kumar Dey.....petitioner.Mr. Arindam Sen Mr. Saurav Basu ...for the petitioner.Mr. Soumik Ganguli ...for the State.The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Bowbazar P.S. Case No.303 of 2018 dated 10/10/2018 under Sections 341/354/354A/354D/509/506 of the Indian Penal Code.The State produces the case diary and refers to the statement of the de facto complainant.The grievance of the complainant is that the petitioner herein may have given her some indecent proposal.Considering the material against the petitioner, there may not be any need to take him into custody at this stage as long as he does not enter any place within the jurisdiction of Bowbazar Police Station till the completion of the investigation.In addition, the petitioner will also report to the Investigating Officer at such time and place as may be specified by the concerned police officer, till the investigation is completed.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed on the conditions indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Sanjib Banerjee, J.) (Suvra Ghosh, J.) 2
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
10,220,432
Case diary perused.This is first application filed by the applicant under Section439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant is in custody since 30-12- 2016 in connection with Crime No.459/2016 Registered at Police Station Petlawad, District Jhabua for the offence punishable under Section 306/34 of I.P.C.Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this court towards the order dated 23-01-2017 passed in MCRC No. 723/2017 and the same reads as under :-"This application u/S. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed by applicant Ramsingh who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 459/2016 registered at Police Station Petlawad for commission of offence punishable u/S. 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code.It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is aged about 50 years and he is father-in-law of the deceased.It has been argued before this court that the applicant's son was having illicit relationship with Mannu Bai and co-accused Jitendra used to visit her house also.Said co-accused also used to visit the house of Mannu Bai and the said act was not liked by Pappu and some altercation took place between co-accused and Pappu.It has been further stated that when Jitendra's wife came to know about the illicit relationship of her husband, she committed suicide.Learned counsel for the applicant has argued before this Court that the applicant has got nothing to do in the crime in question and he has neither instigated the deceased to commit suicide nor the allegation against the applicant is that he has instigated the commission of suicide of Mannubai and Pappu.However, there is no suicide note left behind by the deceased.On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent - State has opposed the prayer for grant of bail.His contention is that it was the deceased who has instigated commission of suicide.After hearing learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present application deserves to be allowed and is accordingly hereby allowed.It is further directed that this order shall remain operative only for a period of thirty days from today and in the meanwhile the applicant shall apply for regular bail before the Court of competent jurisdiction.Certified copy, as per Rules."The allegation against the present applicant is that he had made certain remarks against the deceased persons and instigated the commission of suicide of Mannubai and Papu.On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent State has opposed the prayer for grant of bail.After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going through the statement available in the case diary, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I allow this bail application and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.Fifty thousand only) with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court for his appearance before the Trial Court on all the dates fixed in this behalf by the court concerned during trial.C.C. as per rules.(S. C. SHARMA) JUDGE Tej
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
102,206,517
CRL.M.C. 4433/2014 Page 1 of 83. Petitioners as well as respondent No. 2, who are present in person, are identified by the Investigating Officer/ SI Ravi Kumar Police Station Sabzi Mandi.The complainant had also instituted proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act and under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In addition, a petition bearing No.1805/2012 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was also moved by petitioner No.1 against the complainant.Ultimately, the matter was referred by the Court below to the Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and on 8th November, 2013 where the parties entered into a settlement.A copy of the settlement setting out all the terms and conditions thereof has also been annexed to this petition.M.A. No. 15205/2014 (for exemption) Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.The application stands disposed off.CRL.M.C. 4433/2014 This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR No. 140/2013 under Sections 406/498A/34 IPC registered at Police Station New Subzi Mandi on 18th July, 2013 on the ground that the matter has been settled between the parties.Issue notice.Mr. P.K. Mishra, Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr. Jagvir Bhadana, Advocate enter appearance and accept notice on behalf of CRL.M.C. 4433/2014 Page 1 of 8 the State and respondent No.2, respectively.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 of process of court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed...."CRL.M.C. 4433/2014 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 obtained a divorce by mutual consent; and since the complainant is no longer interested in supporting the prosecution because of which, the chances of success in the matter are now greatly diminished.Consequently, FIR No. 140/2013 under Sections 406/498A/34 IPC registered at Police Station New Subzi Mandi on 18th July, 2013 and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.The petition is disposed off.SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J SEPTEMBER 26, 2014/ AK CRL.M.C. 4433/2014 Page 8 of 8
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,022,096
JUDGMENT Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J.(1) This petition has been filed under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code .for quashing order dated 18th May 1983 passed by Shri Rajesh Kumar Metropolitan Magistrate, Shahdara, Delhi, and for quashing the complaint filed by respondent No. 1 and proceedings pending on the said complaint before Shri Sat Pal Metropolitan Magistrate, Shahdara, Delhi.(2) It may be noticed that this Cr.(M) petition was originally moved by petitioner Dr. Asha Rawal who is working as the Medical Coordinator of M/s. Marie Stops Society Clinic (hereinafter for short known as Society) affiliated to Population Services, a charitable institution based in U.K. with population and family welfare programmes, One of the objects of the Society is to educate and adherence to the Medical.Termination of Pregnancy 430 Act, 1971 (hereinafter known as Mtp Act).The other three petitioners, Bal Kishan Sharma, Naresh Kumar Sharma and Rajeev Kumar Sharma, father and brothers of one Smt. Tripta Sharma, were permitted to join as petitioners later on after they presented Crl.M. 1739/84 in this court.However, on 6-4-1983 Tripta Sharma was produced in the court and her statement was recorded on the same day wherein she stated that respondent No. 1 was her husband and that she was wrongfully confined by her father and brothers and her abortion was got done by her father and brothers against her will at the Society.On 26th April 1983 the case was again adjourned to 16th May 1983 when another witness Dr. Amina Hussain was examined and she in her statement said that she was attending to the pregnancy of Tripta Sharma who had been brought to her by respondent No. 1 and that on her examination after her recovery she found her no more pregnant.After recording the statement of Dr. Amina Hussain the case was again adjourned to 18th, May 1983, (4) On 18th May 1983 an application was moved by respondent No. 1 for summoning Dr. Asha Rawal who allegedly had committed offences under sections 313, 315, 316/34 IPC.It was on this application that the learned trial Magistrate ordered that Dr. Asha Rawal including the other accused should be summoned for facing the charges under sections 313, 315, 316/34 1PC.This the learned Magistrate has done without recording any evidence as to how petitioner No. 1, Dr. Asha Rawal was involved in the commission of the aforesaid offences.(5) It will be seen that on 6-4-1983 when Tripta Sharma was examined in the court she made no allegations against Dr. Asha Rawal.All she had stated then was that her father and brothers got her pregnancy terminated at the Society against her will.It is under these circumstances that Dr. Asha Rawal has invoked the power of this court under section 482 and has appealed that since the order by which she was summoned amounts to gross abuse of the process of court, this court should intervene in the matter.This intervention is particularly sought in view of the fact that no allegation of malafide of lack of good faith was made against her.(6) Mr. D.C. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before me that section 8 of the Mtp Act provides complete protection to Dr. Asha Rawal, petitioner particularly, when no lack of good faith and, malafides are imputed.Section 8 of Mtp Act reads as under : "No suit or other legal proceeding shall lie against any registered medical practitioner for any damage caused or likely to be caused by anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act."(7) Mr. Mathur's contention is that in the first place neither lack of good faith nor malafides are imputed to the petitioner and in the second place on a bald and barren application by respondent No. 1, the Magistrate without following the provisions of section 200 Criminal Procedure Code .directed summoning of Dr. Asha Rawal even though there was no material before him pointing to her involvement in the commission of the offences.It is only in the application dated 18-5-1983 that the respondent No. 1 has stated for the first time that Smt. Tripta Sharma was having pregnancy of more than six months and that miscarriage was performed on 22-3-1983 by Dr. Asha Rawal and they entered the name of Tripta Sharma as Manjit in the record.Mr. D.C. Mathur submitted that the allegations of Tripta Sharma which she has almost substantially retracted in the next case was that abortion was done to her at the Society and this was done at the instance of her father and two brothers against her will but she had never named Dr. Asha Rawal.It was thus under these circumstances that even the complainant in his application dated 18-5-1983 felt uncertain about it when he said that Dr. Asha Rawal and her colleagues performed that miscarriage.Mr. Mathur states that even the records which were seized on 20th July 1983 long after the summons were issued against Asha Rawal show that neither the name of Tripta Sharma figures in the records of the society nor of Manjit.In fact, the name recorded is Manju Bhargava and not Manjit.(9) It will be noticed that Smt. Tripta Sharma he definitely not named any doctor.Neither she nor the complainant has imputed any lack of good faith to the doctor.All that she has said was that her father and brothers got her pregnancy terminated against her will at the society.She has nowhere stated that she objected to the termination but the doctors terminated her pregnancy despite her objection and resistance.The mere fact that the complaint in her application dated 18-5-1983 does not name any specific doctor responsible for termination of pregnancy goes to suggest that petitioner Dr. Asha Rawal is only roped in as a Coordinator of the Institution.It is exactly on this lifeless allegation made in this application dated 18-5-1983 that the learned Magistrate found it necessary to issue summons against Dr. Asha Rawal, petitioner.The only evidence at that time on record was about the pregnancy having been terminated against her will at the instance of her father and brothers at the Society.There was nothing to indicate as to which particular doctor did it nor was there even a suggestion by Tripta Sharma in her statement that she told the doctors that she was a against termination but the doctors did it in spite other objection.It has to be borne in mind that this Society is only helping the people out of distress as a charitable institution That being the objective it is unimaginable that any doctor of the Society would have terminated the pregnancy against the wishes of the lady.In fact, there is no temptation for them to do so.Unfortunately, despite all this the learned Magistrate still went on to say that there is sufficient material on record to proceed against Dr. Asha Rawal petitioner.1 432 to substantiate his allegations as provided by section 200 Criminal Procedure Code .The offences under section 313 to 316 Indian Penal Code are friable by a court of Sessions.It was, there- force, all the more necessary for the learned Magistrate to first ensure that there was at least some sort of evidence on the basis of which summons against the doctor could be issued.It will be seen that while issuing summons even records of the Society were not with the learned Magistrate.The order to summon the petitioner No. 1 was thus palpably erroneous and illegal.(10) Having said so in respect of the case of petitioner No. 1, lam yet concerned with another aspect of the case.It is regarding the development that look place on 15-4-1983 i.e. long before summons against Dr. Asha Rawal were issued.Respondent No. 1 preferred another complaint against Bal Kishan Sharma, father of Tripta Sharma and one Shri Khushi Ram S.I. Delhi Police under sections 363, 368, 343, 506/34 Indian Penal Code with a prayer for issuance of search warrant for recovery of Tripta Sharma.On 15-4-1983 she also had given a signed statement to the Sho Police Station Krishna Nagar that her statement in the court on 6-4-1983 was made by her under pressure and coercion.This complaint was dismissed.
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
102,215,408
As per the prosecution case the appellant Kalu on 10-12-1997 at about 06:00 PM near Village Morekata, Police Station Badwani assaulted one Banga S/o Jamsingh.He gave him blows and also caused injuries by stone.First Information Report was lodged by one Gulabibai, who is the mother of the deceased on 10-12-1997 itself and she has stated that while she was sitting in front of her house Gordia's son in law(brother-in-law of Gulabibai) came towards her house and started abusing her son.( Delivered on this 26th day of February, 2018 ) The present appeal is arising out of the judgment dated 04-07-1998 passed in Sessions Trial No. 81/1998 (State of M.P. Vs.Kalu), by which the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Badwani has convicted the appellant u/s 304(2) of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo seven years RI alongwith a fine amount of Rs. 1000/- and on account of non-payment of fine further six months additional rigorous imprisonment.Her son was given fists blow and thereafter he was assaulted with stone also.On the basis of the report lodged by Gulabibai a criminal case was registered for an offence u/s 302 and 294 as the son of Gulabibai later in night expired.The investigation was carried out and the witnesses u/s 161 of CrPC have stated about the involvement of the present appellant.They have stated that Banga was beaten up by the present appellant who gave him fists and kicks blow due to which he fell into a pit (Nallah) in front of his house and thereafter stone was thrown upon the deceased by the present appellant.A charge sheet was filed and charges were framed in the matter and after a detailed trial the appellant has been convicted for an offence u/s 304 Part II of the IPC.The trial court has examined PW-1, Gulabibai, who is the mother of the deceased.She has supported the prosecution case.PW-2 Maniglal, has also supported the prosecution case.PW-3 Bhangda, has also supported the prosecution case.PW-4 Dr Mohan Gupta, who is a Surgeon has carried out the postmortem and he has stated about the injuries received by the deceased.The other witnesses have also supported the case of prosecution.Learned counsel for the appellant Mr Arjun Agrawal has vehemently argued before this court that in the present case at the best conviction can be sustained u/s 323 of the IPC.There was no intention to case death nor the appellant having knowledge that his act is going to cause death.He has stated that the deceased was having enlarged spleen and because of the enlarged spleen which started bleeding, he expired.He has also stated that there are no material in the testimony of the witnesses examined by the Trial court to convict the appellant u/S. 302 and 304 of the IPC.This court has carefully gone through the statement of the witnesses and the contradictions and the omissions pointed out by the learned counsel for the Appellant and the contradictions and the omissions in the testimony of the witnesses examined are as under :-"(i)There are material contradictions and omissions in the testimony of the witnesses examined.' PW-1 Gulabi Bai:-(i)In Para 1 of her court statement says that the incident took place at 4:00 PM while the same witness in the FIR lodged by her informs that the incident took place at 6:00 PM.Also she states in the FIR that as and when she raised an alarm at the time of incident Bhangda, Bhangya and Nasarya came to the spot and saved his son from the accused/appellant.On the contrary in Para 2 of her court statement she denies the presence of Nasarya on the spot of incident.(ii)She in Para 2 of her statement says that after the incident deceased was brought to the house and was given water and was kept at home as they had no means to go to the hospital and at 4:00 AM Bhanga died.(iii) Also in Para 5 of her court statement she denies that any quarrel took place between her son Bhanga (deceased) and Accused/appellant Kalu after falling into the pit/nala but in the FIR and police statement she says that her son was beaten by stones after falling into the pit/nala which shows material improvement and contradictory stand of the present witness.(iv)Also in Para 6 of her court statement she says that her son was 3 thrown on the ground by the accused/appellant and tried to strangulate him but no such version has been stated in the police statement and FIR which shows material improvement and contradictory stands of the witness.(i)This witness in Para 1 states that the incident took place at around 5:00-6:00 PM contrary to the time told by PW-1 i.e. 4:00 PM.Further this witness states that he saw accused/appellant hitting deceased and states that when he reached the spit the accused/appellant ran.(ii)He states that when he reached the spot deceased was unconscious and his wife brought water for him and he was then taken home.On the contrary PW-1 says that the deceased was brought home and thereafter he was given water.(iii)Thereafter this witness in Para 4 states that PW-1 Gulabi Bai told him that accused/appellant has hit the deceased Bhanga with stones.(iv)Another important aspect is that he says that the police came on the spot and arrested Kalu while Exh. P/8 the arrest memo shows that Kalu was arrested from Dharamray his village and incident took place in Mortakka village.(i)This witness also states in Para 1 and 2 that the incident took place at 5:00 PM while the informant PW-1 states that the incident took place at 4:00 PM.He also states that he was returning home after labour from village Bhavti when he heard informant Gulabi shouting and when he reached the spit saw kalu hitting Bhanga with stones and Gulabi and Mangilal were already on the spot.(iv) Also further he states in Para 5 that he was coming with a relative on bicycle whose name he does not know and he was heading his way when PW-1 Gulabi Bai told him that her son has been beaten by Kalu which makes him a hearsay witness and his statement that he saw the incident doubtful.PW-4 Dr. Mohan Gupta:-(i)In Para 5 there is impeccable evidence that all the injuries were simple in nature and the witness could not give as to whether the external injures were cause of internal injuries.(ii)Further this witness states that all the external injuries 4 mentioned in the report were not sufficient to cause death."It is true that there are contradictions and omissions in respect of the statement of witnesses, but they are not very material contradictions and omissions.So far as injuries are concerned, the deceased has received the following injuries :-"1. Contusion with abrasion (R) Side Posterolateral chest 3" x 1/3" brownish coloured;2. Contusion on (R) hip four in number, collectively 1" x 1" brownish;3. Contusion (R) upper thigh laterally, multiple small collectively 3" x 1" brownish coloured;4. Contusion with abrasion (L) Loin laterally 1" x 1" brownish coloured small clots+Multiple abrasion on (L) thigh posteriorly 2" x 1" clots+Multiple abrasions 3 in number, small size on (L) infrascapular area of back, clots+Multiple small abrasion both knee each 1" x 1" clots+"The injuries received by the deceased are on account of fists and kicks blow and it is also true that he has received stone injuries also.However, the cause of death as per statement as reflected in Postmortem report is on account of shock due to extensive internal hemorrhage because of spleen injury.It is certainly true that the evidence of witness reflects that the appellant has done the act with the knowledge it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death.The fight took place all of a sudden.The deceased was assaulted by giving him fists and kicks blow.He fell down in pit (nallah) and stone was thrown on account of which he has received abrasion and later in the night expired.In the considered opinion of this court, keeping in view the minor injuries received by the deceased, the appellant should have been convicted for an offence u/s 323 of IPC instead of 304 Part II of the IPC.Another important aspect of the case is that the appellant was in jail from 13-12-1997 to 24-08-1998, meaning thereby, for eight and a 5 half months.Meaning thereby, for the last twenty years.In the considered opinion of this court the injuries as reflected in the Postmortem report were certainly not the injuries likely to cause death.The death has taken place on account of rupture of enlarged spleen.23- It is, therefore, quite clear that the appellants assaulted Kaluwa at the place of the occurrence.Hence it is established that the appellants had assaulted Kaluwa with kicks and fists and on account of the same he fell on the earth and became unconscious and on account of spleen rupture he succumbed to injuries when he was taken to hospital.25- The evidence on record clearly show that the accused/appellants did not have any weapon in their hands.The death of the deceased was caused on account of spleen rupture.29- We, therefore, allow the appeal in part and set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants U/S 302/34 I.P.C. and instead convict them for an offence punishable U/S 323/34 I.P.C. We also direct that each of the appellants will have to undergo maximum sentence provided for the offence, namely, rigorous imprisonment for one year.30- The appellants are on bail.They shall be taken into custody forthwith, so as to serve out the sentence awarded against them.Let the record be sent back to court concerned for compliance."In the present case there was no enimity between the accused and the deceased nor the accused had an intention to cause any damage or injuries to the deceased .There was no intention to cause death nor the accused was having knowledge the the act of giving kicks blow to the deceased will result in his death and also keeping in view the opinion of the Doctor this court is of the considered opinion that the conviction u/s 304 Part II deserves to be set-aside and accordingly it is set aside.With the aforesaid, the Criminal Appeal stands allowed.
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,326,810
JUDGMENT Poonam Srivastav, J.It is also submitted that the name of one Naresh Chandra Gupta, clerk of the State Bank of India, Sikandrabad was arrayed in both the first information reports but for reasons best known, his name was dropped and now his name figures as a witness.v. State of Punjab 11 (1994) C.C.R. 53l.(S.C) and Rakesh Kumar v. State of Delhi 1 (2004) C.C.R. 531 (S.C.) Several objections regarding procedure of investigation and inquiry are raised on behalf of the petitioner and on its basis, the impugned orders are sought to be quashed.Sri Hajela has emphatically disputed the arguments of Sri Vinay Saran.It is submitted that the present petitioner was not an accused in the case in which the local police submitted a final report and also disputed that the first information report registered with C.B.I., is not a second first information report of the same incident.In fact the investigation was transferred to the C.B.I., who after conducting preliminary inquiry of the allegations, came to a conclusion that in addition to Raj veer Singh and Naresh Chandra Gupta, the petitioner was also involved.
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
132,681,126
If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in such activities which areprejudicial to the maintenance of Public order.
['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
13,269,406
Heard learned counsel for the parties finally.This petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' has been filed by the applicant for quashing of order dated 08.09.2014, passed in Case No.560/2010, by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rewa, whereby the application under Section 320 (2), Cr.P.C. filed by the parties has been rejected.
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 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.
132,706,648
This petition has been filed by the wife of the first accused seeking to transfer the investigation in Crime No.15/2012 on the file of the 3rd respondent to any other All Women Police Station which comes under the jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent.2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondents.When the matter was called on 30.06.2017, there was no representation for the petitioner.Even when the matter was called again on 14.07.2017, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner.On 14.07.2017, it was submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the Investigating Officer against whom allegations were made, was transferred and he sought time for finding out the status of the case.Now, he has informed that the trial in C.C.No.579 of 2013 by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai-8 on 02.05.2014, has concluded, in and by which the Magistrate has convicted the first and 7th accused and sentenced each of them to undergo two years R.I, and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence under Section 494 IPC and convicted the accused No. 2 to 6 and sentenced each of them to undergo 6 months R.I., and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 494 r/w 109 IPC and thereby nothing survives in the transfer petition and it has become infructuous.In view of the representation made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the petition is disposed of accordingly.28-07-2017gr.Index:yes/no Copy to3.The Inspector of Police, W8 Thirumangalam Police Station, Chennai.A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA,J., gr.CRL.O.P.NO.26247 of 2012 28-07-2017
['Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
132,708,219
No.1/State.This petition under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed against the order dated 06/09/2017 passed by JMFC, Karera, District Shivpuri in Criminal Case No.1168/2017, by which the Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 147, 148, 307/149, 325/149, 324/149 of IPC r/w Section 25/27 of the Arms Act, against the applicant.It is submitted that on 24th January, 2015, a FIR in Crime No.46/2015 was lodged at Police Station Karera, District Vidisha for offence under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 204, 506-B of IPC on the report of complainant Dhirendra Singh Gurjar, alleging that on the date of incident, co-accused Naval who was armed with a country-made pistol, Mohar Singh who was armed with an axe, Punjab Singh Gurjar who was armed with sword, Jitendra who was armed with sword, applicant Rajesh, Badam, Shyamlal, Sunil and Lali Gurjar who were armed with lathi, came there and Naval fired a gunshot at the complainant, as a result of which the complainant fell down and co-accused Mohar Singh assaulted on the head of the 2 complainant twice by means of an axe.Lali Gurjar gave a lathi blow and the applicant Rajesh and co-accused Shyamlal also assaulted him by means of lathi.Mohar Singh assaulted his uncle Nawab Singh and co-accused Sunil and the applicant also assaulted his uncle Nawab Singh by means of lathi.Co- accused Jitendra assaulted his uncle Santosh by means of sword and co-accused Punjab Singh also assaulted his uncle Santosh by means of sword.His uncle Santosh was further assaulted by the applicant and co-accused Badam and Shyamlal by means of lathi, as a result of which he too sustained various injuries on the spot.It appears that the father of the applicant made an application to the SDO(P), Karera, District Shivpuri, alleging that on the date of incident, the applicant was on his duty at Faridkot and he has been falsely implicated.It appears that the SDO(P), Karera, District Shvipuri, on his own, conducted an enquiry on the complaint given by the father of the applicant and submitted his enquiry report to Superintendent of Police, Shivpuri on 08/04/2017 holding that the presence of the applicant was not found on the date of incident and in fact, his leave for 40 days starting from 02 nd January, 2015 till 10th February, 2015 was cancelled by order dated 16th January, 2015 and accordingly, the applicant submitted his joining on 22nd January, 2015 at Faridkot, Commanding Officer, Unit Faridkot had also given a certificate with regard to presence of the applicant in the Army Unit and thus, it was held that the applicant was not present on the spot at the time of incident.Accordingly, the Superintendent of Police by its letter dated 04 th May, 2017 directed the SDO(P), Police Station, Shvipuri to issue instructions to SHO Police Station, Karera, District Shivpuri to delete the name of the 3 applicant from the case diary as an accused.It appears that the police thereafter filed the charge sheet against the co- accused persons, but in the light of the enquiry report submitted by the SDO(P), Karera, District Shivpuri, as well as in the light of the direction given by the Superintendent of Police, Shivpuri on the basis of the enquiry report given by SDO(P), Karera, District Shivpuri, the police did not file the charge sheet against the applicant.It appears that the complainant Dhirendra Singh Gurjar filed an application under Section 190 of CrPC before the Court of JMFC, Karera, for taking cognizance against the applicant.The JMFC, Karera by order dated 06/09/2017 allowed the said application and took cognizance of offence against the applicant under Sections 147,148, 307/149, 325/149, 324/149 of IPC r/w Section 25/27 of the Arms Act.Challenging the order passed by the Court below, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the SDO(P), Karera, District Shivpuri had conducted an inquiry and had come to a conclusion that the applicant was not present on the spot at the time of incident and in view of the enquiry report submitted by the SDO(P), Karera, District Shivpuri, the Superintendent of Police, Shivpuri had directed the SDO(P), Karera, District Shivpuri to instruct the SHO, Police Station Karera to delete the name of the applicant from the case diary as an accused and accordingly, the charge sheet was not filed against the applicant and thus, in view of the enquiry report submitted by SDO(P), Karera, District Shivpuri, it is clear that the applicant was not present on the spot at the time of incident and he has been falsely implicated by the complainant.It is submitted that at the time of incident, the applicant was present in his Army Unit at Faridkot, which is 4 evident from the certificate issued by the concerning Unit.There is no provision in the Cr.P.C. which empowers the Superior Officer to conduct a parallel enquiry during pendency of the investigation.Even the Director General of Police, MP, Bhopal by its circular dated 25.6.2010 has directed the Superintendents of Police not to hold any parallel enquiry during pendency of investigation and in case, if any compliant is made, then the Superintendent of Police is required to forward the same to Investigating Officer, so that the said aspect can also be taken into consideration.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
132,710,700
Yours sincerely Sd/-KIRAN BEDI"Secretary to Lt. Governor, Raj Nivas, Puducherry.Yours faithfully.No.724 of 2018, before this Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to admit the Appeal and after notice to the respondent in the Appeal was pleased to pass an order suspending thehttp://www.judis.nic.in sentence imposed as against me till the disposal of the Appeal by order 5 dated 26.11.2018 in Crl.I have also filed Crl.M.P. No.15303 of 2018 and Crl.M.P. No.15762 of 2018 to stay the order of attachment and to stay the conviction passed in C.A. No.724 of 2018 respectively.Notice is ordered in these petitions and the same is pending adjudication.(g) The respondents ought to have noted that the charge framed against the Petitioner, 2nd.Accused in Spl.C.C. No. 1/2008 is for offence under section 109 r/w section 13(l)(e) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act. The finding against the Petitioner is that he had abetted his father, the First Accused in accumulating wealth disproportionate to his known source of Income.(h) The Respondents failed to consider the circumstances as referred to by the learned Judge, which amounts to abetment in para 155 of the Judgment, to hold the Petitioner guilty.The impugned order passed against me is ab-initio void andhttp://www.judis.nic.in illegal.The finding against me in para 155 is also on abetment as set out in concluding Para 165 and 167 at page 86 and 87 of the Judgment.The learned Judge has observed as follows:-Para 167..... The 2nd Accused ( Petitioner ) is sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year u/s 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) r/w 109 of I.P.C. and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-( Rupees One Lakh only ) an default to undergo R.I. for three months ".This erroneous approach has been misconstrued by the respondents 5 and 6 in passing the impugned order and disqualifying me from continuing as Member of Puducherry Legislative Assembly.(o) The respondents ought to have noted that the during the check period from 1st January 1997 to 7 th January 2006, the Petitioner was neither in any Public service nor was he a member of the Legislative Assembly.”Notification dated 08.11.2018 disqualifying the petitioner, reads thus:-"Government of Puducherryhttp://www.judis.nic.in 8 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SECRETARIAT No.5154/2018/LA(Legn.).NOTIFICATION VACANCY OF SEAT IN THE UNION TERRITORY OF PUDUCHERRY DUE TO DISQUALIFICATION UNDER SUB-CLAUSE (e) OF CLAUSE (1) OF ARTICLE 102 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 14(1) OF THE GOVERNMENT OF UNION TERRITORIES ACT, 1963 Whereas, Thiru Ashok Anand, Elected Member of the Puducherry Legislative Assembly from 9-Thattanchavady Assembly Constituency has been convicted under clause (e) of sub-section 9(1) of Section 13 read with sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with section 109 of Indian Penal Code by the Hon'ble Court of the Special Judge (Principal Sessions Judge), Puducherry in Spl.And whereas, the existing provisions contained in section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Act 43 of 1951) readwith sub-clause (e) of clause (1) of Article 102 of the Constitution of India readwith section 14 (1) of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 provide for disqualification of a person convicted for offences referred to in the said sections;An whereas, consequent upon the conviction of Thiru.Ashok Anand, Member of the Puducherry Assembly, he stands disqualified for being a Member of the Puducherry Legislative Assembly from the date of conviction i.e., the 30th October, 2018 for the period of his sentence and shall continue to be disqualified for a further period of six years since his release in terms of the existing provisions contained in Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Act 43 of 1951);http://www.judis.nic.in 9Pending disposal of the W.P.No.452 of 2019 in W.M.P.No.474 of 2019, petitioner has sought for an interim injunction, restraining the respondents, their men, agents and subordinates or any one acting on their behalf, from holding bye-election to No.9-Thattanchavady Assembly Constituency in Puducherry by declaring the seat as vacant in pursuant to the order passed by the respondents 5 and 6 by publication in the Gazette of Puducherry, Part-1 Extraordinary No.156 dated 8th November 2018, under Section 8 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (Act 43 of 1951) read with sub-clause (e) of clause (1) of Article 102 of the Constitution of India read with section 14(1) of the Government of Unionhttp://www.judis.nic.in 10 Territories Act, 1963 disqualifying the petitioner from being a member of the Puducherry Legislative Assembly from the date of conviction i.e.30th October 2018, in Spl.C.C.No.1/2008 on the file of the learned Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Principal District and Session Judge), Puducherry till the disposal of the writ petition.Citing the very same grounds raised in W.P.No.452 of 2019 on 04.02.2019, the petitioner has sent a representation, dated 04.02.2019, to the Election Commission of India, Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, with a prayer, as hereunder:-"In the above circumstance, I submit to state that, if any action is proposed to be taken for conducting By-poll Election at 09- Thattanchavady Legislative Constituency, Union Territory of Puducherry in 2019 subsequent to the Gazette Notification issued by the Secretary, Legislative Assembly of Puducherry, Government of Puducherry and any request made from the Government of PUducherry may please be reconsidered and requested to take any decision after the pronouncement of order in SLP (Crl.) No.798-799 of 2019 by the Supreme Court of India as well as after hearing my representation and render justice since if any damages done it cannot be undone."Again, the petitioner has sent representation dated 26.02.2019 to the Election Commission of India, Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, with a prayer, as hereunder:-"In view of above-stated submissions, I humbly pray that in lighthttp://www.judis.nic.in 11 of the Final Order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (Crl.) No.798-799 of 2019, the Commission may be pleased to reconsider legal submissions while taking a decision on conducting By-poll Election at 09-Thattanchavady Legislative Constituency, Union Territory of Puducherry in 2019 subsequent to Impugned Notification or in the alternative, keep such decision in abeyance till the final disposal of the writ petition and appeal pending adjudication before the Hon'ble Madras High Court and render justice as damage done cannot be undone in present facts and circumstances of the matter."Yet another representation dated 01.03.2019, has been sent on the very same lines.Letter dated 15.03.2019 of the Lieutenant Governor, Pondicherry, addressed to the President of India, New Delhi, is reproduced:-No.LGS/2009/5803/MLA- DISQ.Hon’ble Speaker, Puducherry Legislative Assembly passed the orders of his disqualification w.e.f the date of his conviction i.e., 30th Oct 2018, declaring No.9 Thattanchavady Assembly constituency deemed to be vacant from the said date.Citing Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in Thomas vs. Union of India in WP No. 490 of 2005 that filling of the seat which falls vacant may await the decision of the President or the Governor under Art 103 and 192 respectively of the constitution, he has made a request to defer the by-elections announced by Election Commission of India to No.9 Thattanchavady Assembly Constituency from where he was elected in the last two elections.I am to state that as per the schedule of polls, the statutory notification for the by-election will be issued on 19th March 2018 for the polls to be held on 18th April 2018 along with Parliament Elections to Puducherry Parliamentary Constituency.In as much as, question if any arises, as to whether a Member of the Legislative of the Union Territory has become disqualified, has to be referred for the decision of the President under Section 14(3) of Government of Union Territories Act, 1963, the representation ishttp://www.judis.nic.in forwarded, as such, with enclosures.With kind regards.End: As above To Shri Ram Nath Kovind Hon’ble President of India, Rashtrapathi Bhavan, NEW DELHI 110 001 Copy to Shri Rajiv Gauba Union Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, NEW DELHI 110 001 DR.KIRAN BEDI LT.For brevity, reply letter dated 16.03.2019, is reproduced:-GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY LT.GOVERNOR’S SECRETARIAT Raj Nivas Pondicherry 605 001 Phone : 0413 2332301 Fax : 0413 2334025SUB: LGS -RTI Application from Thiru.Ashok Anand, seeking Information relating to action taken report on the representationhttp://www.judis.nic.in REF: Your RTI application dated 15.03.2019 .First Appeal, if any, may be filed before the Addl.He further submitted that instant writ petition, is nothing but an abuse of process of law, because the prayer sought for, by way of an interim order in W.P.No.452 of 2019 before another Hon'ble Division Bench, has now become the main prayer in this writ petition.Niranjan Rajagopal, learned counsel appearing for the Election Commission of India, submitted that all the grounds raised in the instant W.P.No.8110 of 2019 were argued in W.P.No.452 of 2019, written notes were submitted in W.P.No.452 of 2019 and that the same are extracted hereunder:-While the elections were notified on declaring that the seats as vacant, the petitioner therein filed a Writ Petition challenging the Governor’s order of disqualification before the Allahabad High Court and an interim order was passed in his favor staying the election process.The Election Commission of India filed an appeal against the same before the Supreme Court.Inasmuch as, Mr."I am to forward herewith the representation of Shri Ashok Anand, farmer MLA, received on 13th March 2019, raising question on his disqualification made pursuant to his conviction for offence u/s. 13(1 )(e) r/2 13(2) of PC Act r/w 109 of IPC under Section 8(1) of Representation of People’s Act, 1951."Going through the material on record and that in particular, the letter of the Lieutenant Governor dated 15.03.2019 addressed to the President, we do not find that the Lieutenant Governor had formed anyhttp://www.judis.nic.in 23 opinion and that there was any question, which arose to the Lt. Governor, Government of Puduchery, as to whether, the petitioner has become disqualified.In letter dated 15.03.2019, the Lieutenant Governor, Pondicherry, has only summarised the contention of the writ petitioner.Consequently the connected writ miscellaneous petition is closed.http://www.judis.nic.in 24 [S.M.K., J.] [S.P., J.] 18.03.2019 Index: Yes Internet: Yes dm Note:6.The Secretary, Legislative Assembly, Union Territory of Puducherry, Puducherry.http://www.judis.nic.in 26 S.MANIKUMAR, J.
['Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
132,719,790
The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)
['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
44,517,559
The applicants in these three anticipatory bail applications::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2018 01:55:38 ::: ABA-789-18+ -2- are seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with crime no.194 of 2018 registered with Bhokar Police Station, District Nanded for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 409, 463, 465, 466, 467, 470, 471, 477, 477(A) r/w 34 of IPC.Their applications with similar prayer bearing Misc.Criminal Application Nos. 94 of 2018, 96 of 2018 and 93 of 2018 respectively, came to be rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhokar.::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2018 01:55:38 :::Brief facts giving rise to the present anticipatory bail applications are as follows:On the basis of a criminal complaint filed by one Mohan Gokulwad, Executive Engineer, MSEDCL, Bhokar, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhokar by order dated 09.07.2018 has directed the in-charge of Bhokar Police Station to register offence under Section 156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against all the accused and to investigate the matter and submit a report.Accordingly, the aforesaid crime came to be registered against all the applicants and other co-accused persons.It has been alleged in the complaint that for the period between January 2016 to March 2018, all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention, issued false receipts to the consumers about the::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2018 01:55:38 ::: ABA-789-18+ -3- bill amount and misappropriated a huge amount by not crediting it to the account of MSEDCL.::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2018 01:55:38 :::The learned counsel for the applicant in anticipatory bail application no. 789 of 2018 submits that the applicant Pravin Anandrao Tadewad was working as Upper Division Clerk during the said period and it was the duty of the applicant to discharge his official duties as per directions of the superior authorities.Learned counsel submits that it was not the job of this applicant to accept bill amounts from various consumers and to deposit the said amount.On the other hand, it is the duty of the Cashier and the Assistant Accountant of MSEDCL Department.It is the duty cast upon the cashier and not upon the present applicant to accept amount from the consumers directly.Learned counsel submits that if there is any complaint of a consumer regarding bill repairing or amount etc., then the unit officer of MSEDCL visits the spot, verifies the meter and submits a report.Thereafter, the Deputy Engineer directs the Assistant Accountant to verify and make marking on the specified area or any meter problem.Thereafter, the LDO, through using I.D. of Deputy Engineer through online B- 80 method only makes submissions to verify the said complaint through Assistant Accountant.Learned counsel submits that after::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2018 01:55:38 ::: ABA-789-18+ -4- approval of the message delivery on the official mobile number given by the Deputy Engineer, the complaint is redressed and the action is approved.Learned counsel submits that there is no occasion for the present applicant to accept or use public money or to accept electricity bill amount from various consumers as it is an online method.Learned counsel submits that the applicant is made a scape goat in the entire process and he has no concern with any misappropriation, if any.::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2018 01:55:38 :::The learned counsel for the applicant in anticipatory bail application no. 808 of 2018 submits that the applicant Savita w/o Vishwanath Lathkar was serving as Assistant Accountant at MSEDCL, Bhokar Division till May 2018 and she was also entrusted with the work of supervision of Division office and Accounts Department.Even the applicant has been appointed as a Member of Inquiry Committee by the Executive Engineer for carrying out inquiry into the misappropriation of amount committed by applicant/original accused no.1 Pravin Tadewad who was working as Upper Division Clerk.Alongwith the present applicant, the Deputy Executive Engineer, Deputy Manager and other persons were also appointed as inquiry committee members.::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2018 01:55:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2018 01:55:38 :::ABA-789-18+ -5- In the month of May 2018, the Committee has found that the said accused no.1 Pravin Tadewad has misappropriated an amount of Rs.12,10,133/- by issuing false bills to approximately 90 consumers and the said amount was not credited to the account of MSEDCL.So far as the departmental inquiry against the present applicant is concerned, the same is only to the extent of her supervisory role and she is not at all connected with misappropriation in any manner.The applicant stood retired on 31.05.2018 by giving clean chit and also a certificate of excellence by the Chief Engineer, Nanded.The applicant in anticipatory bail application no. 802 of 2018 submits that the applicant Vishwanath Ratanbuwa Bharti was posted as Deputy Executive Engineer (Sub-Divisional Officer) from 08.02.2016 to 03.06.2017 at Bhokar.There are no allegations against the applicant about forgery or misappropriation.The only and precise allegations are to the extent that the applicant was negligent and slack in supervision.The learned APP has strongly resisted the applications of all the applicants on the ground that prima facie there is strong evidence against all the applicants.He submits that the::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2018 01:55:38 ::: ABA-789-18+ -6- applicant/accused no.1 Pravin Tadewad has misappropriated a huge amount and it is difficult to accept that the other applicants have not noticed the same.Learned APP submits that the applicant/original accused no.1, by joining hands with the co- accused, has misappropriated huge amount by preparing false and fabricated receipts.All the applicants are, thus, not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2018 01:55:38 :::On careful perusal of the investigation papers, prima facie it appears that the applicant/original accused no.1 Pravin Tadewad has adopted a unique method of preparing false/fabricated receipts of the billed amount and misappropriated a huge amount.This has been done so in respect of near about 90 consumers.Even after the inquiry, the applicant/original accused no.1 has deposited certain::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2018 01:55:38 ::: ABA-789-18+ -7- amount in the account of MSEDCL by accepting misappropriation of the said amount.It thus appears that severe allegations have been made against the applicant/original accused no.1 Pravin Tadewad and in view of the same, his custodial interrogation is required.Thus, the applicant in anticipatory bail application no. 789 of 2018 is not entitled to be released on pre-arrest bail.::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2018 01:55:38 :::So far as the other two applicants are concerned, on perusal of the entire record, I do not find that they are in any way connected to the preparation of false and fabricated entries and misappropriation of the amount.The allegations against them are restricted to the extent of their supervisory role.In the circumstances, these two applicants are entitled for pre-arrest bail.Hence the following order;ORDER I. The anticipatory bail application no. 789 of 2018 filed by the applicant/original accused no.1 Pravin s/o Anandrao Tadewad is hereby rejected.The anticipatory bail application nos. 808 of 2018 and 802 of 2018 are hereby allowed.::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2018 01:55:38 :::ABA-789-18+ -8- III.In the event of arrest of the applicants in anticipatory bail application nos. 808 of 2018 and 802 of 2018, namely, Smt. Savita w/o Vishwanath Lathkar and Vishwanath Ratanbuwa Bharti respectively, in connection with crime no.194 of 2018 registered with Bhokar Police Station, District Nanded for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 409, 463, 465, 466, 467, 470, 471, 477, 477(A) r/w 34 of IPC, they be released on their furnishing P.B. of Rs.15,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount on the following conditions;a. The applicants shall not tamper the prosecution evidence in any manner.b. The applicants shall attend the concerned police station once in a week on every Sunday between 8.00 am to 11.00 am till filing of charge sheet.The anticipatory bail applications are disposed of accordingly.( V. K. JADHAV, J.) vre/::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2018 01:55:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2018 01:55:38 :::
['Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
44,518,598
It was contended the negotiation of marriage while was taken place at Tenughat, Jharkhand, after marriage the opposite party-wife was taken to Ranchi at Jharkhand, where her matrimonial home is situated and at that place she was allegedly subjected to cruelty by the accused persons and a complaint in this regard was also lodged at the local Police Station at Ranchi.It is true according to the allegations made in the FIR she was harassed and tortured by the accused persons for demand of dowry at her matrimonial home which is situated at Ranchi beyond the local limit of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Asansol.In this regard allegations made in paragraph nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 appears to be very relevant and for just decision in the matter and the same are quoted below: 3The accused No.1 being the groom and being accompanied by the accused No. 2 and 4 and others came to the house of the father of the complainant at Niamatpur Police Station- Kulti, Asansol on 6th February, 2007 for celebration of the marriage according to the customs of the parties.The said marriage was a dowry oriented negotiated marriage and at last an unanimous decision was arrived regarding the demand of dowry particularly the demand of cash and the articles to be given to the accused persons in consideration of such marriage and as per such decision a cash of Rs.50,000/- was given to the accused No.1 at the time of social marriage held at Niamatput, P.S. Kulti, in presence of the other accused persons and others and as per such demand of the accused person the father of the petitioner in consideration of the said marriage also gave the accused no.1 a piece of gold chain and a locket weighing about two Bharis and two pairs of finger rings made of gold.The petitioner's father at the time of marriage also gave gold ornaments weighing about 16 Bharis, furniture wearing apparels the petitioner and those articles are the "Stridhan Properties" of the petitioner and the petitioner after being married with the accused no.1 went to the matrimonial home at Ranchi along with those articles and started living with the accused persons.Now, on the face of the aforesaid allegations it appears that at the time of social marriage held at Niamatpur, Police Station- Kulti, Asansol several valuable articles and cash amount were received by the accused persons and stridhan articles were given at that time.According to the provisions of Section 177 Criminal Procedure Code 6 every offence shall be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was commenced.So far as an offence punishable under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, commission of the offence is completed when dowry is received and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition act when such demand is made.It is abundantly clear that not only the dowry was demanded at the parents home of the de-facto complainant and the same was received by the accused persons there, at the time of marriage and also after marriage.
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
44,522,917
This is the second bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed for grant of bail to the applicant who has been arrested on 20/06/2016 in connection with Crime No.509/2016 registered at Police Station- Habibganj, District Bhopal (MP) for offences punishable under Sections 326A, 307/34 of IPC.The first bail application bearing M.Cr.C. No.17671/2016 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 07/03/2017 with the liberty to file after statement of witness Ravi Goel.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecution has released the witness without statement.Thereafter no evidence against the applicant to connect him with the crime.On perusal of the order sheet of the trial court, it is found that the prosecution has not mentioned any reason for releasing the witness without statement while he is a material witness and only witness who can identify the applicant as a culprit.Office is directed to call for the report from the concerned trial court and list this matter along with M.Cr.C No.2988/2017 after a week.(J. P. GUPTA) JUDGE tarun
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
44,525,624
V, Salem, the learned Judicial Magistrate after taking up the charge sheet in PRC.No.10 of 2010 and after completing the formalities, since the offences are triable by the Court of Sessions, committed the case to the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Salem.The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Salem after completing the formalities taken up the case on file in SC.No.34 of 2010 and made over the same to the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Salem.The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Salem after receiving the case bundle and after completing the formalities framed the charges against all the appellants for the offences under Sections 341, 364 and 302r/w.34 (2 counts) IPC.During trial in order to prove the case of the prosecution on the side of the prosecution as many as 18 witnesses were examined and 26 documents were marked.After completing the prosecution witnesses incriminating circumstances culled out from the prosecution witnesses put before thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 appellants, the appellants denied as false.Further there was discrepancies regarding the alleged occurrence by the deceased Ashokan before the PW18/Sub Inspector of Police, Ammapet, Police Station and PW13/J.M.III, Salem and PW17/Doctor one who was on duty at the time of admitting the injured in the hospital.The Sessions judge failed to consider the fact that the deceased Ashokan had given statement before PW13 in which he categorically stated that he was hit by an auto two days before the occurrence.Further the deceased Rajendran had stated that he and his brother were beaten by 20members and he stated that one Raja, Selvaraja, Chinna Kadhir, Periya Kadhir were attacked.The statement of PW16/Doctor who admitted the deceased in the hospital, in his evidence he stated that the deceased Ashokan came for his treatment on his own on 16.08.2009 at about 3.55p.m.The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) would submit that the first appellant is the Advocate in Salem city and the appellants 2 and 3 are his clients as well as henchmen.The deceased Rajendran and deceased Ashokan are brothers.The decease Ashokan was working with the first appellant and he had dispute with his brother Rajendran with regard to properties.Therefore, he filed suit against his brother Rajendran through the first appellant.Subsequently, the matter was settled between the brothers (i.e, Rajendran and Ashokan), the same was intimated to the first accused that the brothers have decided to settle the issue between themselves.The first appellant did not like the said settlement between the brothers behind his back, he scolded and beaten the Ashokan.Then the Ashokan intimated the same to his brother Rajendran, both were decided to take revenge on the first appellant by kidnapping the son of the first appellant.On 14.08.2009, the deceased brothers tried to kidnap the son of the first appellant and failed in their attempt.Thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 7 said fact came to the knowledge of the first appellant, the first appellant went alongwith other accused 2 to 4, due to such enmity on 14.08.2009, the first appellant wrongfully restrained the deceased Rajendran and Ashokan in front of Balamani theater and questioned their attempt to kidnap Sanjai and beat both the Rajendran and Ashok with hands, abducted them towards the house of first accused at Krishna Nagar and kept them for two days even without providing water and food and beaten them till 16.08.2009 and took the deceased to the hospital and admitted them.Subsequently, the duty Doctor informed to the jurisdictional police station through intimation.PW1 is the wife of the deceased Rajendran, has stated that she knew first appellant, her husband was residing opposite to Natarajan Theater.Due to a dispute with him, she was residing in Narayanan Street, separately from her husband.There was a land dispute between her husband and his brother Ashokan.On hearing that her husband and her brother in law were attacked and taking treatment she went to the Government Hospital on 16.08.2009 and found them unconscious.Again she went on 17.08.2009, her brother in law Ashokan was in a position to speak to PW2/Karthikeyan son of PW2, PW1 was also accompanied with him.Ashokan was working under the first appellant, when her husband and brother in law decided to settle the land dispute between them, Ashokan intimated this fact to the accused Rajmohan.The first appellant did not like this idea, scolded and beaten him.Ashokan informed the same to Rajendran, Ashokan told PW1 and PW2 that he was beaten by accused, Rajmohan, Ramalingam, Mohan and Sekar on his chest, face, lips, forehead and the accused had also beaten Rajendran.PW2 deposed that the appellants took his father and uncle to the house of first accused and kept there for 1 ½ days and beaten them without giving any food.The first appellant thought of cornering 1200sq.ft from the deceased and therefore the accused had beaten Rajendran and Ashokan.Thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 13 treatment given at Government Hospital, Salem not yield the desired result and they were taken to the Government Hospital, Coimbatore.PW8/Sathish Kumar another son of deceased Rajendran had deposed that on 19.09.2009 at about 9.15am he went to the Government Hospital NMS ward to see his father and uncle.The first accused was standing near his father and told his father if the judge or police asked anything, inform them that he suffered injuries in an Auto accident, if his father did not listen to the words of first accused he would beat his wife and sons.If the father of PW8 listen to the words of the first accused he would promise to take over the medical expenses of the deceased Rajendran.At that time, the second accused/Ramalaingam was also standing near his uncle Ashokan and told him that he would inform that they kidnapped the son of the first accused and he was beaten by Chinnakathir, Periyakathir and Raja and also promised that he would render necessary help to deceased Ashokan.The deceased Ashokan nodded his head in approval, then both the accused 1 and 2 left the hospital.Ashokan called PW8 and asked him to look after his mother and father and do as told by thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 14 accused.Ashokan also cautioned PW8 not to inform the fact to any one, otherwise the accused will beat him, therefore, he did not tell the incident to any one.PW4 deposed that he knew PW1, PW2 and deceased.PW1 purchased a site in the name of his son.There was a dispute with regard to the site and he learnt that Shanthi's husband and brother in law were beaten in connection with this land dispute, admitted in the hospital for treatment and died subsequently.The Doctor who conducted the postmortem of the deceased was examined as PW17 opined that the deceased Rajedran died due to multiple injuries and its complications.The requisition for conducting postmortem is Ex.This Criminal Appeal is filed to set aside the judgment dated 01.12.2011 made in SC.No.341 of 2010 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Salem.http://www.judis.nic.in 2The case of the prosecution is as follows :-The respondent/police registered a case against the appellants in Cr.No.1324 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 341, 364 and 302r/w.34 (2 counts) IPC.The respondent police after conducting investigation laid charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate No.On the side of the defence no oral evidence was let in and three documents were marked.After completing the trial, the learned Sessions Judge after hearing the arguments on either side and after considering the oral and documentary evidence produced on either side came to the conclusion that the appellants have committed the offence and convicted the appellants 1 to 3 for the offences under Section 341, 304 part I r/w.34 (2 counts) IPC and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each on each counts for the offence under Section 341 IPC and Rigorous imprisonment for ten years each on each count u/s.304 Part I r/w.34 (2 counts) IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each on each counts in default to pay a fine to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for one year each on each counts and found not guilty for the offence under Section 364 IPC.The 4th accused found not guilty for the offences under Sections 341, 364, and 302 r/w.34 (2 counts) IPC.Challenging the said judgment of conviction passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Salem, the convicts have filed the present appeal before this Court.http://www.judis.nic.in 4The copies of the Accident Register were marked as Exs.There was serious doubt over the complaint itself, because the statement of the deceased Rajendran was recorded on 17.08.2009 at about 2.00pm by PW18 and the signature and thumb impression were obtained.The Sessions judge failed to consider the evidence of PW8 who is the son of deceased Rajendran, because the statement was recorded from him belatedly after 45days from the date of occurrence and the deceased were not admitted in the NMS ward.PW7 is the brother of PW1, the evidence of PW7 is highly artificial.The deceased Rajendran and his brother deceased Ashokan have named some persons in their dying declaration and those persons were not shown them as accused, which creates serious doubt over the prosecution case.It is to be noted that a case was registered by the first appellant against the deceased persons in Cr.No.1325 of 2009, since the first appellant filed a case against the deceased persons, the police foisted a false case against the appellants.There are material contradictions between the prosecution witnesses and the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the learnedhttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 Additional Sessions Judge also failed to consider the contradictions and discrepancies between them and acquitted all the accused from the offence under Section 364 IPC and convicted the accused 1 to 3 for the offences cited supra which warrants interference.Thereafter, the police officials went to the hospital since the deceased was in unconscious stage could not record the statement.Again on 17.08.2009 the police officials went to the hospital and recorded the statement from the deceased and registered the case and investigated the matter.During the course of treatment PW13/Judicial Magistrate recorded the statement under Section 164 Cr.PC.Though, they have not stated in the statement and subsequently the prosecution witnesses have clearly stated that the deceased were taken by the appellants on 14.08.2009 itself and kept in their custody and threatened them not to reveal the fact to any body and at last beaten them till they become unconscious and taken to the hospital forhttp://www.judis.nic.in 8 treatment.Since, they were under threat and coercion they did not reveal the actual facts, therefore, the statement given by the brothers either before the Doctor or before the Judicial Magistrate are not free consent or voluntary one.Only after recording the witness of son of Rajendran, he had stated that one of the deceased Ashokan has narrated the entire things when he was admitted in the hospital in the absence of the first appellant.Even the Judicial Magistrate came forward to call upon the statement.The dispute between the brothers was settled amicably among themselves, the first appellant did not like the same and he wanted to scrap the property, hence the first appellant beaten the deceased as to how they can settle the issue without his advice.Therefore, the prosecution established its case through prosecution witnesses beyond reasonable doubt, the learned Sessions Judge rightly came to the conclusion, since due to some enmity the deceased brothers attempted to kidnap the son of the first appellant, due to provocation he had beaten them.Hence, the learned Sessions judge rightly convicted the accused 1 to 3 for the offences under Sections 341, 304 part I r/w.34 (2 counts) IPC and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each on each count u/s.341 IPC and Rigorous imprisonment for ten years each on each count u/s.304 Part I r/w.34 (2 counts) IPC and to pay a fine ofhttp://www.judis.nic.in 9 Rs.1000/- each on each counts in default to pay a fine to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for one year each on each counts and found not guilty for the offence under Section 364 IPC.The 4th accused found not guilty for the offences under Sections 341, 364, and 302 r/w.34 (2 counts) IPC.Heard the rival submissions made on both sides and perused the materials available on record.The case of the prosecution is that the first appellant is an Advocate in Salem city, the accused 2 to 4 are his clients as well as henchmen.The deceased Rajendran and deceased Ashokan are brothers and they have civil dispute, the deceased Ashokan engaged the first appellant as his lawyer.The deceased brothers decided to settle the matter between themselves and informed the fact to the first appellant.The first appellant did not like it, scolded and beaten Ashok.The Ashok informed the same to the Rajendran, both the brothers decided to take revenge on the first appellant by kidnapping his 5years old son Sanjay.Both the deceased brothers went to the tuition center near Balamani theater on 14.08.2009 at about 7.30pm where Sanjay was studying.Due to enmity at about 8.00pm on 14.08.2009, A1 to A4 wrongfully restrained Rajendran and Ashok in front of Balamani theater and abducted them towards the house of the first accused at Krishna Nagar and all the accused persons beaten them severely with the common intention to cause death.As a result, the Rajendran died on 23.08.2009 at 8.40pm at CMC Hospital and Ashok died on 30.09.2009 at 11.15pm in the same hospital.Thus the accused 1 to 4 have committed the offences punishable under Section 341, 364 and 302 r/w.34 (2 counts) IPC.After investigation the respondent police laid charge sheet, the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge admitted the case of the prosecution to the extent that the appellants 1 to 3 have caused death on the deceased.Challenging the said judgment, the appellants 1 to 3 have filed the present criminal appella before this Court.On examination he found (i)A lacerated injury measuring 3x1.5cm near left eye (ii)There was contusion around left eye (iii)X-ray taken for his head and admitted as inpatient for further treatment.The copy of the Accident Register of Ashokan is marked as Ex.Rajendran was found unconscious and he was not able to speak.He had a contusion injury around his right eye, X-ray was taken for his head.The copy of the Accident Register of Rajendran is marked as Ex.PW18/Sub Inspector of Police, Ammapet Police Station deposed that on 16.08.2009 he received the information from Government Hospital and found that Ashokan and Rajendran were in unconscious state of mind.Again he visited on 17.08.2009 at 12.30pm and found Ashokan was conscious and recorded the statement of Ashokan and registered a case in Ammapet Police Station in Cr.No.1324 of 2009 under Section 341 and 307 IPC, the copy of the complaint is marked as Ex.P20 and FIR is marked as Ex.PW13/Judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem deposed that on 19.08.2009 at about 3.10pm he received a requisition to record thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 15 dying declaration of Ashokan and Rajendran.PW13 visited the emergency ward at 3.25pm and enquired from Ashokan and Rajendran as to whether they gave statement in fit state of mind and found them to be fit for giving dying declaration.The dying declaration of Ashokan was recorded from 3.25pm to 3.40pm and thereafter recorded the dying declaration of Rajendran and the same are marked as Exs.The letter sent by the Judicial Magistrate No.P12 and the postmortem certificate is marked as Ex.The Doctor has also given answer to the queries raised by the I.O.After considering the evidence of PW1/wife of deceased Rajendran, PW2 and PW8/sons of Rajendran, PW4/neighbour and PW17/Doctor the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there is a delay in registering the case and also sending the copy of the FIR to the Court have not been property explained.On reading of the entire materials, originally the occurrence had taken place on 14.08.2009, the evidence of PW2 clearly states that the deceased were taken by the appellants and they have detained them for 1½ days without providing water and food and beaten them.The Doctor also admitted that they were brought to the hospital on 16.08.2009 at 5.00pm and informed four unknown persons attacked him.The deceased Rajasekaran was taken by the neighbours Kumaresan and Ramalingam, both of them were not added as accused or witnesses, the said Ramalingam is not the second appellant herein.The respondent police failed to investigate into the matter properly and find out the actual facts and actual cause and the injuries sustained by both the deceased Ashokan and Rajendran.Since, the respondent police foisted a false case and registered as against the first appellant and others.There is no independent witnesses were examined in this case, the occurrence was happened near the Balamani theater which is a public place, the first appellant beaten the deceased in front of his house, the public and the area people should have definitely witnessed the scene, there is no independent witnesses in this case.On reading of the entire materials, PW12 visited the injured persons Ashokan and Rajendran, at that time Rajendran was not in position to speak and Ashokan was concious and informed that the appellant taken them to their place and retained them for two days.PW8 also clearly stated that he was in the hospital on 19.08.2009 prior to that PW13 came to the hospital to record the statement, the accused 1 and 2 came their and told to listen to the words of the first accused and promised to take over the medical expenses, otherwise they would beat and kill his wife and sons.Further, the first appellant is an Advocate who is having influence in that area, therefore, mere delay in registering the case and sending the FIR is not fatal to the case of the prosecution.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the dying declaration given by the Rajendran as stated that he met with an accident.The dying declaration given by the Ashokan is that the unknown persons hit him.The deceased Ashokan was working for the first appellant, stated before the Magistrate and Doctor, no known and named persons were cited as witnesses, which affects the case of the prosecution.As already stated, the combined reading of the evidencehttp://www.judis.nic.in 18 of PW2 and PW8 sons of deceased Rajendran they have clearly stated subsequent to the occurrence they met their uncle Ashokan in the hospital on two different dates.The deceased Ashokan narrated the incident to PW8, at that time, the appellants 1 and 2 came to the hospital and threatened the deceased Ashokan and Rajendran not to reveal the actual facts and promised to take care of the medical expenses, otherwise they would kill his wife and sons.Therefore, they have not revealed the facts either before the Doctor or before the Magistrate.Though, the two persons who came to the hospital and admitted one of the injured also revealed their name.But the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that name of the Ramalingam mentioned in the Accident Register is not that of the second appellant herein.Further, the Kumaresan has not been implicated in this case or cited as witnesses.The evidence of PWs 1, 2, 4 and 7 clearly says that there is enmity between the appellants and the deceased, when the deceased Ashokan was working under the first appellant, there was a dispute between both the brothers Ashokan and Rajendran with regard to a land, during the civil dispute pending before the Court, the Ashokan and Rajendran settled the Civil suit without intimating or without getting assistance from the first appellant.The first appellant did not like the said settlement between the brothers, therefore hehttp://www.judis.nic.in 19 beaten the Ashokan and subsequently, the Ashokan informed the same to the Rajendran, both the brothers planned to teach a lesson to the first appellant and decided to kidnap the son of the first appellant, the said fact was came to the knowledge of the first appellant and inturn the first appellant kidnapped the brothers with the help of the other accused 2 and 3 and taken the custody of the brothers.All the three accused have beaten the deceased brothers for 1½ days and later sent them to the hospital.In this case, the motive of the accused have been established by the prosecution and also the enmity between the appellant and the deceased brothers.From the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 4 & 8 there were civil dispute between the brothers as well as the appellants have taken the custody of the deceased brothers for more than 1½ days and beaten them and also threatened them not to reveal the fact to any one.Though, the first appellant registered a case against the deceased brothers for kidnapping his son, after the death of the brothers the case was closed as the accused were died.Originally, the case was registered under Section 307 IPC, after the death of the deceased brothers it was altered into section 302 IPC.Since, the prosecution has stated that the deceased attempted to kidnap the son of the first appellant and the first appellant and othershttp://www.judis.nic.in 20 beaten the brothers and subsequently, both the brothers died out of the injuries sustained by them.The trial Court not convicted the accused for the offence under section 302 and convicted them under Section 304(i) IPC.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.On reading of the entire evidences of PW1, PW2, PW4, PW8, PW13, PW16, PW17 and PW18, if at all the deceased Rajendran met with an accident from the Auto, definitely he would not have filed false case, he would have filed case for claiming compensation and filed case under Section 304(A) IPC.There is no need to file the case as against the Advocate.The deceased Ashokan was also working in the office of the first appellant and if there is no dispute between them and the deceased has no reason to file false case against his own master and if there is no dispute the deceased could not have made an attempt to kidnap the son of the first appellant.The records and evidence would show that the complaint was filed by the first appellant against the deceased brothers, subsequently due to the death of the brothers/accused therein, the case was closed.The learned judge disbelieved the evidences of PW7 who is brother of PW1, but believed the evidences of PW2 and PW8 sons of the deceased Rajendran.Though the prosecution has not established its case through the eyewitnesses, by examining the circumstantial evidence, this Court also found that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.The injuries sustained by the deceased were not tallied with the prosecution evidences, though, in the accident register the Doctor has not made a mention about all the injuries as detailed in the postmortem report.The Doctor who conducted the postmortem has clearly mentioned all the injuries and the Doctor opined that the death caused due to the injuries sustained by them.Therefore, on reading of the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW4, PW8, PW13, PW16, PW17 and PW18, this Court finds that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and there is no sound and valid reason to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court.In the result, the criminal appeal stands dismissed by confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.The trial Court is directed to secure the custody of the appellants forthwith to undergo the remaining period of imprisonment.D.Baskar, Legal-Aid-Counsel, who appeared for the appellants, is entitled for getting legal fees as per rules.29.08.2019 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No tsh ToThe Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Salem.The Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authority, Chennai.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.The Inspector of Police, Ammapet Police Station, Salem.http://www.judis.nic.in 23 P. VELMURUGAN,J.tsh Crl.
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
44,525,794
Vide the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 798/2014 registered at Police Station Vikas Puri, Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 326/506 IPC and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against him.M.C.No.959/2016 Page 1 of 9Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the aforesaid case was registered on the complaint of respondent No.2, Giani Harinder Singh, due to some misunderstanding.After investigation, police has filed the chargesheet, however, charges have not yet been framed against the petitioner.Meanwhile, with the intervention of the relatives and common friends, the respondent No.2 and petitioner have amicably settled their disputes vide Family Settlement Deed dated 17.12.2014, thus, respondent No.2 has no objection if the present petition is allowed.In view of the law discussed above, considering the settlement arrived at between the parties and the statements of respondent No.2 and the learned APP for the State, I am of the considered opinion that this matter deserves to be given a quietus as continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility.Consequently, FIR No. 798/2014 registered at Police Station Vikas Puri, Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 326/506 IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioner.Accordingly, the present petition is allowed with no order as to costs.M.C.No.959/2016 Page 8 of 9M.A.No.4062/2016 (for stay) With the disposal of the petition itself, the instant application has become infructuous.
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
44,526,987
ORDER K. Mohan Ram, J.The above criminal original petition has been filed by the petitioners to quash all further proceedings in C.C. No. 7707 of 2007 pending on the file of the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Chennai.When the above petition came up for admission on 06.11.2007, Mr.For the above said reasons, the above criminal original petition fails and the same is dismissed.
['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
44,531,290
Since common questions of facts involved in all the applications, same are decided by this common Judgment.Deceased-Balaji Anantram Shinde, aged 33 years, was residing separately from his parents and brothers along with his wife at Srinagar, MIDC, Latur.On 01.06.2016 at 8:30 pm, he consumed insecticide purchased by him on the same day at 6:00 to 6:30 PM.He was taken to Galaxy Hospital at Latur.Inspite of treatment, he died on 03.06.2016 at 00:30 midnight.The crime is registered on the basis of FIR lodged by brother of the deceased by name Santosh on 13.10.2016 i.e. four months and 10 days after the death of Balaji.However, it must be mentioned that on 02.06.2016, report was lodged by the informant at the Police Station.Similar to the FIR.The wife of the deceased lodged another report dt. 03.06.2016 alleging that the deceased was killed by his parents and brothers by ::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 01:57:27 ::: 5 APPLN2967.2017&3 ors administering poison.In view of the divergent report, the FIR came to be registered late.Anil Jadhav on behalf of one of the accused Gurunath Kakde sent a demand notice u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the name of deceased - Balaji.Besides, there was one chit wherein the names of nine persons including all the four applicants were recorded along with their mobile numbers and the amount payable to them.The informant stated that, the accused Shatrughan Shinde and Sham Kabra were visiting personally or through their agents to make demands from the deceased.The only difference is that it is silent regarding receipt of notice from Gurunath Kakade and the stamp paper of loan of Rs. 2.50 lakhs and chit left by the deceased showing outstanding amount payable to various accused persons.On 03.06.2016, Pooja - wife of the deceased lodged FIR that on 01.06.2016 at 07:30 to 8:00 PM the deceased had gone to the house of his parents for partition and that time his parents and brother had assaulted him and administered poison and without intimation to her, her husband was admitted in Galaxy Hospital.The bank statement of the deceased however shows payments of large amount were made by the deceased to him regularly.The deceased was having accounts in Jankalyan Urban Coop.Bank, Kalamb, which shows following payment transactions by Cheque to the applicant Santosh Chavan.The record shows that, Ranjeet is only the authorized money lender.The chit left by the deceased shows that amount of Rs. 25,000/- was payable to Ranjeet.By these applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants seek quashing of FIR registered at C.R. No. 0356/2016 against them at MIDC Police Station, Latur for offence punishable u/s 306 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.There are in all 13 accused in the crime.Criminal Application No. 7000/2016 filed by Sham Kabra, Criminal Application No. 1490/2017 filed by Shatrughan Ganpati Shinde, Criminal Application ::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 01:57:27 ::: 4 APPLN2967.2017&3 ors No. 1831/2017 filed by Vinod Mokashe and Criminal Application No. 2108/2017 filed by Tukaram Sawant, all from the same crime were allowed and the FIR has been quashed against the respective applicants.::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 01:57:27 :::2. Rule.The investigation revealed no substance in the allegations of wife of the deceased.::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 01:57:27 :::As per the FIR, at the relevant time, wife of the deceased had gone to her maternal house for delivery, hence, the deceased used to visit the house of his parents and brother, which is situated in the same locality.That time, many persons used to come to him for demanding money and were insisting for payment.When the informant and his father asked the deceased about their demands, the deceased told them that he owed them money but he had no money to repay them and hence they were very much harassing him.Then on his request, the informant and his father paid to the deceased an amount of Rs. 6.00 lakhs and told him to repay their money and not to borrow again.On 01.06.2016 at 08:30 PM, Balu Mali gave a ring to the informant about the consumption of insecticide by deceased - Balaji.When the informant visited the hospital and made inquiry, the deceased told him that money paid by informant and his father were spent in business and the outstanding dues were not yet cleared and the lenders were harassing him.He felt awkward to make further demand from the informant and his father and hence he consumed insecticide.When the informant asked him how much amount he owed and to how many persons, the ::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 01:57:27 ::: 6 APPLN2967.2017&3 ors deceased told him that he had written it on a chit showing the names and the outstanding amount and he would give that chit after returning home.However, the health of deceased was deteriorated and he died on 03.06.2016 at 00:30 hrs.on 23.09.2016, Adv.FIR also discloses that, the deceased has completed work of one B. K. Jadhav from Belgaon but he had not paid his dues and, therefore, the deceased was constrained to obtain loan from the aforesaid persons.The note shows following amounts payable to different persons.::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 01:57:27 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 01:57:27 :::Learned APP has filed say of the Investigating Officer and it discloses that, the police had visited the Galaxy Hospital but could not record the dying declaration of Balaji as he was unconscious.Her father was informed about the incident only on 03.06.2016 at 01:00 to 01:30 PM after the death of Balaji.When she visited the hospital, she saw injuries on the person of the deceased including on the skull.::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 01:57:27 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 01:57:27 :::8 APPLN2967.2017&3 orsLearned advocate for the applicants have argued that the allegations in the FIR even if taken at their face value, do not disclose the ingredients of abetment to commit suicide.There are mere allegations that some amounts were advanced by the applicants to the deceased and they were demanding those amounts back.These facts do not attract the ingredients of abetment as defined u/s 107 of Indian Penal Code.It is also argued and reliance is also placed on the report lodged by wife of the deceased against the informant and his parents.It is argued that, the deceased had married to Pooja against the wishes of the informant and his parents and, therefore, he had to live separate from his parents.The parents and the informant had obtained from him a Relinquishment Deed.The deceased had sustained loss in the business and, therefore, he has committed suicide.A copy of Relinquishment Deed is produced by Ranjit Chavan along with his application at Annexure 'C'.The informant also disclosed that, Pooja-wife of the deceased had filed Reg.Civil Suit for effecting partition against the informant and his parents within short time after the death of Balaji.The applicants have filed copies of the Judgments in Criminal Application No. 1490/2017 and connected matters filed by three accused persons from the said crime, delivered by Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (A. M. ::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 01:57:27 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 01:57:27 :::9 APPLN2967.2017&3 ors Dhavale, J.) was a party and Judgment in Criminal Application No. 7000 of 2016 decided by the Division Bench of this Court on 24.02.2017 to which one of us (S. S. Shinde, J.) was a party and claimed parity.We have carefully gone through the papers produced and the rulings cited.After carefully considering the arguments advanced, in the light of the facts of the case, the question before us is whether FIR deserves to be quashed as against Vikas Shinde, Ranjit Chavan, Hemant Jadhav and Santosh Chavan.The law regarding quashing of FIR is well developed.In a recent case Taramani Parakh versus State of Madhya Pradesh ::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 01:57:27 ::: 10 APPLN2967.2017&3 ors (2015) 11 SCC 260, relying on Amit Kapoor Versus Ramesh Chander and another (2012) 9 SCC 460, the principles for invoking powers u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are laid down as follows:::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 01:57:27 :::The note disclosed that some money from business was given to them but they had become dishonest.Hence, his application for quashing of FIR deserves to be allowed.::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 01:57:27 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 01:57:27 :::18 APPLN2967.2017&3 orsThe following cheques presented by Santosh Chavan were dishonoured.::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 01:57:27 :::The cheque numbers referred above show continuity which indicates a strong probability that Santosh must have obtained blank cheques from the deceased.The amounts repaid per month are huge compared to the loan shown by the deceased in the chit.Charging of exorbitant interest brings depression and since Santosh Chavan must be having blank cheques signed by the deceased, it would certainly bring depression and a situation where the deceased might have been left with no alternative but to commit suicide to escape from this extortion.These prima facie observations are made at this stage for deciding this application only.::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 01:57:27 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 01:57:27 :::20 APPLN2967.2017&3 orsIt is certain that, these facts indicate that it is not a case of clear absence of material against the applicant Santosh Chavan.At the stage of quashing of FIR, the Court cannot go into the exercise of appreciating the material.The facts appearing on the papers are to be accepted as true.If the applicant has any defence, he can establish it at appropriate stage but this is not a fit case to quash FIR against him.Hence, the application for quashing of FIR deserves to be rejected as against him.In case of Ranjeet Dagdu Chavan (Cri.Appln No. 3332/2017), learned APP and learned Advocate for respondent No. 2 have strongly opposed the application of this applicant.However, the statements of the witnesses recorded and the Call Detail Record (CDR) show that Ranjeet had made persistent efforts for recovery.During the period from 01.05.2016 to 01.06.2016, he made 12 calls to deceased-Balaji.Out of the said calls, three calls were made on 01.06.2016 when the deceased consumed insecticide.::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 01:57:27 :::record discloses that, within short time after the last call, the deceased has consumed insecticide.It is apparent from the facts that after consumption of insecticide, the deceased had given a ring to Vikas Londhe at 08:36 pm., and Vikas has given him a ring at 08:42 pm.Vikas Londhe has taken him to the hospital at 09:15 pm.Thereafter the deceased consumed poison between 08:02 to 08:30 p.m. Apart from CDR, there are statement of witnesses against Ranjeet Chavan.There is a material to show that, on 26.05.2016 i.e. 5 days before the incident of the consumption of insecticide, he had abducted the deceased to Ujani Tanda, which is 45 kms from Latur.CDR supports this allegation.There are statements to show that, the deceased was wrongfully confined by Ranjeet Chavan and thereafter there were continuous calls by Ranjeet Chavan to deceased.The statement of Dr. Bharti shows that, when Balaji Shinde was admitted in hospital and injection was given to him, he became violent and was talking irrelevant but he was consistently stating that he would pay money later.The maternal uncle of the deceased has given a statement that, Ranjeet had called deceased and Vikas Londhe to Latur and they asked him how much amount he should pay to them upto to 6 th June.::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 01:57:27 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 01:57:27 :::22 APPLN2967.2017&3 ors Thereafter, Ranjeet gave phone call to Vikas and told him that deceased should not be left and he should be brought to Ujani.Thereafter, deceased Balaji & Vikas had gone to Ujani.When maternal uncle gave a phone call, deceased could not disclose the facts as the applicant Ranjeet was sitting beside him.He and his brother have given statement that the applicant had confined the deceased and the deceased had given him a ring to make inquiry whether he would advance him any money.The deceased was frightened and was requesting him to somehow take him out of the situation.When he made inquiry with him he was told not to stop there and leave the spot.At that time, the deceased was frightened and could not tell him his difficulties.The deceased had told the witnesses that the applicant Ranjeet had wrongfully confined him in one room and he was afraid that if he would not pay the money, he would be assaulted.There is material to suggest that the applicant Ranjeet Chavan had subjected the deceased to persistent harassment by demands and even taking coercive steps of wrongful confinement.The deceased went into depression with apprehension that the applicant would assault him if money would not be paid.In the light ::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 01:57:27 ::: 23 APPLN2967.2017&3 ors of this material, we hold that this is not a fit case for invoking the powers u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. in favour of the applicant Ranjeet Chavan and his application deserves to be rejected.::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 01:57:27 :::In case of Vikas S/o Nagnath Londhe (Cri.No. 2967 of 2017), according to Police and respondent No. 2, the material against Vikas Londhe and Ranjeet Chavan is the same.There is CDR showing that, 14 calls were made to deceased by Vikas Londhe during 03.05.2016 to 08.05.2016, while the deceased made 8 calls to Vikas, all are old calls except 1 made by the deceased on 01.06.2016 at 08:36 pm after consumption of poison.There is allegation that, on 26.05.2016 Vikas had joined Ranjeet Chavan to abduct the deceased to Ujani.As per the chit left by the deceased, amount of Rs. 25,000/- was payable to Vikas Londhe.After carefully considering the material on record, we find hat the material against this applicant is quite different from the material against Ranjeet.The most material fact is that, after consumption of insecticide, the deceased gave a ring to Vikas for seeking his help and requested him to take him to the hospital.As per hospital record, Vikas had brought deceased - Balaji to the hospital at 09:15 pm.The material discloses that the deceased Balaji ::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 01:57:27 ::: 24 APPLN2967.2017&3 ors was a close friend of Vikas Londhe and Vikas had accompanied him on 26.05.2016 to Ujani as a friend and not as an abductor.Vikas had purchased medicines for the deceased.The only allegation against applicant Vikas is that he had accompanied deceased to Ujani where Ranjeet had called the deceased.The statements do not disclose that Vikas used force to take the deceased to Ujani.Vikas was helping the deceased to collect some amount which could be paid to Ranjeet and the deceased could be wriggled out of the situation.The allegations of wrongful confinement are against Ranjeet Chavan.The fact that the deceased called Vikas for taking him to the hospital and Vikas took him to the hospital shows that it is inherently improbable that Vikas would subject the deceased to harassment and create a situation for him to drive him to commit suicide.We, therefore, find that, the material on record shows that, it does not make out ingredients of Section 306 r/w 34 of IPC against Vikas Londhe.Hence, application of Vikas Londhe deserves to be allowed.Hence, the following order.::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 01:57:27 :::ORDER [I].Criminal Application No. 3332/2017 presented by Ranjeet Chavan and Criminal Application No. 4119/2017 of Santosh S/o Prabhu Chavan are rejected.::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 01:57:27 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 01:57:27 :::Londhe and Criminal Application No. 3856 of 2017 filed by Hemant Balasaheb Jadhav are allowed.[III] FIR registered at C.R. No. 356/2016 at MIDC Police Station, Latur for offence punishable u/s 306 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed to the extent of applicants namely; Vikas S/o Nagnath Londhe and Hemant S/o Balasaheb Jadhav.Rule made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs.::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 01:57:27 :::
['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.
445,388
The facts leading to the institution of this appeal are: The accused Sri P. V. Audinarayana Chetty was a Supervisor employed in the Highways Department, Madras State.His office was at Puttur and his actual place of residence was Tirupati.This accused who was the Supervisor of the Puttur section of the Highways Department of the Chittoor district is stated to have been regularly receiving bribes from contractors who did road maintenance work in that section.His 'modus operandi was as follows : He used to insist upon contractors agreeing to pay 5 per cent, of the bills, and which he later on raised to 10 per cent, and which sudden departure from the 'mamool created an active resentment and protest.Then he would check-measure the works and prepare bills for payment and either before or after the cheques were cashed by the contractor, the 'mamool' had to be paid.This 'modus operandi' and payments to him are spoken to, by P. Ws. 7, 11, 12 and 1, who arc all contractors working on this Puttur section.I shall now briefly summarise the evidence of these four contractors.(His Lordship reviewed their evidence and continued:)This is the evidence of the prosecution regarding the 'modus operandi' of the accused, the systematic toll levied by him and spoken to by the four contractors, P. W. 7 Muniswami Reddi P.W. 11 K. Sesha Pillai, P.W. 12 Purushotham Naicker and P. W. 1 Rangiah Naidu.I have just now mentioned that Rangiah Naidu was being demanded in regard to 1949-50 works 10 per cent, whereas the 'mamool', which was being paid was 5 per cent.This Rangiah Naidu P. W. 1 pleaded with the accused that the percentage should not be raised.On that, the accused told him that he was justified in raising his 'mamool' as the contractors had secured higher rates for these two works.Thereupon Rangiah Naidu pleaded that he had suffered losses and that he would pay the usual 5 per cent.Thereupon the accused pressed for immediate cash payment.Rangiah Naidu promised payment after cashing the cheque, with the mental reservation of naturally booking this accused because by that time the Madras State through the press and platform had been widely broadcasting -- a notorious fact of which judicial notice can be taken -- that in Republican India such 'mamools' should not be paid and citizens should come forward and help the authorities, that prompt investigations will be made and that those who rendered assistance to book these public leeches would be protected from being proceeded against as accomplices.Thereupon Rangiah Naidu arranged with the clerk in the P. W. D. office to give him a cheque on the Chittoor Imperial Bank for this contract standing in the name of Venkataraju after misleading the accused that he would take a cheque on the Chandragiri treasury.This bill for Rs. 5700 had already been sent to the Divisional Engineer at Chittoor.Then both this P. W. 1 and Venkataraju went to the Collector of Chittoor and gave a complaint Ex. P. 1 in which it has been-narrated how this accused has been pressing for payment of high bribes of 10 per cent on the bill amounts and that he prepared bills only after a promise of payment of 5 per cent, and that it would be easy to catch him red-handed.Having apprised the authorities and setting in motion the forces of law and order to trap the accused this Rangiah Naidu P. W. 1 evaded meeting the accused who was naturally on his toes for getting his cut in the bill.But Rangiah Naidu after cashing the cheque on 12-7-1949 for Rs. 5700 had gone home and made himself scarce to the supervisor.But on reaching home, maistry Doraiswami was in his house sent by the accused with a message to come and cough up the per centum, and P. W. 1 sent a soothing message that he (accused) need not worry himself and that he (P. W. 1) would stick by his undertaking and come and pay up.This increased pressure by the accused on this P. W. 1 Rangiah Naidu made him all the more energetic to book this supervisor.So he went to Chittoor but could not find the Divisional Engineer.Therefore, he went to Madras to complain to the Minister in charge of P. W. D. and finding that the Minister was on tour he went to the office of the Criminal Investigation Department.There he gave the complaint, Ex. P. 3 on the evening of 15-7-1949 at Madras to P. W. 15 Sri Y. Satyanarayana Choudhury, Deputy Superintendent of Police, C. I. D. This Ex. P. 3 mentions all the details of payment in 1948-49 and the worry given by this Supervisor to the contractor for higher percentage and how this accused was waiting for payment in respect of the bill which had just been cashed.9. P. W. 15 took three currency notes of Rs. 103 denomination from P. W. 1 who had them with him and then both of them left by car to Puttur.The Deputy Superintendent of Police P. W. 15 instructed Rangiah Naidu to contact the accused at about 2 p.m. and gave the three marked currency notes to the accused when the latter was expected to go to the bus stand and then come round to the Deputy Superintendent of Police who had moved to the Devasthanam choultry and inform him of what had happened so that P. W. 15 and the panchayatdars could catch the Supervisor with the goods on him.P. W. 1 Rangiah Naidu thereupon waited for the accused near the Koneru opposite to the bus stand at Tirupati, because as I have just now stated inside information had made this Rangiah Naidu know that the accused would be coming to the bus stand, and I have mentioned also that the accused lives in Tirupati though his office is in Puttur.On seeing this accused coming as expected P. W. 1 contacted him and the accused who did not apparently suspect this trap remarked to P. W. 1 that he had been avoiding seeing him though he had sent word several times.I suppose the accused meant by this to mildly rebuke this P. W. 1 to see the errors of his ways and how he should keep up his word with the supervisor.This P. W. 1 has evasively stated that Venkataraju would pay him the balance the next day.The accused after expressing his dissatisfaction with the contractor's altered behaviour alter the completion of the work and the passing of the bill put the three currency notes in a purse and tucked it inside the pocket of his coat.The accused went to the bus stand and sat in the bus preparatory to its starting.I may point out what is stated by the Public Prosecutor and which is not denied by the other sidej that on account of the congestion of bus traffic in Tirupati and elsewhere passengers do try to get into the buses sometime before the scheduled time of departure to get a good place and the bus people leave the stand after the bus gets completely filled up.Therefore while the accused was sitting inside the bus apparently feeling complacent that he was the richer by a sum of Rs. 300, -this P. W. 1 slipped away and contacted within five minutes P. W. 15 who was waiting for him in the Devastanam choultry and told him how he had handed over the three currency notes to the accused and that the accused was sitting inside the bus with currency notes inside his pocket in a purse.Then P. W. 15, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, with two panchayatdars Raghava Reddi and another Ponneri Raju came towards the bus stand from the choultry, stopped the bus which had just started and asked the accused whom P. W. 1 had pointed out to get down.The accused got down and on P. W. 15's demand produced two purses, M. Os. 2 and 3 from his inside coat pocket.M. O. 2 which is a smaller purse contained three currency notes M. Os.4, 4(a) and 4(b).On the request of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, P. W. 4 Raghava Reddy verified the numbers on the three notes with the numbers given in a slip of paper Ex. P. 4 and Raghava Reddi said that the numbers tallied alright.This recovery was also witnessed by P. W. 2 Dr. H. N. Simham a pilgrim to Tirupati and who happened to be at the bus stand and who was impressed as a panchayatdar.P. W. 4 is a resident of Tirupati and a forest contractor of property and a respectable man and Dr. Simham was an entire stranger to the locality who had come as a casual pilgrim.The accused was then arrested and taken into custody.Then after completing the investigation and obtaining the sanction of the Chief Engineer, Highways, Madras under Ex. P. 9, which is proved by P. W. 6, the accused was charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 5(1) (a) and (d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2 of 1947 and also for an offence under Section 161, Penal Code.In regard to the first charge, the case for the prosecution was as set out in the earlier paragraphs above and based on the evidence of the four contractors, P. Ws. 7, 11, 12 and 1, and the corroborative witnesses of P. W. 7, viz.,-P. Ws. 8, 9 and 10 and the account books of P. W. 11, viz., Exs.The charge under Section 161, Penal Code, was based on the evidence of the prosecution set out in later paragraphs above and spoken to mainly by P. Ws.
['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
44,550,459
1 26.08.15 Item No.62 Ct.No.17 Krishnendu (Rejected) C. R. M. No. 7367 of 2015 In re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 12.08.2015 in connection with Chandrokona Police Station Case No. 191 of 2015 dated 15.07.2015 under sections 341/326A/354/307/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In re: Prabir Pramanik & Anr.- Versus -We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.We have seen the case diary and other relevant material including the statement of a neighbour of the victim, who claims to be an eye witness, recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.We have also noticed the medical reports.Hence, their application for bail is rejected.(Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Tapash Mookherjee, J.)
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
445,560
Dr. Purshottam Lal, respondent No. 4, while working in Apollo Hospital, Chennai had advanced loan of rupees fifty lacs to the financial company and subsequently a further sum of fifty lacs from his deposits in the Canara Bank.Villivakkam Branch, Chennai.Thus, the total loan availed of the company amounted to one crore.It is alleged by the petitioners that S. Xavier, the Director of the company who was actively involved in the day-to-day affairs of the company, indiscriminately advanced money to the tune of several lacs to his friends and others knowing fully well that they would not be in a position to repay the same.During the year 1996-97, the company repaid a sum of Rs. 28.5 lacs, to respondent No. 4 by means of demand drafts and in respect of the rest unpaid amount, the petitioners issued postdated cheques which on presentation were dishonoured.JUDGMENT R.K. Dash, J.In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the first information report in case Crime No. 839 of 1999 under Sections 420/467/468/471/504, I.P.C. registered at Police Station Sector 20, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar.A further prayer has been made directing the police not to arrest the petitioners in the aforesaid case.The factual aspect of the case emerging from the averments made in the writ petition as also the copy of the first information report annexed therewith is that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, related as husband and wife are the Directors of Maha Vishnu Financial Services Limited, Chennai (for short the "Company").Question No. 1It is alleged that the petitioners issued some post-dated cheques to respondent No..4 and took return of the documents of M/s. Krishna Agro Chemicals which they had deposited with him.However, in order to create belief in their activities and to repose trust on them, they while taking back the documents deposited some other documents of another company as a security for the remaining unpaid loan.
['Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
184,890,047
Heard on I.A. No.9356/2016, IIIrd application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail of appellant No.1-Gatiya @ Roopsingh.The appellant No.1 has been convicted and sentenced as under :-Thereafter, more than a year has been lapsed.The appellant has already suffered about half of the awarded jail sentence.Final hearing of appeal is likely to take considerable time.In such circumstances, jail sentence of the appellant be suspended till pendency of this appeal and he be released on bail.On the other hand, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State opposes the prayer and submits that the appellant has caused the injury with knife on the vital part of the body of Mamtabai.Considering this fact appellant's earlier application was dismissed on merit.Thus, the application (I.A. No.9356/2016) is allowed and it is hereby directed that subject to depositing the fine amount (if already not deposited) and upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand Rupees) with one local solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court for marking his presence before this Court/Registry on 31/01/2017 and thereafter on all subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf, the appellant be released on bail and the jail sentence under this appeal shall remain suspended.It is made clear that during suspension of jail sentence, the appellant will not indulge in any criminal activities otherwise the order of suspension of jail sentence shall be recalled.List for final hearing in due course.C.C. as per rules.(JARAT KUMAR JAIN)
['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
184,890,250
M.C.1901/2011 Page 1 of 6 transferred to P.S. EOW.Thereafter, the Chargesheet was filed in the court and charges are yet to be framed.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on complaint of Respondent No. 2 an FIR No. 553/3005 was registered against the petitioners unde Section 409/419/420/465/468/471/120-B Indian Penal Code, 1860 P.S. Shalimar Bagh.Thereafter, the investigation was Crl.She also relied upon Sushil Suri Vs.10 Relying upon the aforesaid decisions, she submits these petitioners do not deserve any leniency from the court, they may again commit the same offence after getting this FIR quashed.M.C.1901/2011 Page 5 of 6 11 In view of the above discussion, I am not inclined to quash the FIR.M.C.1901/2011 Page 5 of 6
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
184,897,373
The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the deceased Senthil is a native of Mathur village and there was a property dispute between him and the family of one Ponnusamy.The deceased Senthil sold one of his properties to some third party and on 06.05.2010, while on the way to register the documents at the Sub Registrar Office, Sivagangai, one Karuppasamy S/o.Ponnusamy; Ponnusamy's brothers Udayar and Jeyaraman; and one Sabarimalai have raised an issue with the deceasedhttp://www.judis.nic.in 2/81 Crl.A(MD)No.39 of 2015 that they are having right over Senthil's property.On 07.05.2010, the wife of Senthil, Annalakshmi [PW1] was suffering from fever and therefore, the deceased Senthil took his wife to the hospital at Kalloorani for treatment.After taking treatment, they were returning by walk near Anicut around 12.30pm, where the aforesaid Karuppasamy, S/o.Ponnusamy, Udayar, Jeyaraman and Sabarimalai surrounded the deceased Senthil and the said Karuppasamay by saying that if he is alive only, he will sell the property, stabbed the deceased Senthil on his chest, stomach and on elbow and at that time the accused Jeyaraman and Udayar caught hold of the deceased and the said Sabarimalai was holding him from back.Immediately, PW1 took the deceased with injuries to the house of one Jeyaraman and arranged for an Auto and also informed her mother-in-law [PW4].All of them took the deceased to the Government Hospital, Sivagangai at about 1.45pm, but the Doctor, who attended the deceased reported he was brought dead.On the intimation from the Government Hospital, Sivagangai, the Sub Inspector of Police, Gurusamy [PW10] went to the Government Hospital at Sivagangai, recordedhttp://www.judis.nic.in 3/81 Crl.A(MD)No.39 of 2015 the statement of the deceased's wife Annalakshmi [PW1] on 07.05.2010 at about 4.00pm, returned to Thirupachethi Police Station and registered a case in Crime No.62 of 2010 as against the above four named accused for the offence under Sections 342 and 302 IPC at about 5.30pm.The printed FIR [ExP9] was also despatched to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Manamadurai, who received the same at 10.50pm on 07.05.2010 itself.N.Muthukumar [PW12], Inspector of Police, Thirupachethi Police Station, on receipt of the information, proceeded to the place of occurrence, prepared an observation mahazar [ExP2] at about 8.30pm in the presence of one Annadurai and Durairaj [PW5] and also recovered soil with and without blood [MO3 and MO4 respectively] under a cover of mahazar [ExP3] in the presence of the said witnesses.Thereafter, he proceeded to the Government Hospital, Sivagangai, where the dead body was lying, conducted an inquest in the presence of one Gopal, Panchyat President of Mathur, Nagaraj, S/o.Karupasamy Servai, Velusamy, S/o.PW12 also made a request to the Doctor, to conduct an autopsy and the Doctor Madhu [PW9], who conducted the postmortem on 08.05.2010 at about 10.10am noted down the following injuries in his postmortem certificate [ExP8]:-There was a 4X2X20 Cm stand wound over Right chest were close to midline, which was continuos with a stab wound in the right lung measuring 3 X1X14 cmThere was another stab wound 1X1X4 cm over right lower chest wallThere was another stab wound 2X1X4Cm over left lower abdomen wall”He also gave his final opinion that the deceased appears to have died due to the injury on the vital organ Lungs and Hemorrhage 18 to 24 hours prior to the autopsy.After the postmortem, a shirt [MO6] and a Lungi [MO5] worn by the deceased were also recovered by the investigation officer.Later on 17.07.2010 this appellant Balamurugan, appeared before the Kallangudihttp://www.judis.nic.in 5/81 Crl.A(MD)No.39 of 2015 Group Village Administrative Officer, Subramanian [PW6] and gave an extra judicial confession statement in the presence of the Village Assistant Rajangam that during the relevant point of time, he was sleeping near the place of occurrence and at that time he noticed the deceased and his wife were walking in the area, went and attempted to snatch the Mangal Sutra of the woman, at that time, the deceased Senthil attacked him.Therefore, he stabbed him with a knife and ran away from the place of occurrence.Though the Sub Divisional Engineer of BSNL was examined in this case, there is no materials to substantiate that this appellant has used the mobile phone.The Service provider of the mobile number used by this appellant was not examined.In the absence any tangible materials as against the appellant, the trial Court has mechanically found him guilty, convicted and sentenced and therefore, prayed that the conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside.Per contra, Mr.A.Robinson, learned Government Advocate [Crl Side] submitted that though the property dispute originally stated by the PW1 is the cause for the commission of offence, during the course of investigation further materials were collected and this appellant / accused is fixed pursuant to the extra judicial confession statement.The final report is also filed after obtaining opinion from the Deputy Director of Prosecution.The occurrence in this case has taken place on 07.05.2010 at about 12.30pm near Mathur Anicut and thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 13/81 Crl.A(MD)No.39 of 2015 deceased was taken to the Government Hospital, Sivagangai in an Auto at 1.45pm.Within 1 hour 15 minutes the deceased was taken to the hospital.According to PW1, it was a single foot road, near the Mathur tank.After the occurrence, with the injuries, she managed to take the deceased to a nearby house of one Jeyaraman and arranged for an Auto of one Udayar, S/o.Vallabar and took the deceased to the Government Hospital, Sivagangai.The deceased was attended by the Doctor one Palanikumar at Government Hospital, Sivagangai at about 1.45pm.Neither this Jeyaraman nor the Doctor Palanikumar was examined by the Inspector of Police.The said Auto Driver Udayar was examined by the Investigation Officer PW14, but he was not examined during the trial.On receipt of the intimation from the Government Hospital, Gurusamy [PW10], Sub Inspector of Police, Thirupachethi Police Station went to the Government Hospital Sivagangai at about 4.00pm on 07.05.2010, recorded the statement of PW1, who was in the hospital, returned to the Thirupachethi Police Station and registered a case in ExP1 at about 5.030pm.The printed FIR has also reached the Court on the same day at abouthttp://www.judis.nic.in 14/81 Crl.A(MD)No.39 of 2015 10.50pm.The Doctor who conducted the postmortem on the next day at about 10.10am has also given the opinion in the postmortem certificate [ExP8] that the deceased appears to have died due to the injury to his vital organ [Right Lung] and hemorrhage, 18 to 24 hours prior to the autopsy.In the complaint ExP1, PW1 has made a specific case that there was a property dispute between her husband Senthil [deceased] and one Ponnusamy's family.● There is no investigation on this aspect, whether any document was registered by the deceased in the Sub Registrar Office, Sivagangai on 06.05.2010;● There is no investigation at the Sub Registrar Office, Sivagangai or from the surrounding area that any incident had taken place on 06.05.2010 as alleged in the complaint;D. The investigation agency relied on some statements for Alibi on 07.05.2010 to delete the name of the accused as mentioned in the FIR, from the final report.(4) The Investigation Wing shall be provided with adequate staff to cope with the work load.The Board shall lay down norms for staff strength taking into account the volume of cases.(5) Every Police Station shall have a Missing Person Liaison Officer in the rank of a Detective Sub-Inspector to co-ordinate and follow up the cases of missing persons.A Standing Committee of senior officers of the police and prosecution departments should be vested with the aforesaid responsibility.The consideration at the hands of the above Committee, should be utilised for crystallising mistakes committed during investigation, and/or prosecution, or both.The Home Department of every State Government will incorporate in its existing training programmes for junior investigation/prosecution officials course-content drawn from the above consideration.The same should also constitute course-content of refresher training programmes for senior investigating/prosecuting officials.The above responsibility for preparing training programmes for officials should be vested in the same Committee of senior officers referred to above.ii) Whether any disciplinary proceedings has been initiated as against the officials, who are responsible for acquittal because of their perfunctory investigation?iii) How the superior officers, namely, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Additional Superintendent of Police, Superintendent of Police, Deputy Inspector General of Police and Inspector General of Police are monitoring the investigation?iv) In case of lapses in investigation, whether the investigation officer alone is responsible or the higher officials, who are expected to monitor the investigation, are also responsible?v) The steps taken by the Government in fully implementing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prakash Singh's case (supra) and the Tamil Nadu Police Reforms Act, 2013, in letter and spirit, in all the police stations.ix) Whether the Circulars issued by the Director General of Police then and there are strictly complied with? In the event of non-compliance, whether any disciplinary proceedings are contemplated against them and if so, the details thereof.x) Whether the circulars issued by the Director General of Police are readily available in all the police stations, in the form of a manual and whether they are available in the common platform, such as web-sites, so that, it can be accessed by the general public?xi) The existing mechanism to enhance the quality of investigation among the investigation officers and thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 53/81 Crl.A(MD)No.39 of 2015 ways and means to enhance the same as to the present day scientific advancements.xii) The possibility of issuing a check list including the steps to be carried out by the investigation officers, step by step, depending upon the nature of crime and the applicability and training using advanced scientific techniques, like fixing the accused using call details and tower location, etc., and how such collected details be marked / produced before the Court.xiii) Why not a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- be awarded to the victim in this case, who suffered because of the perfunctory investigation, which could be recovered from the investigation officers, namely, PW12, Thiru N.Muthukumar; and PW14, Thiru Poun and the concerned Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai?xiv) The Secretary to Government, Home, Excise and Prohibition Department; and the Director General of Police, Chennai, shall give their comments / proposal as to the present case and the further course of action, if any, in view of the fact that ten years have lapsed since the commission of offence.xv)Ways and means to address the issue raised in paragraph no.47(supra) & to effectively overcome the same.http://www.judis.nic.in 54/81 Crl.A(MD)No.39 of 2015 xvi) Any other suggestions to avoid the acquittals due to such perfunctory investigations, in future, so as to regain the losing glory of the Department.56.Post this matter on 22.09.2020 for the reply / response of the respective newly impleaded respondents.While allowing the Criminal Appeal, this Court has suo- motu impleaded the respondents 2 to 7 as party respondents and raised a series of queries to be answered by them.In response to the same, an affidavit was filed by Thiru R.Thirunavukkarasu, I.P.S., Assistant Inspector General of Police, Law & Order, Chennai, on behalf of the third respondent / Director General of Police, Chennai and the fourth respondent / Director General of Police (Training), Police Training College, Chennai.According to the respondents 3 & 4, necessary instructions are already in vogue in the Police Standing Orders and the Circulars issued then and there and necessary actions are also taken for perfunctoryhttp://www.judis.nic.in 56/81 Crl.A(MD)No.39 of 2015 investigation.Daily DSR is given to the range Deputy Inspector General of Police and Zonal Inspector General of Police and the respective Superintendents of Police are also conducting monthly crime meetings.It is also stated that steps are being taken to separate police station into two different wings, i.e., Law and Order Wing and Investigation Wing and also for a nomination of a Detective (Crime) Sub-Inspector as 'Missing Person Liaison Officer' (MPLO), vide G.O.Ms.A District / City Level Standing Committee for each District / City consisting ofhttp://www.judis.nic.in 57/81 Crl.A(MD)No.39 of 2015 Officers from the Police Department as well as from the Prosecution Department has been constituted as follows:That apart, to update current knowledge and expertise, Tamil Nadu Police Academy is imparting various refresher courses and standard operating procedures for investigation, check-list for important cases, guidelines issued by various Courts of Law are also taught to the police personnel periodically and a 'Handbook of Investigation' is also provided to the training police officers to enhance their investigation skills by imbibing the nuances of investigation of various types of crimes.A Standard Operating Procedure prepared by CBCID on investigation has also been circulated to all police officers to enhance their investigation skills.It is further stated that ten best Inspectors of Police are identified every year, depending upon their investigating ability, zeal and capacity for hard work and they were awarded with 'Tamil Nadu Chief Minister's Police Medal for Excellence in Investigation' from the year 2002 and so far, 175 police officers were awarded with this medal.Similarly, the Government of India has also instituted 'Union Home Minister's Medal for Excellence in Investigation' from the year 2018 and 18 police officershttp://www.judis.nic.in 59/81 Crl.A(MD)No.39 of 2015 were awarded with this medal from the State.The Rajasthan Model of Grading Police Stations is also followed and three police stations in the year 2018 and one police station in the year 2019 were adjudged as best police stations by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs.In order to ensure what we have observed above, we give the following directions:All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41 CrPC;All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii);The police officer shall forward the check list duly filled and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, whilehttp://www.judis.nic.in 64/81 Crl.A(MD)No.39 of 2015 forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention;Thiru N.Muthukumar / fifth respondent, who is the first investigation officer, in his response, has stated that on the next day itself, ie., on 08.05.2010, he attempted to arrest the named accused, but, they were absconding.He has recorded the statement from one Senthilkumar, S/o.Similarly, he has also recorded the statement from one Selvaraj, Deputy Manager in M/s.Sakthi Sugars for the availability of the fourth named accused, Sabarimalai, as a contract labour in the said company and obtained a statement from one Thangavel, Road Inspector, Highways Department, who has stated that the third named accused, Jeyaraman, was working as a Road Worker.According to the fifth respondent, when he attempted to arrest the accused, they were absconding and therefore, he has recorded the statements from the employees.He has also filed the said statements dated 08.05.2010 in his typed set of papers.The statements dated 08.05.2010 recorded by the fifth respondent / first investigation officer, Muthukumar, is not available in the CD file.This Court feels that it is also the responsibility of the higher officials to educate their subordinates as to the available provisions of law fixing accountability, consequences of perfunctory investigation, besides the Circulars / Memorandums / Orders.In the response affidavit filed by the respondents 3 & 4, it is stated that the Circulars / Memorandums issued already were readily available in every stations manually, however, they are not available in a common platform like website.This Court hopes and trust that they would take every action to create a dedicated portal (web-portal), where each and every Circulars / Memorandums issued by them, besides the important decisions of the Courts of law, as to the manner of investigation, to improve the quality of investigation, etc., are available so as tohttp://www.judis.nic.in 77/81 Crl.A(MD)No.39 of 2015 educate the common people, particularly, the victims, who are at the mercy of the investigation agencies.The Criminal Appeal is filed by the sole accused in S.C.No.85 of 2011 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Sivagangai.http://www.judis.nic.in 1/81 Crl.A(MD)No.39 of 2015The Inspector of Police, Thirupachethi Police Station/ respondent herein filed a final report as against this appellant on 21.10.2010 for the offence under Sections 341, 302 and 394 r/w 397 IPC.Gandhi of Mathur Village, Kumar, S/o.Udayar on the same day and all these witnesses also informed the investigation officer [PW12]http://www.judis.nic.in 4/81 Crl.A(MD)No.39 of 2015 that due to the property dispute there was an enmity between the deceased and the Ponnusamy's family and on account of which, he was murdered on 07.05.2010 at 12.30pm.This extra judicial confession statement [ExP4] was recorded by the VAO [PW6] and was produced along with the accused before the Thirupachethi Police Station.Based on this extra judicial confession statement, the investigation officer arrested the appellant, recorded his confession statement and also recovered the knife [MO1] and a mobile phone [MO2] in the presence of VAO Thiruvengadam, Thirupachethi Village [PW7] and one Rajendiran, VAO [PW8].PW14, thereafter, made a request for conducting a test identification parade on 19.07.2010 to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivagangai.Pursuant to the orders of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,http://www.judis.nic.in 6/81 Crl.A(MD)No.39 of 2015 the Identification parade was conducted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ilayankudi on 28.07.2010 at the Central Prison, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 7/81 Crl.A(MD)No.39 of 2015On the side of the prosecution 14 witnesses were examined and 17 documents were marked and 6 materials objects were produced.Annalakshmi [PW1] is the wife of the deceased and an eye witness.She has stated about her complaint ExP1 and the occurrence.One Durairaj [PW5] was examined for the preparation of observation mahazar.PW6 is the VAO Subramaniam, who recorded the extra judicial confession statement of the appellant.PW7 Thiruvengadam and PW8 Rajendran are the Villagehttp://www.judis.nic.in 8/81 Crl.A(MD)No.39 of 2015 Administrative Officers and they were examined for the purpose of recovery of MO1 knife and MO2 mobile phone, but they were treated as hostile.PW12 N.Muthukumar is the Inspector of Police, who conducted the preliminary investigation.PW14 Poun is the Inspector of Police, who conducted the further investigation and filed the final report.PW13 is a Staff from the Police Department, through him the call details of the appellant/accused were marked.All the incriminating materials were put before the accused under Section 313 CrPC and the same was denied by the accused/appellant.Though the accused stated there are evidence in support of his case, he has not examined any witness or produced any documents.In conclusion of the trial, the trial Court found this appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced him as stated supra.As against the same, the present appeal has been filed.http://www.judis.nic.in 9/81 Crl.A(MD)No.39 of 2015Heard Mr.The case of the prosecution was proceeded based on the complaint [ExP1] that out of a property dispute, four named accused committed the offence on 07.05.2010 at about 12.30pm, whereas, this appellant is introduced as an accused through the extra judicial confession statement, which was recorded after two months from the date of occurrence.The evidence of PW1 cannot be trusted for the reason that in her complaint ExP1, she has stated a different version that four named persons committed the offence, whereas, in the Test Identification Parade, she has identified this appellant as an accused and also is now stating that this appellant has committed the offence.The learned Counsel further submitted that leaving the evidence of PW1, the available evidence in this case are the extra judicial confession statementhttp://www.judis.nic.in 10/81 Crl.A(MD)No.39 of 2015 recorded by the VAO [PW6] and the subsequent recoveries made from this appellant/accused.The extra judicial confession statement is a weak piece of evidence and even this extra judicial confession statement was recorded after two months from the date of occurrence in the midst of the investigation.More over, this appellant/accused is a resident of a different village, who is said to have chosen to give a statement before PW6, a complete stranger to him and that too after two months from the date of occurrence.The learned Counsel also pointed out that in the extra judicial confession statement, PW6 has made an endorsement that the confession of the offence pertains to a case in Crime No.62 of 2010 on the file of the Tirupachethi Police Station and he produced the accused along with the extra judicial confession statement ExP4 before the respondent Police.It is strange as to how the VAO[PW6] came to know about the crime number of the Thirupachethi Police Station and the offences on which, the case was registered.Apart from this extra judicial confession statement, a knife [MO1] and a mobile phone [MO2] were recovered but the knife was not sent forhttp://www.judis.nic.in 11/81 Crl.A(MD)No.39 of 2015 chemical examination and there is no record to substantiate that the mobile phone belongs to the appellant/accused.However, he did not refer the recovery of the mobile phone [MO2] and therefore, he was treated as hostile witness andhttp://www.judis.nic.in 12/81 Crl.A(MD)No.39 of 2015 similarly other recovery witness PW8 did not mention about the knife MO1 and therefore, he was also treated as hostile.The evidence of the Doctor and the Postmortem certificate would prove that the death was due to the injuries in vital organ Lungs and due to hemorrhage.Weapon MO1 and mobile phone MO2 were also recovered from the appellant.Therefore, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court also convicted the appellant only for the offence under Section 304(II) IPC and not under Section 302 IPC.This Court paid its anxious consideration to the rival submission and also perused the available materials on record.A. Though the complaint was lodged against four named accused, Karuppasamy, S/o.The statements of witnesses were collected belatedly after sixty days.C. There is a specific allegation in the complaint ExP1 that the named accused created a problem on the way to the Sub Registrar Office, Sivagangai on the previous day to the occurrence with the deceased;E. The investigation agency, which relied on the call details and the location of appellant's mobile phone through the cell phone Tower to fix him as an accused, but failed to ● ascertain in whose name the SIM Card recovered from the appellant stands;● examine the service provider to ascertain the mobile number location from the tower location with IMEI number of the mobile phone recovered from the appellant;● to collect any material for fixing the appellant/accused with the mobile phone recovered;http://www.judis.nic.in 17/81 Crl.A(MD)No.39 of 2015 ● take any steps to find out whether the named accused have used him as a hireling and whether the named accused have contacted to the mobile number, which is said to be recovered from the appellant;F. A letter was made by the Superintendent of Police, to collect the details of certain phone numbers viz.● Whether the said phone numbers belong to the named accused in the FIR or belong to any other suspect; ● Why the call details of those phone numbers were not collected and formed as a part of the CD file? G. When the investigation agency attempted to fix this appellant/accused through the call details and mobile phone location through the cell phone tower, why the same mode of investigation was not adopted as against the named accused by collecting their call details and their location on 06.05.2010 and 07.10.2010.http://www.judis.nic.in 18/81 Crl.A(MD)No.39 of 2015 H. It is the case of the complainant that after the occurrence, she managed to take her husband / the deceased upto one Jeyaraman’s house and from there, arranged an auto and taken him to Government Hospital at Sivagangai. The said Jeyaraman or any other person from his house was not examined; There is no reference in the observation mahazar and the rough sketch about the distance between the place of the occurrence and the said Jeyaraman’s house;  The deceased had sustained 4 stab injuries and despite the same, there is no explanation as to how he was able to walk from the place of occurrence to Jeyaraman’s house and the possibility for the same was not elicited by examining the Doctor, who attended him at Government Hospital.I. The injuries are deep in nature and blood stains were found even from the place of occurrence.With the bleeding, if they could move upto the Jeyaraman’s house, then there is every possibility of blood spilling over on the earth, but there is no reference about the same either in the observation mahazar [ExP2] or in the rough sketch [ExP15].http://www.judis.nic.in 19/81 Crl.A(MD)No.39 of 2015 J. The presence of PW1 / wife of the deceased is confirmed by examining the Doctor, who treated her on that day.The case of the complainant is that she was suffering from fever on that day and therefore, her husband / the deceased took her for treatment and while returning after treatment, the occurrence had taken place on the way.To substantiate her presence, the examination of the Doctor, who treated her is essential and in this case, one Jayaludeen, a Homeopathy Practitioner, was also examined and his statement was also recorded.But, he was not examined as a witness before the trial Court.K. This Court has a question that is it not the duty of the investigation officer and the prosecutor to examine the material witnesses.PW1 claims that after the occurrence, she took her husband up to Jeyaraman’s house and from there by arranging an auto, took him to the Government Hospital, Sivagangai and in this course, her saree was also stained with blood, and the blood stained clothes were also handed over to the Police.● But there is no Mahazar for recovery of this blood stained clothes from PW1 and it was neither referred for chemical analysis nor was placed before the court during the trial.http://www.judis.nic.in 20/81 Crl.A(MD)No.39 of 2015 ● The blood stained clothes of the deceased were recovered under a cover of mahazar, but was not sent for analysis to ascertain the blood group.Similarly, the blood stained soil was also recovered from the place of occurrence but no steps were taken to ascertain that it is a human blood.L. The Auto Driver, who took the deceased and PW1 to the hospital is mentioned in the ExP1 itself, as son of Vallabar, but this Auto Driver was not examined as a witness during the trial.He also issued a wound certificate, noting the injury and the time at which the deceased was brought to the hospital and by whom.Though the accident register was recovered and found in the C.D.file, it was not placed before the Court.N. In the Accident Register an entry was made that at 1.45 pm on 07.05.2010 the PW1 informed the Doctor thathttp://www.judis.nic.in 21/81 Crl.A(MD)No.39 of 2015 her husband deceased was assaulted with two unknown persons.Though it is not a requirement for an Accident Register entry, this is the first document, in which it is informed that the deceased was attacked by two unknown persons, but there is no investigation in this regard.O. A petition was filed by the PW1 before this Court in Crl.Only after that the appellant is introduced as an accused and the manner in which the extra judicial confession statement [ExP4] recorded and produced before the Police exposes the manner in which he is introduced as an accused.P. This Court by order dated 07.09.2010 condemned the manner in which different complaints were received by the Inspector of Police [PW12] after ExP1 and has also issued a direction to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, to monitor and, if necessary, transfer the investigation.Even then there is no reference whether the DSP has monitored the investigation.But some of the witnesses were examined only on 24.10.2010 on the date of filing of the final report.O.P(MD)No.6538 of 2010 with averments that the investigation is not conducted in a fair manner and the Inspector of Police, Thirupachethi Police Station has not acted properly and they have not arrested the real culprits and prayed for transfer of investigation of the case in Crime No.62 of 2010 from the file of the respondent Police to CBCID, Madurai District.http://www.judis.nic.in 23/81 Crl.A(MD)No.39 of 2015 After filing of this petition for transfer, the Inspector of Police, Muthukumar [PW12] filed a status report before this Court that during the investigation, PW1 herself gave another complaint that three persons namely Ponnusamy, Satheesh and Durai were also involved in the said crime and also gave another complaint that an unknown person has stabbed her husband.He also stated that the unknown person gave voluntary confession before the VAO Soolakudi Village on 17.07.2010 that he had committed the above said murder, after a sudden quarrel arose between him and the deceased, wherein PW1 was also present.A similar Counter was also filed by the Inspector of Police on 17.08.2010 and after hearing both sides, this Court disposed of the petition on 07.09.2010 in the following terms:On hearing the representation of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, what I Could understand is that as per the petitioner, IO obtained as many as two complaint subsequently from Annalakshmi, which alleged act of the IO was not contemplated as per Law.After registration of FIR, the question of entertaining another complaint would not arise.Recording the statement of witnesses under Section 161 CrPC, is the only solution availablehttp://www.judis.nic.in 24/81 Crl.A(MD)No.39 of 2015 under the CrPC after registration of FIR.4.The learned Counsel for the petitioner also would submit that the IO has chosen to implicate only one accused leaving others and even though the petitioner herein want to implicate as many as four persons, who are all relatives of the decease, as the case itself emerged out of some property dispute among the family members.Though another investigation officer [PW14] has taken the investigation, there is no reference about the order of this Court either in the CD file or during the trial.27.From the investigation agency, the Deputy Director of Prosecution upto the Assistant Public Prosecutor, everybody have acted in a casual manner, so as to burry the truth and the real accused, who committed the brutal murder on a poor man escape from the clutches of law.http://www.judis.nic.in 26/81 Crl.A(MD)No.39 of 2015A(MD)No.39 of 2015 issued slew of directions, and one among such directions is separation of investigation, ie., the investigating police shall be separated from the law and order police to ensure speedier investigation, better expertise and improved rapport with the people.The Government of Tamil Nadu has also passed Tamil Nadu Police (Reforms) Act, 2013 (Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 2013) to provide for a law to follow the directions in Prakash Singh's case (supra) and section 9 of the Act deals with separation of Law and Order wing and Criminal Investigation wing.For better appreciation, Section 9 is extracted as under:“9. Law and Order and Criminal Investigation wings - separation.-(1) In every Police Station, except those specifically designated as Crime Police Stations, there shall be a Law and Order Wing and an Investigation Wing, both working under the control of the Station House Officer, who shall ensure co- ordination between the two wings.The situation referred to above needs to be remedied.For the said purpose, adherence to a simple procedure could serve the objective.This would achieve two purposes.Every acquittal should be understood as a failure of the justice delivery system, in serving the cause of justice.Likewise, every acquittal should ordinarily lead to the inference, that an innocenthttp://www.judis.nic.in 46/81 Crl.A(MD)No.39 of 2015 person was wrongfully prosecuted.Not to forget the social and economic status, reputation, loss of time which could be spent with his family and the financial expenses incurred by him to defend him.55.In the given facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems necessary to call for a report from the State, by impleading the Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai; The Director General of Police, No.601, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai; The Director General of Police (Training), Police Training College, No. 2, Natesan Salai, Ashok Nagar, Chennai, as party respondents to the proceedings.Accordingly, they are suo-motu impleaded as party respondents to this proceedings, in their official capacity and in addition to the same, the investigation officers in this case, namely, PW12, Thiru N.Muthukumar; and PW14, Thiru Poun and the concerned Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai, to whom a direction was given by this Court in Crl.OP(MD).No.6538 of 2010, dated 07.09.2010, are also suo-motu impleaded as party respondents to this proceedings, in their personalhttp://www.judis.nic.in 51/81 Crl.A(MD)No.39 of 2015 capacity.The newly impleaded respondents shall give their response as to the following queries:It is further stated in the affidavit that a letter has been addressed to the Government by the Director General of Police on 21.09.2020 for recording the statements of the witnesses and for the implementation of the amendments to Sections 161, 164 & 275 Cr.P.C., with the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh.The affidavit further reads that for non- compliance of the Circulars issued by the Director General of Police relating to investigation, disciplinary proceedings were initiated as against 304 police personnel throughout the State from 2016 to 15.09.2020.http://www.judis.nic.in 58/81 Crl.A(MD)No.39 of 2015The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41-A CrPC be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before the High Court having territorial jurisdiction.”http://www.judis.nic.in 65/81 Crl.A(MD)No.39 of 2015With regard to the arrest of a person and issuance of a notice, the third respondent / Director General of Police, Chennai, pursuant to the orders of this Court in Crl.If the Orders / Instructions / Rules / Circulars are strictly adhered to, the common man would not loose faith in the system; the Department would not loose their pride; and the conviction rate would also not be below 50%.Witnesses may lie, but not the circumstances.Even the witnesses may turn hostile, but if the investigation officer collects necessary materials linking the chain of circumstances, the Court can decide the case on the available circumstantial evidence.The main object of investigation is to bring out the truth and only a fair and impartial investigation can attain the same, which would bring confidence on the minds of a common man.http://www.judis.nic.in 66/81 Crl.A(MD)No.39 of 2015In the case of Perumal v. Janaki [(2014) 5 SCC 377], the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has prima facie observed that the investigation officer, despite the knowledge that a fact has not taken place, chosen to rely the same on the charge sheet, though it was not medically proved and the Court below, while condemning the case on wrongful prosecution, ought to have directed the investigation officer to be prosecuted under Section 211 IPC, instead of Section 193 IPC.The Director General of Police and other higher officials have to sensitize the investigation officers on the available penal provisions and the consequences of a perfunctory investigation.Everybody has to discharge the duty in accordance with law and it is thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 73/81 Crl.A(MD)No.39 of 2015 duty of the higher officials to ensure the same.Despite the availability of the aforesaid penal provisions, it appears, the same has not been invoked as against the erring officials.If the higher officials, who are expected to take action, are not acting upon, then they must also be made accountable for such dereliction.A corruption free transparent administration alone can give confidence on the minds of a common citizen.No.24, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (AR-I) Department, dated 17.02.2010, in this regard.http://www.judis.nic.in 74/81 Crl.A(MD)No.39 of 2015Though in the said Government Order, the Government has took decision in as many as 50 subjects, this Court is inclined to refer to the following decisions taken by the Government:that 70% to 90% of the necessary instructions delay will be reduced.) to follow existing rules and Government Orders.against the Supervisory this regard.The respondents 2 & 3 are directed to take necessary steps to disburse the compensation amount of Rs.3,00,000/- [Rupees Three Lakh only] to the complainant, namely, Annalakshmi [PW1].Upon completion of the departmental proceedings and after fixing the official responsible for the perfunctory investigation, it is for them to recover this compensation amount from the delinquent official, if they so advised, apart from other departmental action, if any.With the above observations and directions, this Criminal Appeal stands closed.06.11.2020 gkhttp://www.judis.nic.in 78/81 Crl.A(MD)No.39 of 2015 B.PUGALENDHI, J.gk Crl.A.(MD)No.39 of 2015 06.11.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 79/81 Crl.A(MD)No.39 of 2015 Note: Registry is directed to mark a copy of this order to all the newly impleaded respondents.1.The District Sessions Judge, Sivagangai.2.The Inspector of Police, Thirupachethi Police Station, Sivagangai District.3.The Additional Pubic Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.4.The Record Keeper (2 Copies), Criminal Section, Madurai Bench of Madras, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 80/81 Crl.A(MD)No.39 of 2015 B.PUGALENDHI.J., gk/dsk Pre delivery judgment made in Crl.A(MD)No.39 of 2015http://www.judis.nic.in 81/81
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
184,900,070
Counsel for the applicant is permitted to correct the Section 442 IPC mentioned in the bail application to Section 342 IPC within the course of the day.It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that similarly placed co-accused, Akash Sharma, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court by order dated 03.02.2020 passed in Criminal Misc.He has further submitted that since the role of the applicant is identical to that of co-accused,Akash Sharma, who has already been enlarged on bail, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.The prayer for bail has vehemently been opposed by learned A.G.A.In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail.Order Date :- 3.3.2020 Rohit
['Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
184,901,475
Prosecution story in nutshell are that on 24/05/2015 at about 8.00 am complainant Mansharam was digging a channel in his field, at that time applicant No.2-Nanuram came there and started hurling abuses upon the complainant.On Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 17/01/2020 16:44:45 Cr.R. No.5943/2019 2 being stopped by the complainant he caught hold the hand of the complainant and knocked him down.Then applicant No.1- Pawan came there running and assaulted complainant by axe in the right side of his head due to which complainant sustained injury and started bleeding.Applicants have preferred this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C") against the judgment dated 26/11/2019 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, West Nimar, District Khargone in Cri.Appeal No.280/2018, wherein the learned Judge dismissed the appeal by affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Maheshwar, District West Nimar, dated 03/11/2018 in RCT No.100270/2016 wherein each of the appellants have been convicted for offence under Sections 323/34 (2 counts), 325/34 of IPC, 1860 and sentenced with fine of Rs.300/- (2 counts), to undergo 6 months R.I., with a fine Rs.100/-, respectively with usual default stipulation.On hearing the noise and cry complainant's younger brother Rakesh came there, however applicant No.3-Subhash assaulted him on his left elbow, shoulder by wooden stick.When Munnibai, the wife of the complainant came to the place of occurrence, applicant No.4-Radhabai knocked her down in the field due to which she got injured on her wrist.It is further alleged that the applicants warned the complainant to kill if he again tried to dig a channel in his field.Complainant, his wife Munnibai and his younger brother Rakesh were sent to hospital for medical examination and treatment.Complainant lodged a FIR at Police Station Maheshwar.R. No.5943/2019 2During investigation Police reached the spot and prepared spot map.Wooden stick and axe were recovered from the applicants, statement of the witnesses were recorded and the applicants were arrested.In the X-ray examination the lower portion of the radius bone of Munnibai was found broken, therefore, Section 325 of IPC was added against the applicants.After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed.Trial Court, while passing the judgment, convicted each of the applicants for offence punishable under Sections 323/34 (2 counts), 325/34 of IPC, 1860 and sentenced with fine of Rs.300/- (2 counts), to undergo 6 months R.I with a fine of Rs.100/-, respectively with usual default stipulation.An Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 17/01/2020 16:44:45 Cr.R. No.5943/2019 3 appeal was filed against the said conviction and sentence, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 26/11/2019 by the Sessions Court.Cr.R. No.5943/2019 3Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent State has submitted that after appreciating the evidence produced by the prosecution, the Courts below have rightly found guilty the applicants for the aforesaid offence, therefore, no grounds are available for reducing the jail sentence awarded to the applicants, hence, he prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of entire record of the case, I am inclined to allow this revision petition in part upon finding some force in the Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 17/01/2020 16:44:45 Cr.In default of payment of enhanced fine amount, the Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 17/01/2020 16:44:45 Cr.R. No.5943/2019 5 applicants shall suffer two months R.I. Out of the fine amount of a sum of Rs.5000/-shall be paid to injured - Munnibai as compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.R. No.5943/2019 5With the aforesaid modification the criminal revision No.5943/2019 stands partly allowed and disposed of.Certified copy as per Rules.
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.