id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
184,901,749 |
Shri S.S.Rajput, counsel for the applicants.Shri B.Raj Pandey, Govt. Advocate for the State.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicants are in custody since 3/12/2014 relating to Crime No.561/2014, registered at Police Station Aron, District Guna (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 294 of I.P.C.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are youths of 19 and 25 years of age, respectively.They do not have criminal past alleged against them.It is alleged that the deceased died due to multiple injuries and excessive bleeding.The bleeding was caused due to injury caused by sharp- cutting weapon.It was alleged against each of the applicant that he had a stick.By stick no open wound could be caused.The applicants were not aware that co-accused would have assaulted injuries in such a manner.The common intention or object of the applicants can not be presumed with the co-accused persons for offence under section 306 of I.P.C. either directly or with the help of section 34 or 149 of I.P.C. The remaining offences are bailable.2 Mcrc.The applicants cannot be kept in custody for un-limited period.Consequently, they pray for bail.Learned Govt. Advocate opposes the application.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of offence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants may be accepted.
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
184,908,967 |
Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.By means of this criminal revision, the revisionists has challenged the order dated 26.10.2019 passed by Addl.Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-I, Allahabad in S.T. No. 158 of 2019 (State Vs.Anil Kumar Pandey & others) arising out of Case Crime No. 127 of 2017, under Sections 307, 386 IPC, P.S. G.R.P, District- Allahabad, by which the revisionists' application for discharge has been rejected.The brief facts of the case are that on 11.2.2017 at about 3:50 p.m., while the first informant alongwith his brother were sitting at the railway premises near the washing line, revisionists-applicants Anil Kumar Pandey, Manoj Kumar Pandey and one unknown person reached there and stated that since they are working as contractor in the railway department, as such they will pay 'Goonda Tax' and asked them to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- else they would be killed and when the first informant raised objection against their illegal act and conduct, then Anil Kumar Pandey armed with pistol and Manoj Kumar Pandey armed with katta and other unknown person armed with revolver with an intention to kill them, opened fire, however they somehow narrowly escaped and ran away taking shelter in the guard rest room where again Manoj Kumar Pandey opened fire, which hit the glass of the railway rest house.On the basis of said allegations, the first information report was lodged on 11.2.2017 vide Case Crime No. 127 of 2017, u/s 307/386 IPC.On the basis of aforesaid first information report, the police thoroughly investigated the matter and submitted the charge sheet against the applicant under Section 307 IPC upon which court below had taken cognizance and the case being triable by Sessions, committed the case to the court of Sessions, where the applicants filed an application for discharge.Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that from the allegations made in the first information report and the material collected during the course of investigation, no offence is disclosed against the revisionists.The ground in the context is not a ground for conviction, but a ground for putting the accused on trial.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
18,491,546 |
2. Prosecution story, in short, may be narrated thus -(i) At the relevant point of time, the prosecutrix (PW1), a married woman aged about 20 years and a member of Scheduled Caste i.e. Kori, was residing in her :: 2 ::Appeal No.1478/1995 matrimonial home situated in Village Urdipurva Majra, the native place of the appellant, who belongs to Gadariya (shepherd) caste.(ii) On 12.1.95 at about 10 a.m., the prosecutrix had gone to Bakhri (cottage) used as the cattle-shed located at the outskirt of the village, to throw cow-dung.After doing the work, as she was taking out pieces of firewood for cooking from the heap collected in the cottage, the appellant suddenly entered thereinto and forcibly subjected her to sexual intercourse.Alarms raised by the prosecutrix attracted attention of Dasua (PW3), Ramkaran, Shivram and other inhabitants of the locality, who were able to see the appellant running away from the Bakhri.(iii) Since husband of the prosecutrix as well as his elder brother namely Barra @ Barelal (PW2) had gone out, it was upon return of Barra that she informed the police about the incident.Recording the information as Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-1), ASI G.L. Singh (PW8) registered a case under Sections 354 of the IPC and 3(1)(xi) of the Act.(iv) In her statement, under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the prosecutrix disclosed that in fact, she was ravished by the appellant.(22.11.2011) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment-dated 10/10/95 passed by the Sessions Judge [designated as Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989] (for short 'the Act'), Chhatarpur in Special Case No.18/95, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced as under:-The case was, accordingly, converted into one under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(xii) of the Act.(v) On 27th of January, 1995, the prosecutrix was sent to the Civil Hospital at Chhatarpur for medical examination.Dr. Smt. Sangeeta Choubey (PW6), while expressing her inability to give any definite opinion as to rape, prepared two slides from vaginal smear of the prosecutrix for chemical analysis.:: 3 ::Dr. R.P. Gupta (PW7) found the appellant capable of performing sexual intercourse.On being charged with the offences punishable under Sections 450 & 376 of IPC and 3(1)(xi) & 3(1)(xii) of the Act, the appellant pleaded false implication due to prevailing animosity in view of dispute as to agricultural land.Legality and propriety of the conviction have been challenged on the under-mentioned grounds -(i) Non-disclosure of the factum of rape in the Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-1) by ASI C.L. Singh (PW8) at the instance of the prosecutrix.(ii) Improbability of the story regarding rape at a place referred in the spot map (Ex.P-2) as situated near the residences of Ramkaran, Bhavanidin, Buddhu etc.(iii) Absence of corroborative medical or forensic evidence as to rape.In response, learned Panel Lawyer, while making reference to the incriminating pieces of evidence, has contended that the convictions are well founded.As per statement of the prosecutrix (PW1), at about 10 a.m. when she was picking up pieces of jungle wood stored in the Bakhri, the appellant came from behind; caught hold of her hands; threatened to kill her in case she raised alarm; put his hands on her breasts, felled her down and committed rape on her.According to her, she raised alarm only after the appellant had left the spot and on arrival of persons in the neighbourhood namely Dasua, Shivram, :: 4 ::Appeal No.1478/1995 Raje Budhua and Horilal, narrated the incident to them.Amongst these persons, only Dasua and Shivram were named in the Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-1).Dasua (PW3), related as maternal uncle-in-law to the prosecutrix, corroborated her version but Shivram (DW1) came forward to support the defence of false implication due to animosity arising out of land dispute between the appellant and husband/Jeth of the prosecutrix.Moreover, the following inconsistencies in the evidence of other witnesses clearly indicated as to how a false case of rape was cooked up from the occurrence that had taken place in a different manner -(i) The prosecutrix (PW1) was emphatic in saying that on the date of the incident only at about 4 p.m., the report (Ex.P-1) was recorded by the Police Inspector who had come to the house of Gram Pradhan in the presence of her Jeth Barra whereas Barra (PW1) clearly admitted that he had returned to the village on the following day of the incident i.e. 12.1.95 at 10 a.m. and on being informed about the incident, had gone to lodge report at Police Outpost but, instead of scribing the information, the Inspector had proceeded to the village where the report was ultimately recorded at the house of the Pradhan.(ii) As per the version given in the report recorded as Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-1), the appellant had only caught hold of the prosecutrix with intent to outrage her modesty but was not able to subject her to sexual assault as her screams had attracted attention of the neighbours, who had immediately rushed to the spot.(iii) ASI G.L. Singh (PW8), the scriber of Dehati Nalishi, candidly acknowledged that since the factum of rape was not :: 5 ::Appeal No.1478/1995 disclosed by the prosecutrix, the investigation could not be proceeded with accordingly.This admission gathered more support from the circumstances enumerated below -(a) Upon the report, initially a case under Sections 354 IPC and 3(1)(xi) of the Act was registered.(c) The prosecutrix was referred to District Hospital, Chhatarpur for her medical examination on 27.1.95, as reflected in letter of request (Ex.P-8).(d) Sari said to have been worn by the prosecutrix at the time of the incident was seized on 25.1.95, by way of seizure memo (Ex.P-4).Medical examination of the prosecutrix, a married woman, nearly 15 days after the incident was a futile exercise and that of the appellant nearly a month after the incident, was also inconsequential.A bare perusal of the Dehati Nalishi would reveal that last four lines containing the allegations to the effect that after finding the prosecutrix all alone, the appellant had subjected her to rape were added subsequently.This inference drew strength from the fact that no offence of rape was registered upon recitals of the Dehati Nalishi.The proposition of law that no corroboration is necessary to act upon the evidence of victim of rape is well settled (Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat AIR 1983 SC 753 referred to).In the instant case, though the rape did not appear to have been committed but the offence of outraging modesty of the prosecutrix, a member of Scheduled Caste, punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act, was clearly established from the prosecution evidence comprising of sworn testimony of the prosecutrix, contents of the Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-1) lodged by her and corroborative evidence of Dasua (PW3).Accordingly, the conviction under Section 450 of the IPC also deserves to be converted into the one under Section 454 of the IPC.Coming to the question of sentence, it may be observed that a considerable period of more than 16 years has already elapsed after the incident in question and meanwhile, the appellant has already suffered imprisonment for a period of more than 5 months.In these circumstances, interests of justice would be met if substantive term of custodial sentence is reduced to 6 months, which is the minimum prescribed for the offence under the Act, and a fine of Rs.1,250/- is imposed.:: 7 ::Consequently, appeal is partly allowed.In the result -(i) The impugned conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 376 read with Section 3(1)(xii) of the Act and consequent sentence are hereby set aside.(ii) The conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act is also maintained but the period of custodial sentence is reduced from 1 year to 6 months and the sentence of fine is enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.1250/- and in default of payment of fine, he would undergo R.I. for 2 months.(iii) The conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 450 of the IPC is converted into one under Section 454 of IPC and he is sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months.With the direction that jail sentences shall run concurrentlyThe appellant is on bail.He is directed to appear before the trial court on 21.2.12 for being committed to custody for undergoing the remaining part of sentence and also to deposit the fine amount, if not deposited so far.(R.C.MISHRA) JUDGE 22.11.2011
|
['Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
184,919,085 |
This petition has been filed to quash the criminal proceedings in Crime No.229 of 2019, pending on the file of the first respondent Police.The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.229 of 2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 294 (b), 342, 323 and 506 (ii) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 2002, based on a complaint given by the second respondent.Now, to quash the said criminal proceedings, the present petition has been filed.2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the second respondent is the wife of the first petitioner and the petitioners 2 and 3 are in-laws of the second respondent / defacto complainant.Due to some family dispute between the petitioners and the second respondent / defacto complainant, the second respondent has given a complaint against the petitioners and to quash the same, the present petition has been filed.3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent / defacto complainant submitted that in a matrimonial dispute, the present complainthttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 has been given.Now, both the petitioners and the second respondent/defacto complainant have settled their dispute between themselves amicably and the first petitioner and the second respondent / defacto complainant are living together happily.On enquiry, both parties have stated that they have settled the dispute between themselves amicably and the second respondent/defacto complainant has also stated that she is not willing to proceed with the criminal case any further and they have also filed a joint compromise memo to that effect.Keeping the above principles in mind, let us now consider the instant case as to whether it is a fit case to quash the criminal proceedings based on the settlement arrived at between the parties.Considering the fact that due to family dispute between both parties, the complaint has been given; that now they have amicably settled their dispute between themselves; that both are living together peacefully and happily; and that the second respondent/defacto complainant is not interested in prosecuting the complaint.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners in Crime No.229 of 2019, on the file of the first respondent is quashed.07.08.2019 Index :Yes/No Internet:Yes/Nohttp://www.judis.nic.in 11 Tsg ToThe Inspector of Police, Panagudi Police Station, Thirunelveli District.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
167,125,225 |
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court no. 1, Muzaffarnagar in S. T. no. 1358 of 1999 whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable u/s 324 and 323 IPC read with section 34 IPC and each of them had been given benefit of Probation of Offenders' Act.Brief facts germane to the appeal are that on 18.3.1998 at about 4.00 p.m. complainant Omvir Singh r/o village Khedi Ranghdhan P. S. Khatauli District Muzaffarnagar submitted a written report at P. S. Khatauli alleging that their field is adjacent to the field of Kunwar Pal and they used to dismantle their mendh.Today at about 8 a.m. his brother Mahavir had gone to the field and found Kunwar Pal and Lakhan dismantling their mendh.He protested whereupon both of them assaulted him with lathi and spade.He was seriously injured.On perusal of the record it is found that a report of commission of offences punishable u/s 307,452 and 506 IPC was lodged by accused-appellant Kunwar Pal Singh on 18.3.1998 at 3.30 p.m. in P. S. Khatauli against Natru @ Mahavir (injured), Omi (PW-1), Peetu and Rishi Pal wherein inter alia it was alleged that on 18.3.1998 at about 8 a.m. all the named accused armed with tabal, phawra and lathi were dismantling the mendh of Kunwar Pal Singh, when he tried to stop them, he was abused and they attacked him.In order to save himself he ran and entered into his gher, where the accused persons also came and in order to kill him badly assaulted.His father Lakhan came to save him, but he was also beaten.Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 29.1.2004 passed by Sri B. D. Mishra, the then Addl.His shrieks attracted the complainant, Ram Kumar s/o Prahlad Singh Radhey s/o Shri Pal and others.When they saved Mahavir, the accused persons also threatened them.On the basis of this report case at crime no. 112-A/98 u/s 324, 323, 506 IPC was registered, investigation whereof was entrusted to SI Smt. Raj Bala Vishnoi.Ere that injured Mahavir Singh was medically examined by Dr. M. S. Faujdar at PHC, Khatauli the same day at 9.30 a.m. He found following injuries on his person:Lacerated wound 2.2 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.4 cm deep over right side of scalp 7.0 cm above from mid of right eye brow.Fresh bleeding present.Incised wound 1.3 cm.x 0.3 cm x 0.3 cm deep over right side of forehead just above from mid of right eye brow.Contusion 2.0 cm x 1.5 cm over back of right shoulder.Red in colour.Contusion 2.0 cm x 1.0 cm over outer aspect of upper 1/3rd of left upper arm.Abraded contusion 4.0 cm x 2.0 over left lateral aspect of lower 1/3rd of chest associated with pain on breathing.Kept under observation.Unscabbed abrasion 1.5 cm x 0.3 cm over back of middle 1/3rd of left side index finger.In the opinion of the doctor all injuries were simple except injury no. 5 and were fresh in duration.Injuries no. 1,3, 4 and 5 were caused by some hard and blunt object while injury no. 2 by sharp edged weapon.Injury no. 6 could be caused by friction against rough surface.Injury no. 5 was referred to District Hospital, Muzaffarnagar.The investigating officer interrogated the witnesses, prepared site plan of the spot and after completing the investigation submitted charge sheet against the accused-appellants.After committal of the case to the Court of Session charges for the offence punishable u/s 324/34, 323/34 and 506 IPC were framed against both the accused-appellants, who abjured their guilt and claimed trial.In their separate statements u/s 313 Cr. P. C. both the accused have denied the entire prosecution story and have stated that false case had been concocted by the complainant in order to save themselves from their case.In defence the accused-appellants have filed certified copies of FIR of case crime no. 112/98, charge-sheet, site plan, medical examination reports of Kunwar Pal Singh and Lakhan Singh.The learned trial Court after hearing the parties' counsel has found both the appellants guilty for offences punishable u/s 324 and 323 IPC read with section 34 IPC and instead of sentencing them atonce had given benefit of Probation of Offenders' Act. Aggrieved, they have come up in appeal.I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record of the lower Court carefully.Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record in correct perspective; that the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the accused-appellants has not been considered at all, which clearly proved that the complainant side was the aggressor as accused Kunwar Pal Singh and Lakhan Singh were badly assaulted by Mahavir and three others.Kunwar Pal has sustained numerous serious injuries inside the gher at the hands of Mahavir, Omi, Peetu and Rishpal for which a report was lodged by Kunwar Pal Singh at Crime no. 112/98 u/s 307, 452, 504 IPC and after investigation police had submitted charge-sheet against them; that even Mahavir has admitted in his cross-examination that he had seen injuries on Kunwar Pal Singh.It has been further submitted that in the impugned judgment the learned trial Court has not discussed the evidence of Nanak DW-1 as also the documentary evidence filed on their behalf, which had led to miscarriage of justice.They had suffered serious injuries.The accused-appellants have filed certified copies of their injury reports, which show that appellant Kunwar Pal had suffered as many as 21-injuries which include 3-incised wounds, 3-lacerated wounds, 11-unscabbed abraded contusions and 4-contusions on different part of his body.The doctor found injuries of one contusion and complain of pain on left thumb of Lakhan Singh.The injured were examined at PHC, Khatauli on 18.3.1998 at 9.50 a.m. onwards.The injuries sustained by Kunwar Pal are not superficial or self-suffered injuries.Although the defence has not made any attempt to prove the injury reports of the accused-appellants, but Dr. M. S. Faujdar PW-4 has admitted in his cross-examination that the same day after medical examination of Mahavir, he had examined the injuries of Kunwar Pal and Lakhan.All the prosecution witnesses of fact namely PW-1 to PW-3 including the injured have admitted in their cross-examination that blood was oozing out from the head of accused Kunwar Pal.Injured Mahavir PW-2 has admitted that cross-case pertaining to this incident is pending against him.In cross-examination he has given a very funny explanation about the injuries sustained by accused Kunwar Pal.He has stated that accused Kunwar Pal had caught him from left hand and he assaulted him with spade.To quote his own words:" ....ekjihV esa dqaoj iky dks Hkh pksaVs vkbZ FkhA esjs gkFk esa dqN ugha FkkA eSa gh dqaoj iky dk QkoM+k ;k ykBh idM+ ysrk Fkk ftlls mldks pksV vk tkrh FkhA QkoM+k FkksM+k lk yxus ij Hkh [kwu fudy tkrk gSA dqaoj iky ds gkFk esa ekjihV ds nkSjku 'kq: ls ysdj vkf[kj rd gkFk esa QkoM+k jgk FkkA...."The injury report of Kunwar Pal shows that he has sustained 3-lacerated wounds and 2-incised wounds on his scalp, a vital part of the human body, which cannot be said to the superficial or self-inflicted at all.In any eventuality these injuries cannot be sustained by him in the manner as described by Mahavir PW-2 above.This clearly reveals that the injured witness and other eye witness Ram Kumar PW-3 are not stating the truth about the manner of incident and are suppressing the real and true facts.The defence had examined Nanak Singh DW-1, who has corroborated the report of accused Lakhan Singh lodged prior to the instant FIR of Omvir Singh stating that on 18.3.1998 at about 8 a.m. on hearing commotion he reached at the gher of Kunwar Pal, where Mahavir and Rishi armed with Tabal, Omi with Phawra and Peetu having lathi were assaulting Kunwar Pal and Lakhan.Kunwar Pal was bleeding from head and on seeing him, Madan and Lal Chand, they made their escape good after hurling abuses and giving life threat to them.He along with other villagers took Kunwar Pal and Lakhan to police station Khatauli In his cross-examination he has stated that he has already deposed in the cross-case before the Court.This witness had been cross-examined at length by the prosecution but his testimony could not be shaken in the cross-examination.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,671,340 |
JUDGMENT V.P. Tipnis, J.Prosecution case in brief is that deceased Nalsaheb was brother of complainant PW 12 Moula.Deceased was selling Shindi.Prior to the marriage deceased Nalsaheb was the wrestler.Sadashiv Mhadkar, Gundiba Bandagar, Bhalchandra Sarfale and others were also attending the gymkhana along with deceased Nalsaheb.Deceased Nalsaheb had a quarrel with Bhalchandra Sarfale.PW 12 Moula intervened.Since that quarrel Bhalchandra and deceased Nalsaheb were not on talking terms.On 12th November, 1993, Sadashiv Mhadkar, Bhalchandra Sarfale, Anna Sarfale and Vikas Sontakke had a quarrel during which Nalsaheb being friend of Sadashiv intervened.At that time Bhalchandra Sarfale and Vikas Sontakke gave threat to Nalsaheb that they will finish him within 8 days.Complainant PW 12 Moula, Dadarao Mhadkar and Bhaskar Vanamane were present at that time.On 19th November, 1993 at about 7.30 a.m. Nalsaheb carried Shindi on bicycle from village Watvate.Nalsaheb did not return to his house till next morning i.e. 20th November, 1993 which made PW 12 Moula, brother of deceased Nalsaheb, to start a search for the deceased.In the process, PW 12 Moula went to the police outpost to inquire about Nalsaheb where Police Patil of village Kurul had also come to the police outpost to inform that a dead body of one Shindiwala was lying near the tank near Devicha Mala in Shivar of village Kurul.PW 12 went on the spot and found the dead body of his brother Nalsaheb lying with several injuries on his person on different parts.PW 12 Moula suspected Bhalchandra Sarfale and Vikas Sontakke might have committed the murder of his brother as per the threat given by them to Nalsaheb.The police, in fact, arrested three named persons.Witnesses Balasaheb Salgar and Lingeshwar are tutored by the police.PW 13 Bhaskar Vanamane is also friend of deceased Nalsaheb.He brought Shindi from his master, took his breakfast and tiffin box and went out on a bicycle to sell Shindi.As deceased Nalsaheb did not return home till night, on the next day morning PW 12 Moula went out for his search.When he went to police out-post at Kamati, Police Palil of Kurul came to Kamati and intimated about the dead body lying near the temple of goddess at Kurul.He went to the spot and found that the dead body was that of his brother Nalsaheb.It had several injuries.He attended the work at 8.30 a.m. He took a round and thereafter went to some labourers who were then digging soil on a tractor from mouth of water channel to take a tobacco.It was about 10 a.m. He took tobacco and again went to take a round.At that time he saw one person sitting in the plants of sunflower and one person coming from the side of village Watvate.He was Shindiwala.One more person was following Shindiwala from village Watvate.The person who was sitting near the sunflower plants was wearing blue colour pants and white colour banian.The person who was sitting near the .sunflower plants then obstructed Shindiwala and the person who came from the backside of Shindiwala, with some weapon in his hand assaulted and the person who was sitting near sunflower plants then assaulted with his sickle on Shindiwala.They did not talk at that time.Then witness stated that at the time of attack Shindiwala was saying "Mi Kaya Kelaya, Paya Padato Maru Naka.Audya Paya Padato Maru Nako".Nalsaheb was going to village Kurul to sell Shindi and this witness went to village Wagholi to sell Shindi.The cycle of Nalsaheb then punctured near the village Watvate.He met deceased Nalsaheb on the road and then this witness went ahead.He reached one place known as Wadi.Nalsaheb was on the road at that time.At that time accused No. 1 Audumbar on his cycle went towards village Wagholi.Nalsaheb with his cycle was coming on his foot hearing towards Kurul.Accused No. 2 Eknath was behind Nalsaheb and he was on his cycle.He saw both the accused persons and Nalsaheb from Wadi.There was about 200 ft. distance between accused No. 1 Audumbar and deceased Nalsaheb and about 150 ft. distance between Nalsaheb and accused No. 2 Eknath.The witness went to his sister's house at Pimpari on that date and returned to village Watvate on the next date and then learnt that there was murder of Nalsaheb from PW 2 Narayan.The witness has stated that accused No. 1 Audumbar gave threat to hotel boy by name Sidhu Bandagar.Sindhu Bandagar came to this witness and narrated the incident to this witness, Nalsaheb and Sada Mahadkar.This witness and Nalsaheb and said Mahadkar warned accused No. 1 Audumbar.At that time accused No. 1 Audumbar gave threat to them.The witness has further stated that about 2 or 3 years back the accused No. 1 put the cotton on fire belonging to Sada.Accused No. 1 Audumbar then quarrelled with Nalsaheb, Sada and this witness and thereafter the matter was settled.The accused persons before the Court are the same persons who were going on their cycles on the day of incident.The witness has stated that he did state before the police at the time of statement that the cycle of Nalsaheb was punctured and therefore he was going on his foot with punctured cycle towards village Kurul and at that time he saw accused No. 1 Audumbar heading about 200 ft. to Nalsaheb and accused No. 2 Eknath was behind of about 150 ft.toe Nalsaheb.The witness stated that he did state before the police that on the day of the incident he went to the house of his sister and returned to village Watvate on the next day.The witness further stated that he cannot assign any reason as to why police did not mention these things in his police statement.On 21st November, 1993 PW 12 Moula again came to the police station, Mohol, after the funeral of his deceased brother Nalsaheb and reported that one Kondi Madake and Narayan Madake told him that it is these two accused who have assaulted Nalsaheb.There was some quarrel between accused No. 1 Audumbar and Nalsaheb about a year prior to the incident.Accused No. 1 Audumbar with the help of his younger brother accused No. 2 Eknath committed murder of Nalsaheb due to the quarrel between Nalsaheb and Bhalchandra which took place on 12th November, 1993 and at that time Bhalchandra gave threat to Nalsaheb.PW 14 API Shejal recorded the additional statement of PW 12 Moula.On the very day the Investigating Officer got the statement of PW 2 Narayan recorded by Special Judicial Magistrate, PW 11, Mane.On 24th of November, 1993 the accused No. 2 Eknath made a statement leading to discovery and accordingly he prepared memorandum of statement at Exhibit- 18 and also further memorandum of seizure of ash (Art. 15) of the burnt clothes as also sickle (Art. 13) and knife (Art. 14) which were blood stained under the very memorandum (Exhibit-18).The Investigating Officer also seized two bicycles (Art. 17) and (Art. 18) from the accused No. 2 Eknath.Usual investigation was further carried out and ultimately both the accused were charged and tried as mentioned above.Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.They claimed that they are falsely implicated in the case.They further contended that deceased Nalsaheb was having many enemies.His father had committed murders of Gulab, Ganpat and Santram and, therefore, the relatives of these three persons were also annoyed with deceased Nalsaheb and other family members.The deceased Nalsaheb is also alleged to have beaten several other persons.Quarrel with Bhalchandra Sarfale on 12th November, 1993 was also mentioned.According to the accused there were several enemies to deceased Nalsaheb and, in fact, Bhalchandra Sarfale and Vikas Sontakke had given threat of life to deceased just a week prior to the date of incident.Accused contended that the original story given by PW 12 Moula against Bhalchandra Sarfale and Vikas Sontakke and others is the correct story.However, these persons brought political pressure and financial pressure on the police which resulted into false involvement of the accused by creating false evidence.It is alleged that panch Gundiba Bandagar is a friend of deceased Nalsaheb.During the trial prosecution adduced evidence of PW 1 Narayan, PW 3 Balasaheb Salgar, PW 5 Lingeshwar Bhalerao as the eyewitnesses.Prosecution also examined PW 13 Bhaskar Honmane who deposes of having met Nalsaheb on the road and who had seen accused No. 1 Audumbar on his cycle going towards village Wagholi.Accused No. 2 was also seen behind Nalsaheb.Accused No. 2 was on bicycle.He saw both the accused and Nalsaheb from Wadi.Prosecution also examined PW 12 Moula, Complainant.PW 6 Mahadev was examined to show that accused No. 2 Eknath had taken his bicycle on the date of the incident.PW 1 Gundiba Bandagar was also examined as a panch for recovery of burnt ash as well as knife and sickle.PW 9 Dr. Deshpande was examined to prove the postmortem notes.Lastly, prosecution examined PW 14 API Shejal who was the Investigating Officer.On the basis of material on record, the learned Judge held that looking to the injuries and evidence of doctor, Nalsaheb died a homicidal death.The learned Judge accepted the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and ultimately considering the rival contentions concluded in paragraph 33 that evidence of PW 3 Balasaheb and PW 5 Lingeshwar clearly indicate that the accused persons with knife and sickle assaulted deceased Nalsaheb due to which Nalsaheb died on the spot.The learned Judge further stated that accused No. 2 Eknath produced ash of burnt clothes, sickle and knife from the hidden place which shows accused persons in furtherance of their common intention committed murder of deceased Nalsaheb by sickle and knife and thereafter accused No. 2 Eknath set blood stained clothes on fire to make the evidence of murder disappear with intention to screen themselves from legal punishment.As such accused No. 2 has committed the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC.Accordingly, by his Judgment and Order dated 6th July 1994 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur was pleased to convict both the accused for offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC and sentence each of them to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default further RI for 15 days.Accused No. 2 was further convicted for offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC and was sentenced to suffer RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default further RI for 15 days.. Both the sentences of accused No. 2 were directed to run concurrently.Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and order of conviction and sentence, both the accused have preferred this appeal.We have heard Shri Mundargi, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in support of this appeal and Smt. Joshi, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State.He further states that even evidence of PW 12 Moula, so far as it pertains to what Narayan stated to him, would become hearsay evidence.Shri Mundargi emphasised that as per the initial statement which was recorded as FIR, four totally different persons with whom Nalsaheb had a serious quarrel, just a week prior, were specifically mentioned.On 21st November, 1993 the names of the present appellants transpired for the first time.Accused No. 2 was arrested on 22nd November 1993 and accused No. 2 is alleged to have made a statement leading to discovery on 24th November, 1993, Shri Mundargi contended that there is a distinct attempt on the part of the prosecution to create evidence.He contended that if the accused had burnt the clothes they could have also washed and wiped the weapons.The panchanama of seizure of weapons as well as the C.A. report shows that both the weapons are blood stained.Shri Mundargi also submitted that unless and until blood group of the deceased and the blood found on the weapons is shown to be the same, it is not an incriminating circumstance because the C.A. report merely shows that the blood found on the weapons was human.Shri Mundargi submitted that the alleged motive tried to be projected by the prosecution is too weak motive for provoking these appellants to commit murder of Nalsaheb.No immediate provocation is shown.Even it is not indicated that there was any continued enmity or group rivalry between deceased on one hand and accused Nos. 1 and 2 on the other.Shri Mundargi very severely criticised the evidence of PW 3 and PW 5 who were the alleged eyewitnesses.Shri Mundargi contended that both are strangers, that is, there were not knowing accused Nos. 1 and 2 previously.Then Shri Mundargi pointed out several contradictions in the evidence of these witnesses inter se.Shri Mundargi contended that both these witnesses though allegedly witnessed a gruesome murder they did not tell about it to anyone till the police recorded their statements on 21st November, 1993 i.e. on the third day from the date of the incident.He therefore, urges that appeal be allowed and accused be acquitted.Smt. Joshi, the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor, on the other hand contended that evidence of PW 3 and PW 5, who according to her are most natural witnesses, is clinching.Evidence of Dr. Deshpande, PW 9, clearly shows that when she conducted autopsy on the dead body of deceased Nalsaheb at about 7 p.m. on 20th November, 1993, she found as many as 19 wounds, most of them incised and few of them punctured.The wounds were almost on all parts of the body.There was tramatic amputation on left wrist joint.On internal examination, there was linear fracture of frontal bone at midline 5 cm x 1 cm x brain deep.Great vessels of left side of neck are cut.Larynx and trachea was cut.Arch of avota is cut.This evidence along with the post-mortem notes in no manner of doubt shows that deceased Nalsaheb was hacked to death.Coming to the eyewitnesses, the first witness is PW 2 Narayan Madake.He has stated that he is having his agricultural land on the Shivar of village Jamgaon and village Watvate.He knows accused persons as well as deceased Nalsaheb.However, he states that he docs not know what happened between Nalsaheb and accused persons.He completely denied that he saw the accused persons coming from the side of Kakada Mala by footway and that their clothes and sickle were having blood stains.The learned APP requested for permission to declare the witness hostile.His entire statement was put to him in the cross-examination.The witness denied each and every statements made therein.The said statement also was put to the witness in its entirety and the witness denied every sentence therein.In cross-examination on behalf of the accused, the witness stated that two policemen brought him to Solapur and threatened him and asked him to sign on a paper.He obtained the signature of Narayan Madake, put his signature, endorsed the certificate below the statement.One copy was given in sealed cover to police and he placed another copy in one envelope with himself for the Court.When there was such a conflict of evidence, the testimony has to be rejected outright in absence of any independent corroboration.This brings us to evidence of PW 3 Balasaheb and evidence of PW 5 Lingeshwar who are the alleged eyewitnesses.PW 3 Balasaheb was working in Samajik Vanikaran Department and at the relevant time he was working near Devicha Mala.Thereafter, Shindiwala fell down and the assailants went away.The witness went near Shindiwala and saw that he was dead.Then witness went home.He has stated that he saw the assaulters from a distance of about 15 ft.Accused No. 1 before the Court was the same person who was sitting near sunflower plants.Accused No. 2 was the same person who was following Shindiwala at that time.Accused No. 2 was then wearing white shirt and white pyjama.The incident of assault took place for about 15 to 20 minutes.Sunflower plants were standing in the field of Jadhav.In the cross-examination the witness admitted that he resides at village Kurul which is on Pandharpur-Solapur road having a very heavy traffic.He also admitted that there is city bus facility available from his village to Solapur.He further admitted that Kamati village is on the way and there is a police out-post.He also admitted that at village Kamati there is a phone facility and one road from Kurul goes to Mohol and there is traffic on that road.The witness has further admitted that while he was witnessing the assault he did not shout or did not try to intervene.He did not inform anyone when assault was going on as at that time he was frightened.The witness further admitted that it is true that he neither reported the matter to the Police Patil or to the members of the family of Shindiwala or to the out-post or to the police station.The witness categorically admitted that he did not narrate the incident to anyone till police recorded his statement.The witness admitted that he did not state before the police that at the time of assault he was at the distance of 150 to 200 ft. from Shindiwala and assaulters.He further admitted that he did not state before the police that the incident was going on for 15 to 20 minutes.He admitted that he did not state before the police specifically that incident took place in the field of Hiralal Jadhav.He further stated that from the place of incident village Kurul is at a distance of 1 km. and on the way there are fields and residential houses of people.The witness denied all the suggestions put to him that he is giving a false evidence.PW 5 Lingeshwar, the other eyewitness, has stated that he was working on the tractor of Ligade.The person who was a Muslim and whose murder took place used to sell Shindi.On the day of the incident at about 9 a.m. this witness along with other labourers were loading soil in the trolley of the tractor.Tanaji Gaikwad, Tukaram Bhalerao, Tanaji Ohol were other labourers.PW 3 Balu Salgar then came to them to take tobacco from them.Then the witness stated that he heard shouting "udya Mala Maru Nako, Audya Mala Maru Nako, Mi Tuza Kaya Gunha Kelaya, Mala to Maru Nako".Audya and one person were then assaulting on Shindiwala.Shindiwala then fell down.Audya was having some weapon either sickle or other weapon.He stated that they were at a distance of 200 to 250 cubits from the assailants.The accused persons before the Court are the same persons, who were assaulting on Shindiwala.Then they went to brick-kilns with their tractor and trailer.In the cross-examination the witness categorically admitted that he was not knowing the assailants.The witness has further stated that it has happened that after PW 3 Balu Salgar took tobacco they went to unload the tractor and it is true that the incident took place at the time of second trip.It is also true that the second trip of loading soil was going on at 9.30 a.m. or 10 a.m. He agreed that it is true that the trailer was half loaded when they heard the shout.He further admitted that he had stated before the police that they saw the assault from standing on the half loaded soil in the trailer.However, he cannot assign any reason as to why the police did not mention the same in his statement.He further admitted that he did not narrate the incident to police, police patil or Sarpanch at that time and it is true that he did not narrate the incident to anyone till police recorded his statement.The witness stated that he did that before the police that he saw the incident from 200 to 250 spaces but cannot assign any reason as to why the police did not mention the distance of 200 to 250 spaces in his statement.Before appreciating the evidence of the aforesaid two witnesses we find it relevant to refer to the evidence of PW 13 Bhaskar.Like deceased he was also selling Shindi.He was knowing deceased Nalsaheb.The day of the incident which was Friday Nalsaheb purchased Shindi in the presence of this witness.The witness further agreed that he did state before the police that he heard the cry from the house of Nalsaheb and then learnt the death of Nalsaheb.The witness has stated that police recorded his statement two days after the dead body of Nalsaheb was found.The witness also stated that he cannot assign any reason as to why police did not mention in his statement that 2-3 years before the incident accused No. 1 Audumbar set cotton belonging to Sada on fire though he stated so to the police.Now the evidence of these two alleged eyewitnesses PW 3 and PW 5 and also evidence of PW 13 that he saw two accused and the deceased on the road just prior to the incident, is difficult to be accepted as reliable evidence.PW 3, Balasaheb and PW 5 Lingeshwar admittedly did not know accused Nos. 1 and 2 previously.Though PW 13 specifically refers to both the accused having bicycles as also deceased walking along with the bicycle, there is a conspicuous absence in the evidence of PW 3 and PW 5 regarding any bicycle.The distance from which the witnesses PW 3 and PW 5 saw the incident is conspicuously absent in their police statements.Although PW 3 and PW 5, as contended by the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor, were the persons who had reason to be at the spot, the omissions in their statements proved on record makes their evidence not completely reliable.Even the version of the attack given by these two witnesses PW 3 and PW 5 is not identical.As stated earlier again evidence of PW 13 Bhaskar which is full of omissions on material particulars and especially regarding the alleged enmity also does not inspire confidence.Admittedly, these witnesses did not disclose the incident or what they had seen to anyone till police recorded their statements.PW 43 has admitted that he is resident of Kurul which is about 1 km. from the spot.He has further admitted that there are several people who are residing in between.He has further admitted that there is police outpost at Kamati.Under these circumstances we find it extremely difficult to accept the evidence of PW 3 and PW 5 as there is no explanation as to why the witnesses did not disclose anything to anybody.They were eyewitnesses to the brutal attack in the broad daylight.It is relevant to notice that accused were total strangers.As such we find it rather mysterious that these witnesses kept quiet till police recorded their statements on the third day.Evidence of PW 3 and PW 5, if read properly, does indicate that they saw the incident at about same time.However, evidence of PW 3 shows one of the accused sitting near the sunflower plants.Deceased coming from the village.Another accused following the deceased, the accused sitting near the sunflower plants obstructing the deceased, the person following the deceased attacking the deceased first, then person sitting on the ground attacking the deceased and at the time of attacking the deceased shouting "Mi Kaya Kelaya, Paya Padato Maru Naka." Whereas so far as PW 5 is concerned, he referred to the shouts of the deceased in almost identical terms and the assault on the deceased.Though the variation may not be very much, in the facts and circumstances of the case, even the small variation and especially glaring omissions in their police statements regarding the distance from which they witnessed the incident and their total silence without any explanation for two days makes their evidence such as cannot be completely relied upon.PW 5 mentions PW 3 Balasaheb by name which suggests that they were knowing each other.As such, the identification of accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 by alleged eyewitnesses PW 3 and PW 5 is for the first time in the Court after a period of more than five and half months.Then they went in a jeep which was halted by accused No. 2 near Odha.Accused No. 2 then led them to Shindi plants.The witness further states that after the seizure of knife and sickle they went to village Watvate.The accused No. 2 took them to his house and produced two cycles before them.Accused No. 2 produced one cycle of green colour belonging to him and another cycle of black colour belonging to accused No. 1 Audumbar.The cycles are Articles 17 and 18 before the Court.We wonder for what purpose this evidence is adduced.But what is more important is that PW 6 Mahadev states that on the date of the incident deceased Nalsaheb came to him at about 7.30 a.m. Bhaskar and Lava also came to his house.Thereafter accused No. 2 Eknath also came to his house.Eknath represented that he wanted to go to the field, asked this witness to provide cycle.Witness asked accused No. 2 Eknath to drop him near Bande Navaz temple and take the cycle to the field.Accordingly accused Eknath dropped the witness near Bande Navaz temple and went ahead with his cycle.At about 1 p.m. accused returned the cycle to this witness in his house and then this witness also identified green colour cycle Article 17 before the Court as belonging to him.It is also difficult to appreciate the significance of the same.But this supports the submission of Shri Mundargi that as PW 13 has mentioned cycles, prosecution has collected two cycles from" the house of accused No. 2 on 24th November, 1993 when prosecution's own witness PW 6 Mahadev identifies one of the cycles as belonging to him and also categorically admitting that the accused No. 2 had returned the cycle to him at 1 p.m. on the very day.At the same time accused No. 2 also discovered sickle and knife which were allegedly hidden among the bushes.Shri Mundargi pointed out that panchanama of attachment of sickle and knife shows that they were blood stained.Chemical Analyser's report shows that both these weapons were blood stained though the blood group could not be deciphered, it was human blood.Shri Mundargi with some justification contended that if accused No. 2, or for that matter accused No. 1, had shown the intelligence of burning the blood stained clothes they would have certainly taken care to wipe the blood from the weapons as well.In this case the blood group of the deceased is not determined.The blood group of accused is "O".However, the blood found on the weapon, though human, the group thereof could not be determined.After having found ourselves unable to accept evidence of PW 3 and PW 5, the alleged eye-witnesses, as completely reliable, in view of the various facts and circumstances which are peculiar to this case, we find it hazardous to accept this so called discovery evidence as well.20 For the aforesaid reasons we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of proving the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and we find it difficult to sustain the conviction of the accused on the basis of aforesaid evidence.Accordingly we allow the appeal.The order convicting both the appellants-accused for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and order of sentencing both of them to suffer life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- in default further RI for 15 days as also order of conviction of accused No. 2 for the offence under Section 201 of IPC and sentence of RI for one year and a fine of Rs. 100/- in default further RI for 15 days passed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Solapur, on 6th July 1994 in Sessions Case No. 13 of 1994 is hereby quashed and set aside.Both the appellants-accused are acquitted of all the charges against them and they are directed to be set free forthwith unless otherwise lawfully required in any other case.
|
['Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,671,343 |
It was alleged that the petitioner presented the first cheque bearing No. 303519 dated 24.10.98 of Rs. 5 lakh drawn on Punjab National Bank, through his Banker, Dena Bank.It was dishonoured and returned with the remark "account closed" by the Bank.The other cheques were not presented.The accused respondents were acting as agents, and factor of the petitioner and the goods were entrusted to them, which they had to sell and remit the proceeds, to the petitioner.An agreement was entered into; the petitioners used to send the goods.Apparently on past occasions, some cheques had been dishonoured.The complainant/ petitioner alleged that the premises of the accused were closed, and they left Karnal; later, they allegedly approached the petitioners in November, 1998, and issued 18 cheques for Rs. 5 lakhs each; one of them was presented, but not honoured.The notice could not be served in respect of that cheque, as the petitioner alleged that the second respondent was "absconding".
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
167,137,185 |
The relief sought for in this Writ Petition is to keep thedepartmental disciplinary proceedings pending till the final disposal of thecriminal case registered against the Writ Petitioner in C.C.No.90 of 2009, onthe file of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul.On account of certain allegations, acriminal case was registered under Section 498(A) of IPC r/w Section 4 ofWomen Harassment Act. The criminal case is pending even now.The charges against the Writ Petitioner is as under:Fw;wr;rhl;L:1 ?Njdp khtl;l MAjg;gilapy; Kjy; epiyf; fhtyuhf gzpGhpe;J tUk; ePH>jpz;Lf;fy; Y.M.R.gl;bia NrHe;j jpUkjp rhe;jp vd;gtiu jpUkzk; nra;J> mthplk;mjpfkhf tujl;riz Nfl;L mbj;J Jd;GWj;jpajhf Nkw;gb rhe;jp vd;gtH jpz;Lf;fy;J.M.II ePjpkd;wj;jpy; M[uhfp GfhH nfhLj;jjd;Nghpy;> jpz;Lf;fy; midj;J kfspHfhty;epiya Fw;w vz;:24/2008 u/s. 498(A) IPC kw;Wk; ngz;fs; td;nfhLikr;rl;lk;gphpT-4d; fPo; 13.08.08 md;W tof;F gjpT nra;ag;gl;L mjd;%yk; jw;fhypf gzpePf;fk; nra;a fhuzkhapUe;j fz;bf;fj;jf;f xOq;fPdkhd Fw;wk;?.Accordingly, the writpetition stands dismissed.However, there shall be no order as to costs.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition are also dismissed.6.Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.However, there shallbe no order as to costs.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition isclosed.1.The Superintendent of Police, Theni District, Theni.2.The Additional Superintendent of Police, (Crime), Theni District, Theni.
|
['Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
167,138,550 |
debajyoti CRM No.10697 of 2018 In re : Sk.Nur Islam & Ors...... Petitioners.Mr. Sandip Chakraborty ..... For the State.( Suvra Ghosh, J. ) ( Sanjib Banerjee, J. )
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,671,410 |
On 12th November, 2001 at about 10.15 PM at Mori Gate Chambery the Petitioner was driving truck bearing No. RJ-14-1G-3779 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life, as a result of which he struck against the scooter.Mr. Nathu Ram who was driving the scooter received injuries and later succumbed to the injuries received in the said accident.A case FIR No. 502/2001 under Section 279/304A IPC was registered at P.S. Crl.P. 785/2010 Page 1 of 6 Kashmere Gate, Delhi on the complaint of one Bijender Singh Shekhawat.On filing of a charge-sheet the Petitioner was tried and convicted for said offences and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 279 IPC and one year for offence punishable under Section 304A IPC and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months.On an appeal being filed the same was dismissed.Thus, the Petitioner is before this Court by way of the present revision petition.P. 785/2010 Page 1 of 62. Learned counsel for the Petitioner urges that PW1 Bijender Singh has not stated that the Petitioner was driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner.It is the duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.Reliance is placed on State of Karnataka Vs.Satish 1999 (1) JCC (SC) 97 to contend that merely saying that the vehicle was being driven at a high speed does not mean that the vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligently manner.There should be evidence to prove that the vehicle was driven rashly and negligently.Petitioner says that the essential ingredients of Crl.P. 785/2010 Page 2 of 6 the offence under Section 304A IPC are missing and thus he be acquitted of the charges.In the alternative, it is prayed that the Petitioner has already undergone imprisonment for a period of 8 months and, thus, he be released on the period already undergone.P. 785/2010 Page 2 of 63. Learned APP on the other hand contends that a perusal of the testimony of PW1 Virender Singh Shekhawat, the sole eye-witness and PW7 Constable Praduman Kumar clearly shows that the truck was being driven at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner.P1 to Ex.P7, that is, the photographs of the spot show the skid marks which were caused due to applying brakes at high speed.The same shows the rashness with which the Petitioner was driving the vehicle.Even PW1 in his testimony has stated that the scooter was dragged to a distance which fact is corroborated by the skid marks of the truck.In view of the concurrent findings of the Courts below and there being no perversity in the judgment, no interference is warranted by this Court.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.In the said decision, the Honble Supreme Court noted that both the Courts below gave a concurrent finding that the truck was being driven at a high speed.There was no specific finding that the truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner.The truck was at a very high speed and was driven in a rash and negligent manner.This witness has further stated about the factum of arrest of the Petitioner whom he had apprehended at the spot and taking of the photographs.Thus Crl.P. 785/2010 Page 4 of 6 the testimony of the witness is clear and cogent and he has narrated the facts as the events unfolded PW3, Dr. K. Goel, and PW4 Dr. Jitender both of them have deposed in regard to the injuries sustained by the deceased.The post mortem report Ex. PW3/A records that the injuries caused were by blunt force impact possible in a road accident.PW7 Constable Praduman Kumar has proved the photographs Ex. P1 to Ex.P7 which were taken just after the incident on the same day.The photographs clearly show the skid marks on the road and the scooter underneath the truck.Any latitude shown to them in that sphere would tempt them to make driving frivolous and a frolic.
|
['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
167,146,727 |
The first Respondent is a member of the Indian PoliceService and was allotted to the State of Tamil Nadu.During histenure in the said post, an FIR was registered againstK.Mohanraj, K. Kathiravan and Kamalavalli Arumugam whowere the Directors of M/s Paazee Forex Trading India PrivateLimited (hereinafter referred to as “M/s Paazee Forex”) bythe Central Crime Branch, Tirupur under Section 3 and 4 ofthe Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning)Act, 1978 and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 2 (IPC).M/s Paazee Forex was alleged to have cheated alarge number of depositors to the tune of Rs.1,210 crores.Crime No.3068 of 2009 was registeredunder Section 365 IPC on 09.12.2009 pursuant to a writtencomplaint that one of the Directors of M/s Paazee Forex, Ms.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.Leave granted.The Tribunal allowed O.A. No.165 of 2016 filed by the first Respondent by revoking his suspension.The Tribunal refused to set aside the charge memo.The first Respondent filed Writ Petition No.39989 of 2016 in the High Court of Madras challenging the judgment of the Tribunal in O.A. No.165 of 2016 in respect of the refusal to quash theSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed bySANJAY KUMARDate: 2018.08.2117:25:50 ISTReason:charges framed against him.The Appellant - State of Tamil Nadu filed Writ Petition No.38696 of 2016 1 assailing the judgment of the Tribunal regarding thedirection to reinstate the first Respondent by revoking hissuspension.The High Court by its judgment dated12.01.2017 upheld the judgment of the Tribunal revokingthe suspension of the first Respondent.The High Courtfurther quashed the disciplinary proceedings initiated bythe Appellant against the first Respondent by declaring thecharge memo dated 29.10.2013 as non est in law.She stated in thecomplaint that three police officials and a private individualextorted Rs. 3 Crores approximately for her release.Crime No.3068 of 2009 pertaining tothe kidnapping of Kamalavalli Arumugam was alsotransferred to the CB-CID, Vellore.An association of investors of M/s Paazee Forex filedCriminal O.P. No.5356 of 2011 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. fora direction to transfer the investigation to the CBI.Mr.K.Loganathan, an investor in M/s Paazee Forex filed CriminalO.P. No.2691 of 2011 seeking transfer of investigation of 3 Crime No.26 of 2009 from the State police to the CBI sincehe apprehended that the State police was protecting theDirectors of M/s Paazee Forex and delaying the disbursal ofmoney payable to the depositors.On investigation, it was found that RespondentNo.1 abused his official position as Inspector General ofPolice and inter alia, was involved in extorting money fromthe Directors of M/s Paazee Forex and the delay in therepayment of money to the depositors of M/s Paazee Forex.By an order dated 19.04.2011, the High Court directedthe transfer of Crime No.3 of 2010 (originally Crime No.26of 2009) registered against M/s Paazee Forex and CrimeNo.3068 of 2009 originating from the kidnapping ofKamalavalli Arumugam to the CBI.The Principal Secretary toGovernment of Tamil Nadu by an order dated 10.05.2012placed the first Respondent under suspension with effect 4 from 02.04.2012 in terms of Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 3 of the AllIndia Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 untilfurther orders.It was mentioned in the said order that thefirst Respondent was arrested on 02.05.2012 and wasdetained in custody for a period exceeding 48 hours.Writ Petition No.21801 of 2012 was filed by the firstRespondent in the High Court of Madras praying for adirection “forbearing the Respondents (CBI and others)from proceeding further with conducting enquiry orinvestigating offences alleged to have been committed bythe Petitioner (first Respondent) in connection with thecase registered in FIR in RC No.13(E)/2011/CBI/EOW/Chennai and pending on the file of the5th Respondent (CBI)”.The judgment of the High Court of Madras dated19.04.2011 in Criminal O.P. No.2691 of 2011 and CriminalO.P. No. 5356 of 2011 by which Crime No.26 of 2009 andCrime No.3068 of 2009 were transferred to the CBI waschallenged in this Court.The judgment dated 29.04.2013of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in WritAppeal No.12 of 2013 pertaining to the investigation by theCBI against the involvement of Respondent No.1 in CrimeNo.3068 of 2009 was assailed by the first Respondent inthis Court.This Court by an order dated 17.03.2015disposed of the SLPs with the following observations:“Without getting into the intricacies of the merits of the issues canvassed, we consider it just and appropriate, to remand the matter back to the High Court, requiring the High Court to adjudicate upon Writ Petition No.21801 of 2012 afresh, by impleading the appellant(s) in Criminal Original Petition Nos.2691 and 5356 of 2011, and by affording an opportunity to the appellant before this Court.In disposing of the aforesaid writ Petition, the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court, would be under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.In the above view of the matter, the order dated 5.12.2012 passed by the High Court while disposing of the above writ Petition is hereby set aside.We hope and trust, that the High Court shall dispose of the 6 controversy at the earliest.Since, the appellant herein was not heard when the order dated 19.4.2011 was passed by the High Court while disposing of Criminal Original Petition Nos.2691 and 5356 of 2011, we consider it just and appropriate to further clarify, that the above order dated 19.4.2011, will not stand in the way of the appellant herein, when the High Court disposes of the matter afresh.”A Revision Petition was filed byone Pratap Singh Nagar to set aside the order of the SpecialJudge, CBI, Coimbatore and to direct return of thedocuments.Thereafter, theSpecial Court, CBI by an order dated 19.10.2015 ordered asfollows:Liberty wasgiven to the first Respondent to raise all the points beforethe appropriate authority.However, the Tribunal directedrevocation of suspension by holding that there was nomaterial to indicate that first Respondent had tamperedwith the evidence or influenced the witnesses.Aggrieved by thedirection issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal toreinstate the first Respondent, the Appellant, State of TamilNadu, filed a Writ Petition in the High Court.The judgmentof the Tribunal to the extent that charge memo was notquashed was assailed by the first Respondent in anotherWrit Petition.By a judgment dated 12.01.2017, the High 8 Court upheld the judgment of the Tribunal pertaining torevocation of suspension.Further, the High Court quashedthe disciplinary proceedings on the ground that the chargememo was not approved by the disciplinary authority.Hence, this appeal by the State of Tamil Nadu.We have heard Mr. V. Giri, learned Senior Counselappearing for the Appellant and Mr. P. Chidambaram,learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first Respondent.Thejudgment of the Tribunal was affirmed by the High Court.The first Respondent was placed under deemedsuspension under Rule 3(2) of the All India Services Rulesfor being in custody for a period of more than 48 hours.Periodic reviews were conducted for his continuance undersuspension.
|
['Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
166,877,782 |
(J. P. GUPTA) JUDGE navinCase diary perused.This is the first bail application filed by the applicant/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 80/2017 registered at Police Station- Rajendra Gram, District Anuppur (MP) for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 506 and 376 of IPC.It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent.It is further submitted that earlier an offence u/s 354 and 506 of IPC was registered against the applicant for which he was arrested and released on bail.Later on, during the investigation, prosecutrix has stated that applicant also put his penis on her mouth therefore, on account of aforesaid statement an offence u/s 376 of IPC has also been added against the applicant.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', '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.
|
166,883,570 |
an altercation took place between two groups over a land dispute and the side of the applicant herein, is said to have attacked the deceased - Moolchand, who was allegedly under the influence of alcohol.The co-accused Ratiram is said to have held the deceased and caused injuries on the right leg, on account of which there was profuse bleeding and Moolchand died shortly thereafter.It is also stated that the applicant herein along with other co-accused persons had also attacked and caused injuries to other members of the family of the deceased - Moolchand, as a result of which they have suffered injuries, which the MLC report goes to show, minor in nature.Specific allegation against the applicant herein is of having assaulted Keshav and the corresponding injuries caused abrasion over left side of the face.Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the applicant, a lady of 50 years, has been in judicial custody since 23-3-16, I am inclined to allow the instant application and direct the applicant to be enlarged on bail upon her furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand) with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.as per rules.(Atul Sreedharan) Judge ac.
|
['Section 147 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 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
166,883,769 |
Heard Sri Ali Hasan, learned counsel for the applicant, Km.Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned AGA and perused the record.Applicant is not named in the F.I.R. nor was involved in this case.Name of the applicant surfaced in this matter during investigation.At this juncture, learned counsel for the applicant referred to the contents of the F.I.R. and further submitted that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant.No charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant till today.If the applicant is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty and will cooperate with the investigation.The applicant has apprehension of his arrest by the police any time.Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer and prayed for some time to file counter affidavit in the matter.In the circumstances, as requested, learned AGA is allowed two weeks' time to file counter affidavit.
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
166,885,406 |
DATED : 28th MARCH, 2019 PER COURT:-1. Heard both sides.::: Uploaded on - 28/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2019 07:59:02 :::So far as Criminal Revision Application No. 51 of 2014, this Court has granted bail to the applicants/original accused nos. 1 and 2 by suspending the substantive part of the sentence.::: Uploaded on - 28/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2019 07:59:02 :::::: Uploaded on - 28/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2019 07:59:02 :::10-CriRevn-66-2014 -3-Thus, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the accused and the informant, both the Criminal Revision Applications are admitted.The learned APP and the learned counsel for the respondents in both the Criminal Revision Applications waive service on admission.Both the Criminal Revision Applications shall be listed for final hearing as per its turn.( V. K. JADHAV, J.) vre/::: Uploaded on - 28/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2019 07:59:02 :::::: Uploaded on - 28/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2019 07:59:02 :::
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
166,887,809 |
C. No.1070/2013, whereby an application u/S.439 (2), Cr.P.C. was allowed and the bail granted by this Court earlier on 07.11.2012 in M.Cr.C. No.7266/2012 was cancelled.However, in the FIR lodged subsequently on 09.01.2013 bearing Crime No.11/2013, the name of petitioner Satyendra was falsely included as an accused.True it is that the allegations in the FIR dated 09.01.2013 are not regarding inducement, threat or promise or of dissuading said Lakhan Singh from disclosing any fact before the Court, but it goes without saying that the offence of causing minor injury with dangerous weapon as alleged in the FIR was committed by the petitioner leading to sustaining of injury by Lakhan Singh who was an eye-witness in the earlier offence in which bail was granted to the petitioner.It is not necessary that the exact offence of inducement, threat, promise or dissuading the witnesses to depose is made out in categorical terms by reading of the FIR lodged in the subsequent offence to make out a case for cancellation of bail but it is sufficient if an offence of such nature is committed which can easily be inferred by a man of ordinary prudence to lead to a situation where the witness feels threatened or 3 M.Cr.C. No.1723/2015 dissuaded.
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
16,689,662 |
Vide order on sentence dated 22nd December, 2016, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous CRL.A.125/2017 & 592/2017 Page 1 of 13 imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.CRL.A.125/2017 & 592/2017 Page 1 of 13Briefly, the prosecution case is that on 30th May 2013 at about 8:00 A.M., a secret information was received regarding one person namely Tahejul, a resident of Paharganj who was involved in supply of heroin in the area of Delhi and was to come near Idgah Mor, Rani Jhansi Road, Delhi between 9:30 A.M. to 10:00 A.M.to supply heroin to one man namely Naseem, resident of Raghubir Nagar.The secret informer was produced before Inspector Vivek Pathak who made inquiries from him and further informed ACP Udaivir Singh who directed that a raiding party be constituted.Aforesaid information was recorded vide DD No.6 (Ex.PW- 3/B).SI Sunil Jain constituted a raiding party consisting of himself, HC Yogesh, Ct.Kheta Ram and HC Om Prakash and informed them regarding the secret information.At around 8:45 A.M. they left from the Narcotics Cell in government vehicle bearing number DL-1-CM-4228 and reached the spot near Idgah Mor, Rani Jhansi Road at about 9:15 A.M. via Pusa Road, Shantivan Flyover, Paharganj.On the way he requested five persons at Pusa Road and JPN Hospital road and four persons at the spot to join the raiding party but they refused to join.They parked the government vehicle at Rani Jhansi Road at a distance of about 50 meters from the spot towards Jhandewalan mandir.Thereafter, he along with the informer took the position on the footpath near the corner of idgah.HC Om Prakash was standing at Rani Jhansi Road towards Jhandewalan Mandir.At about 9:35 A.M., one person wearing khaki colour trousers and having a black colour polythene in his right hand was seen coming from the side of Sadar Bazar Police Station on foot, he crossed them and stood on the road in front of HC CRL.A.125/2017 & 592/2017 Page 2 of 13 Om Prakash and started waiting for someone.The secret informer identified this person as Tahejul.Few minutes later one person wearing brown colour check shorts was seen coming from the opposite side of the road, he crossed the road and came near Tahejul.The secret informer identified this person as Naseem.Tahejul and Naseem started talking to each other after which Tahejul handed over the black polythene to Naseem.Thereafter, SI Sunil with the help of the members of the raiding team apprehended the appellants at about 9:45 A.M. On enquiry they revealed their names as Tahejul Sheikh and Naseem.He informed the appellants of their legal right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate but both of them refused to exercise their legal right.He prepared and served the notice under Section 50 NDPS Act vide Ex.PW-1/A and Ex.PW-1/B on Tahejul and Naseem respectively which they refused to sign.Thereafter he searched the Appellants.On personal search of Naseem a black colour polythene was recovered which was found containing a transparent polythene tied with a rubber band.The polythene was found containing matiala colour powder.On testing the powder, it was found to be heroin.Thereafter, he checked the weight of the polythene which weighed 520 grams.He prepared two samples of 5 grams each and kept the same in two separate cloth parcels that were given the mark A and B and the remaining heroin was given the Mark C. He prepared the FSL form and affixed his seal 3 APS NB DELHI on all the cloth parcels i.e. mark A, B and C and FSL form.He took the case property into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW-1/E. Thereafter, he conducted the search of Tahejul and nothing incriminating was found in his possession.A memo to this effect was prepared vide Ex.PW-1/F. Thereafter, rukka was prepared vide Ex.CRL.A.125/2017 & 592/2017 Page 2 of 13CRL.A.125/2017 & 592/2017 Page 3 of 1395/2010 (Ex.PW-2/A) was registered at PS Crime Branch under Section 21/29 NDPS Act.Further investigation of the case was handed over to SI Rajveer Singh.He prepared the rough site plan vide Ex.PW-8/B at the instance of SI Sunil Jain.He arrested Tahejul Sheikh and Naseem vide arrest memos Ex.PW-1/G and Ex.PW-1/K, conducted their personal search vide memos Ex.PW-1/J and Ex.PW-1/M and recorded their disclosure statements vide Ex.PW-1/H and Ex.PW-1/L. Thereafter, he went to PS Crime Branch, Malviya Nagar and deposited the personal search items of the appellants with the MHCM.It was the stand of SI Sunil Jain and Insp.Vivek Pathak that on 30th May 2013 at about 8:15 A.M. Inspector Vivek Pathak had telephonically informed the concerned ACP at his office about the secret information which was received and in furtherance thereof, ACP had directed to conduct raid.CRL.A.125/2017 & 592/2017 Page 4 of 13However, ASI Om Prakash, reader of the ACP deposed that on 30th May 2013 ACP came to the office at around 10:00 A.M. Moreover, the investigating agency did not associate any independent public persons to join the raiding party even though the recoveries were made from thickly populated places during the day.ASI Om Prakash (PW-3) in his testimony stated that on 30th May 2013, DD no.6 was received in the ACP office duly forwarded by Ins.Narcotic Cell recorded by SI Sunil Jain and it was entered at serial no. 1280 in their register vide Ex PW 3/A and he put the same before the ACP Sh.One of the reports was with regard to the seizure of 520 gms heroine and other was in respect of arrest of accused persons.Sohan Pal in the register and nor did he give any receipt to him.HC Om Prakash (PW-4) in his testimony stated that on 3rd June, 2013 at about 7:00 A.M., he went to PS Crime Branch, Malviya Nagar and by the order of SHO collected one sealed parcel, FSL form and other documents from MHC(M) and deposited them at FSL, Rohini vide RC No. 179/21/13 and handed over the acknowledgment and copy of RC to MHC (M).In his cross examination, he stated that the documents which he collected from MHC(M) were copy of FIR and copy of seizure memo.He further stated that FSL form was not in the envelope.He further stated that FSL form was CRL.A.125/2017 & 592/2017 Page 7 of 13 a printed white colour paper filled with hand, bearing the signatures of SI Sunil Jain.CRL.A.125/2017 & 592/2017 Page 7 of 13He deposed that he made an entry in register No.19 at serial No.1757 in his own handwriting and exhibited the photocopy after showing the original to the learned Trial Court.However when the three parcels were produced in Court and identified by HC Yogesh, parcel containing A which was sent to the FSL had both the signatures of the SHO and SI Sunil Jain besides signatures of the witnesses HC Yogesh and Ct.Kheta Ram and one broken seal of PSR only was also available.The present appeals are directed against the judgment dated 22nd December, 2016 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS whereby the appellants Tahejul Seikh @ Siraj and Naseem were convicted for offence punishable under Section 21(c) of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'NDPS Act').PW-1/DX.On the basis of the rukka, FIR no.He prepared special report under Section 57 NDPS Act and submitted the same to Insp.Vivek Pathak.After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed.Vide order dated 28th October 2013 charge was framed against Tahejul for offence punishable under Section 29 NDPS Act and against Naseem for offence punishable under Section 21 NDPS Act.Assailing the conviction, learned counsel for Tahejul Seikh @ Siraj contends that the charge against Tahejul was framed under Section 29 NDPS Act but he has been convicted by the Trial Court for offence under Section 21(c) NDPS Act and thus is liable to be acquitted by this court alone as Section 21 is an offence independent of Section 29 NDPS Act.Learned counsel for Naseem contends that the prosecution failed to crease out a vital inconsistency between the depositions of SI Sunil Jain and Insp Vivek Pathak with respect to the evidence of ASI Om Prakash.Padam Singh Rana.CRL.A.125/2017 & 592/2017 Page 5 of 13Learned counsel for Tahejul adopts the contentions raised by Learned counsel for Naseem.He further stated that the said reports were placed before ACP Zile Singh and were signed by him.The accused Sohan Lal @ Sohan Singh was called upon to face trial only for the charge under Section 304-B IPC.The High Court erred in upholding the conviction of Sohan Lal @ Sohan Singh under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and dismissing his appeal."CRL.A.125/2017 & 592/2017 Page 10 of 13As noted above charge for offence punishable under Section 29 NDPS Act was framed against Tahejul.TCR be returned.(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE APRIL 22, 2019 vj/mamta CRL.A.125/2017 & 592/2017 Page 13 of 13CRL.A.125/2017 & 592/2017 Page 13 of 13
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
166,899,101 |
CRM No. 10896 of 2018 Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 3rd December, 2018 in connection with Marishda Police Station Case No. 147 of 2018 dated 11.9.2018 under Sections 448/ 376(2)(L)/323/ 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.Considering the statement of the victim and the material on record, there may not be any need to take the petitioner into custody as long as the petitioner refrains from making any contract with the victim or enter any place within the jurisdiction of Marishda police station except for the purpose of answering the calls of the investigating officer.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.C.R.M. 10896 of 2018 is allowed as above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
|
['Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
166,901,117 |
2. Prosecution story, in brief is that, on 05.12.1993, at around 8 O'Clock in the night, deceased Chintu @ Rajkumar was watching a movie at his-:- 2 -:-The accused persons came there and they had taken the deceased with them.After hearing cry of Chintu [since deceased], persons came out and they had seen that accused Ravi Choudhary had caught hold the deceased and appellant Vijay Chakrawarti inflicted a blow by knife at the chest of the deceased, he fell down.Chintu [since deceased] was taken to the doctor where he was declared dead.-:- 4 -:-declared him dead.It is an omission.In para 13, he admitted the fact that accused Ram Milan also suffered injury on his head, he fell down.When he was running away from the spot then he received injury.I had seen that blood was oozing from his head.He denied the fact that I had inflicted blow of lathi on the head of Ram Milan.In para 14, he admitted the fact that he had lathi with him.He further deposed that Chintu [since deceased] also inflicted blows of fests.He was doing boxing.I had catch hold him.Pronounced on : 07.03.2018These two appeals have been filed against common judgment dated 04.12.1995 passed in Sessions Trial No.158 of 1994 by the Court of IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur.Trial Court held the appellant Vijay Chakrawarti [Cr. Appeal No.1751/993] guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC.Rest of the appellants [Cr.Appeal No.1663 of 1995] held guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and awarded sentence of Life.Report of the incident was lodged at the Police Station.Police conducted investigation and filed charge-sheet.Appellants abjured the guilt and pleaded innocence.In alternate, learned counsel has further submitted that one of the co-accused Ram Milan also received injury.The prosecution did not explain the injury suffered by Ram Milan.Incident had happened all of sudden.There was quarrel between both the parties hence, the offence committed by appellant Vijay would fall under Section 304 Part-I of IPC.-:- 3 -:-Learned Government Advocate has submitted that the prosecution has established the guilt of the appellants and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants and awarded proper sentence.(PW-2) Basorilal, deposed that neighbour had told me that accused/appellants had called the deceased and thereafter Vijay inflicted a blow on the chest of deceased.Report was lodged at the Police Station Ranjhi, Jabalpur [Ex.P-2] and I singed the report.Police prepared spot map [Ex.P-3] and also seized plain earth and red earth vide seizure memo Ex.I had not seen the fight [marpeet] when the incident had happened then, I came out from my house.(PW-3) Pramod is an eye witness.He deposed that around 6 O'clock in the evening, there was a quarrel between deceased and accused persons.At around 8.30 in the night, accused persons came to the house, they had called the deceased and thereafter, I heard the cry of deceased and I had seen that Vijay, had inflicted blow of knife at the chest of deceased.Other three accused persons were also there.Ram Milan was standing and Bale and Ravi both had caught hold the deceased.Thereafter, the accused persons ran away from the spot.We had taken the deceased to the Hospital where doctor(PW-4) Nandkishore and (PW-5) Ramlal declared hostile.(PW-6) Guddu Thakur also declared hostile.He denied the fact that he had seen that accused persons had been beating the deceased.(PW-8) Dr. A.K. Jain, performed the autopsy of the deceased.He deposed that I noticed following injuries on the person of the body of deceased."(1) Stab wound at the chest near left collar bone of 5 th rib.1 1/2" x 1/2" .-:- 5 -:-(2) Stab wound in left leg 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/8".(3) One lacerated wound on the face 1/4" x1/4"x1/4".Due to stab wound on the chest, the rib was cut and there was injury on heart.Deceased was died due to injuries suffered by him on the chest and the injury was antemortem in nature.It was caused by hard and sharp edged weapon i.e. stab wound.(PW-7) C.L. Guru, SHO, Police Station Omti, Jabalpur is Investigating Officer, deposed that on 5.12.1993 Basorilal, lodged a report at the Police Station which is [Ex.I reached on the spot and prepared map Ex.I also seized plain earth and red earth from the spot vide seizure memo Ex.P-6, I signed the same.His cloths were seized vide seizure memo Ex.Blood stains were found on the cloths.Thereafter, I recorded the statements of the witnesses.Accused also examined defence witness (DW-1) Rewa Prasad.He deposed that on 5.12.1993 Bahorilal lodged a report at the Police Station which was recorded in Roznamacha Sanha.Ram Milan also lodged the report.(DW-2) Gulab Singh, who is Head Constable, deposed that I had sent accused Ram Milan for medical examination.-:- 6 -:-As per report Ex.D-4, there was a lacerated wound on right temporal region 1" x 1 1/2" on right side of Ram Milan.The Apex Court in the matter of Arjun and another Vs.As discussed earlier, the evidence clearly establishes that while Ayodhya Prasad and other witnesses were cutting the trees, there was exchange of words-:- 7 -:-resulted in altercation and during the said altercation, the appellants attacked the deceased.The intention can be developed at the place of occurrence also.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
166,904,855 |
Accordingly, the above captioned three appeals are being decided.Inspector Ram Janam Singh PW-20A, working in P.S.Welcome, was handed over the Daily Diary entry recorded by the Duty Officer at around 9.53 AM on October 05, 1990 as per which it was recorded that a fight was taking place in the Janta Flats at 'G' Block, Seelampur.As deposed to by Inspector Ram Janam Singh, on reaching the place of the incident he learnt that a victim had been removed to GTB Hospital.He reached the hospital and found that a person named Khalid had been brought to the casualty of the hospital at 10.15 AM by one Gurjeet Singh @ Lovely PW-18, where he was declared brought dead by Dr.Raman Tyagi.Anjum PW-3 was brought at the casualty of the hospital by Ct.Satpal at 11.15 AM and claimed to be an Crl.A.280/98 & conn.matters Page 2 of 15 eye witness.Accordingly, he i.e. Inspector Ram Janam Singh recorded Anjum's statement Ex.PW-3/A and made an endorsement, Ex.PW-20A/A at 12.45 noon, and despatched the rukka through Ct.Samay Singh who was accompanying him for FIR to be registered.On receipt of the rukka from Ct.Samay Singh , SI Purnima Singh PW-2 registered FIR No.187/1990, Ex.PW-2/A, at 1.00 PM.A.280/98 & conn.matters Page 2 of 15In the statement Ex.PW-3/A, Anjum stated that he was residing at H.No.C-112 (illegible due to paper being torn as record is old) Seelampur and at 9.30 AM in the company of his friend Asif he was present at the hotel of Aslam.His friend Khalid came with a Sikh boy named Gurjeet Singh and told him that in the morning a boy had beaten Gurjeet in Janta Colony and requested him to counsel the said boy, at that, accompanied by Asif, Khalid and Gurjeet he proceeded towards Janta Colony.They reached the colony at 9.45 AM but did not find the boy.As they were returning, 3/4 boys armed with a lathi and a knife attacked them from behind.As he looked back he saw Raju Madrasi with a knife in hand and Gaya Prasad, Kamo and Raju Jamadar with lathies in their hands.He knew them from before.Gaya and Kamo caught hold of Khalid and Raju Madrasi stabbed Khalid in the chest, armpit and back.Raju Jamadar hit him on his leg.He and Khalid fell down and after assaulting them the assailants fled.Gurjeet took Khalid to the hospital but he died on the way.Asif ran and summoned the police.After the FIR was registered, the Investigating Officer lifted control earth and blood stained earth from the scene of the crime.He summoned a photographer who photographed the scene of the crime.Rough site plan was prepared.Since four accused were named, they were apprehended.The usual story hereinafter.On a disclosure statement made by Raju Madrasi, a Crl.A.280/98 & conn.matters Page 3 of 15 knife, stated to be the weapon of offence, was recovered and likewise at the instance of the other co-accused lathies were recovered.Kishore Singh PW-20, since Dr.Raman Tyagi had left service at the mortuary of the hospital.The post mortem report shows three stab wounds.It is apparent that Anjum had received a grievous injury.As per Ex.Thus, Anjum PW-3, Crl.A.280/98 & conn.matters Page 4 of 15 Shahid Ali PW-9, Tahir Ali PW-10 and Akila PW-15 were examined.A.280/98 & conn.matters Page 4 of 15Gurjeet Singh PW-18 turned hostile substantially, in that, he deposed that he could not identify the assailants.Akila PW-15 deposed that she was the wife of Ahmad and present in her house at Janta Colony.She heard a noise between 9.00 AM and 10.00 AM.She saw the four accused and two other boys quarrel.He went searching for extra hands to teach the boy a lesson.The first helping hand was extended to him by deceased Khalid.Two were not enough.The three appellants, Raju Swami @ Raju Madrasi, Raju Jamadar and Kamal Kishore @ Kamo stand convicted for having committed an offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC along with co-accused Gaya Prasad.As recorded in the order dated July 23, 2012 passed in Crl.A.No.177/2000 filed by Gaya Prasad, said appeal stood abated on account of death of Gaya Prasad.And these were cited in evidence as weapons of offence recovered pursuant to disclosure statements made by the accused.A.280/98 & conn.matters Page 3 of 15Post mortem of deceased Khalid was conducted by Dr.Raman Tyagi who prepared the report Ex.PW-20/A, proved at the trial by Dr.Two on the chest of Khalid, one of which punctured left lobe of the lung and the second traversing downwards cut an artery in the liver.The third stab wound was muscle deep in the right lumber region.A small incised wound, skin deep, in the right side of the abdomen was also noted.The cause of death was the usual: Cardiac shock due to haemorrhage.Injury No.1 and 2 were opined to be individually and collectively sufficient to cause death.Anjum's MLC Ex.PW-20/B would reveal that the doctor who gave him emergency treatment was of the opinion that there was a fracture of a bone in the left leg.Left leg of Anjum was X-rayed.In the unproved medical treatment record lying the judicial file one notices that a fracture of the bone in the left leg of Anjum was detected.PW-3/A, Anjum's statement, on basis whereof FIR was registered, one finds the name of Gurjeet Singh and Asif, who expectedly would be eye witnesses.Not only their statements were recorded during investigation under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but also those of one Shahid, Akila and Tahir Ali who also claimed to be eye witnesses.At the trial Asif was not examined as a witness.But stood by the version the deceased being attacked at the place where blood stained earth was picked up.Anjum, Shahid Ali, Akila and Tahir not only deposed to the incident but additionally implicated the four accused.Believing their testimony, vide decision dated June 06, 1998, the four accused have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC pertaining to the death of Khalid and for the offence punishable under Section 325 IPC for the injury caused to Anjum.Vide order on sentence dated June 28, 1998, for the offence of murder, the accused have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and for the offence punishable under Section 325 IPC they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years.At the forefront of the attack to the testimony of PW-9, PW-10 and PW-15 was the argument that these three persons were subsequently planted as witnesses.This argument was premised on the fact that in Ex.PW-3/A, the statement made by Anjum to the Investigating Officer, the names of said three persons as accompanying the deceased, Anjum and Gurjeet were not disclosed nor was it disclosed that they were present at the spot.As noted hereinabove, in Anjum's statement Ex.PW-3/A, he simply states that when he and Asif were sitting in the hotel of Aslam, Gurjeet and deceased Khalid came to the hotel and spoke about an incident having taken place in the morning in which Gurjeet was beaten and all four i.e. Anjum, Asif, Khalid Crl.A.280/98 & conn.matters Page 5 of 15 and Gurjeet went to the place where the incident had taken place in the morning.A.280/98 & conn.matters Page 5 of 15Anjum PW-3 deposed in sync with his statement Ex.PW-3/A with variations such as (i) that all four accused were armed with lathies and while assaulting exhorted each other 'maro maro; 'enhe maro which are not to be found in the statement Ex.PW-3/A. (ii) That as a result of lathi blow received by him on his leg since he suffered a fracture he lost consciousness.(iii) That his statement was first recorded in the hospital and then at the police station.(iv) That during course of the assault Raju Madrasi brought a chhuri from a nearby jhuggi and gave a stab blow to Khalid.Shahid Ali PW-9 deposed that he was in his house in Welcome Colony when a boy told him at around 9.30 AM that a quarrel was taking place involving his brother Khalid.He reached G Block, Janta Colony where he saw Kamo and Gaya Prasad having caught hold of his brother and exhorting Raju Jamadar to use his lathi to ensure that Khalid should not flee.Gaya Prasad and Kamo exhorted Raju Madrasi by shouting mar sale ko chaku se, jo hoga dekha jayega at which Raju Madrasi inflicted knife blows on Khalid and Raju Jamadar hit Anjum on the leg as Anjum fled.He took Khalid to GTB Hospital where he died.Tahir Ali PW-10 deposed that Khalid was his brother-in-law and in his presence Raju Jamadar hit Anjum on the leg and Raju Madrasi inflicted knife blows on Khalid.She intervened and separated them.Two boys started walking away and suddenly accused Crl.A.280/98 & conn.matters Page 6 of 15 Raju Madrasi inflicted blows on one boy.The other three accused were holding ballies in their hands.A.280/98 & conn.matters Page 6 of 15Gurjeet Singh PW-18 deposed in sync with Anjum's testimony in examination-in-chief save and except he said that he could not identify the boys who had assaulted the deceased.There may be some merit in the argument that Shahid Ali PW-9 and Tahir Ali PW-10 could be planted witnesses evidenced by the fact that Shahid Ali is the brother of the deceased Khalid and Tahir Ali is his brother- in-law, and had they witnessed the incident, they would have accompanied the deceased to the hospital and would have met the Investigating Officer in the hospital itself.Their statements would have been recorded soon after the FIR was registered and not with an interval of time, additionally keeping in view the fact that in Anjum's statement Ex.PW-3/A there is no mention that when the assault was taking place the brother and the brother-in-law of Khalid came to the spot.Further, the injuries on the deceased would evidence that everything happened within a few seconds and thus Shahid Ali's claim that a boy told him of a quarrel going on and he reaching the place of the occurrence and saw the continued quarrel is improbable.But this criticism may not apply to Akila who is a housewife living in a flat adjacent to the place of incident.However, we find that her claim of intervening in the fight between two boys on the one side and four on the other is not supported by the testimony of any other witness including the complainant Anjum.The Crl.A.280/98 & conn.matters Page 7 of 15 criticism was with reference to the variations noted by us in paragraph 15 above.A.280/98 & conn.matters Page 7 of 15Anjum's MLC Ex.PW-20/B, shows that he has been brought to the hospital by Ct.Satpal at 11.15 AM.The contents of the MLC have not been challenged.Though not exhibited, we find from the medical treatment record of Anjum that he was sent for X-ray and a fracture in the left leg (due to record being old and hence damaged the bone which was fractured appears to be the fibula) was detected.Obviously, Anjum had received a grievous injury and was brought to the hospital by a police constable.He was 20 years old when the incident took place and could be overwhelmed by the unexpected events which took place.The unexhibited medical record would show that he was administered brufen, an analgesic drug/medicine.His statement Ex.PW-3/A recorded in said physical condition may lack the necessary details.Besides, three out of the four variations pointed out are minor and have to be ignored.The last i.e. as against his statement Ex.PW- 3/A which is the basis of the FIR where he claimed that Raju Madrasi was already armed with a knife and the other three were armed with lathis, his statement in court that during the course of the fight Raju Madrasi went to a nearby jhuggi and brought a knife with which he caused the fatal injuries to the deceased is relevant; not to discredit Anjum, but with respect to the nature of the offence committed.As we have already observed, when Anjum's statement Ex.PW-3/A was recorded, he had been administered an analgesic drug and being in pain it could reasonably be expected that he would not state the minor details of what happened.But while deposing in court, when composed, he remembered and hence narrated the minute details of the incident.A.280/98 & conn.matters Page 8 of 15The testimony of Gurjeet Singh and Anjum would evidence that Gurjeet Singh had a problem with some boy, and probably it had to be one of the four accused.An altercation took place between Gurjeet and said boy in the morning.Nurturing revenge against the boy, Gurjeet, in the company of deceased Khalid went to search for Anjum and Asif and found them in the hostel of Aslam.They wanted more.Gurjeet and Khalid went to Anjum and Asif who agreed to extend a helping hand.All four went looking for the boy who had troubled Gurjeet in the morning and teach him a lesson.To their misfortune they found that boy in the company of three others.The four were the four accused.A quarrel ensued.Raju Madrasi went to the jhuggi and got a knife and stabbed the deceased.32. Ordered accordingly.We dispose of the three appeals altering the conviction of the appellants from that of having committed murder of deceased Khalid.Pertaining to the death of Khalid we convict the appellants for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder; maintaining the conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 325 IPC, we sentence the appellants to undergo imprisonment for both offences for the Crl.A.280/98 & conn.matters Page 14 of 15 period already undergone and the sentences would be deemed to run concurrently.A.280/98 & conn.matters Page 14 of 15Copy of this order be sent to Superintendent, Central Jail Tihar.TCR be returned.(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE (V. KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE JULY 23, 2013 skb Crl.A.280/98 & conn.matters Page 15 of 15A.280/98 & conn.matters Page 15 of 15
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
169,938,346 |
It has come in the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge that appellant was in custody from 30.4.2003 to 10.7.2003 and thereafter from 23.2.2006 to 28.6.2007, roughly for a period of 6 months, 16 days, which is to be adjusted from the period of sentence finally awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.Prosecution story in short is that the case was registered on a private complaint filed by the widow of the deceased Naresh Singh, who was allegedly taken by the appellant and his brother Siyaram from the house of the deceased and thereafter he did not-( 2 )- Criminal Appeal No.619/2007 return and though it was promised that deceased will return back to his house in the evening of the fateful day i.e. 26.5.2001, when the deceased did not return, his wife Smt. Urmila (PW-1) tried to search him and thereafter she gave intimation to the police Station.Police did not recorded any FIR and on the contrary on 30.5.2001 Station In-charge police Station, Mahua, A.B.Pathak alongwith 5-6 Constables brought dead-body of Naresh to complainant Urmila (PW-1) and informed that Naresh has died because of inter-gang rivalry.It is alleged that both the accused persons Ramshankar and Siyaram were informers of the police who killed complainant's husband Naresh in collusion with SHO A.B.Pathak, and therefore, they tried to suppress the incident in the name of inter-gang rivalry.Both the accused persons were provided police protection as they were the police informers and that was the motivation for the police not to register a case despite intimation given by the complainant.When the police did not register the FIR, complainant sent letters to the Superintendent of Police and Human Rights Commission, but no action was taken even on such complaint, on the contrary, accused persons on 8.6.2001 threatened the complainant that if she proceeds with her report, then she may lose her life.There was a firearm wound of entry present over the right side of chest at 2nd intercostal space 2 cm lateral to sternum, 2x 2 cm in size obliquely directed, margins not well defined.There was another firearm wound of entry present over the left side of chest below the clavicle 2x 2 cm in size directed post.and backwards.Margins not well defined.An exit would was also present over left scapular region of back 3 x 2.5 cm in size margin everted, fat was coming out from the wound.Scapular bone was found broken in pieces.Brain was decomposing.5th rib towards the back was broken.Lungs were ruptured and the heart was cleared.No blood was found in the heart.Liver and spleen were also deflated.Complaint was filed and Magistrate after completion of the proceedings under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. on appearance of the accused persons, committed the case to the Court of Sessions.As per prosecution story, SHO Mahua A.B.Pathak on 29.5.2001 on getting intimation that certain members of dacoit gang were killed due to inter-gang rivalry tried to search dead- bodies and recovered dead-body of husband of complainant Naresh son of Dayaram on the banks of river Chambal from Jodharam Mallah Ki Kachwari at Gohad Ka Pura.At that time, he was not aware of identification of the deceased, therefore, he summoned local witnesses and prepared Shav Panchnama.-( 3 )- Criminal Appeal No.619/2007 this Shav Panchnama bullet injuries have been found on the chest.Body of the deceased was identified, and therefore, alongwith the letter of A.B.Pathak body was sent for postmortem to Civil Hospital, Ambah.Postmortem was carried out by a team of doctors consisting of Dr. G.C.Arya and Dr. R.P.Sharma on 30.5.2001 and they opined in the postmortem report (Ex.P/14) that there were two entry wounds and one exit wound causing injuries to the lungs, stomach, ribs and scapula which were caused within 48-72 hours of death.Both the accused persons abjured their guilt.This appellant did not examine any defence witness but co-accused examined two defence witnesses.On 27.5.2001 he had visited village Bachheri, Distt.Bhind, in connection with matrimonial alliance of his sister.Though present appellant Ramshankar denied the charges and called for full fledged trial, but in his statement under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C.he gave a statement that on 26.5.2001 he had not taken Naresh alongwith him.On 27.5.2001 he had gone to the river bank alongwith Pancham Singh to take bath.When on 30.5.2001 SHO A.B.Pathak took body of the deceased to village Medi Ka Pura, then appellant Ramshankar was taking care of dead-body of Ramesh who was a dacoit and for whom deceased Naresh was carrying food.As per the version of appellant Ramshankar, Ramesh Kushwah was involved in the crime and was absconding for last 14-15 years in the wild of jungles and was engaged in the business of abduction and recovery of ransom.According to him, about 6-7 years back, appellant was introduced to him and his brother Siyaram.It is also an admitted position that police Constable Shivnath had given number of Inspector General of police N.K.Tripathi to the appellant and he was given an offer that if he helps in killing of Ramesh, then his life will be taken care of, as a result of which he fired on Ramesh Kushwah with his 12 bore gun, as a result of which he died.At that point of time, deceased Naresh was carrying 306 bore gun and when he started running, then Ramshankar and Siyaram had fired at Naresh.Learned Additional Sessions Judge framed three issues; as to whether death of deceased Naresh son of Dayaram was homicidal, whether death of deceased Naresh was caused by the accused persons or his death was caused because of mutual criminal conspiracy resulting in offence of murder.It is the case of the appellant that he could not have been convicted under Section 302 of IPC merely on the basis of certain discrepancies in the statement given under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. It is submitted that learned Additional Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate and evaluate the evidence properly.It is also submitted that there is contradiction in the statements of Urmila (PW-1) and Ramdas (PW-4) in regard to taking the deceased on 26.5.2001, but this aspect has been overlooked by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.It is further submitted that on behalf of the appellant statement was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. to the effect that when deceased Naresh started running, then appellant alongwith acquitted accused fired on Naresh, therefore, once co- accused has been acquitted, then even appellant is entitled to be acquitted because his conviction is based merely on the basis of suspicion.It is further submitted that Dr. G.C.Arya (PW-6) has found two entry wounds on the body of the deceased as a result of which it cannot be said that which of the bullets fired by the appellant or his co-accused had hit the deceased and deceased might have been killed by bullet of some other member of gang.It is also submitted that dead-bodies of Ramesh and Naresh were found at a distance of 1 km and no blood stains were found in between, therefore, he was not killed by bullet admittedly fired by the appellant.It is also submitted that as per the complaint, they had taken the deceased on 26.5.2001, whereas as per Dr. G.C.Arya (PW-6) death had occurred 2-4 days prior to the date of postmortem i.e. 30.5.2001 i.e. sufficient to hold that chain of circumstances is not complete.Smt. Manju (DW-2) in her defence statement has deposed that mental condition of the appellant is not proper and this has been confirmed by Dr. Vikas Dubey (CW-2) who deposed that appellant is under tension and worry, thus usually keeps quite.It is submitted that statement of Smt. Manju (DW-2) has wrongly been overlooked to record conviction.Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand supports the judgment of conviction and sentence.-( 6 )- Criminal Appeal No.619/2007 persons had visited her house at 26.5.2001 at about 4 pm and called her husband Naresh.When her husband Naresh refused to go, then he was taken on an assurance to drop him by the evening.This incident had taken place in front of Ramdas (PW-4) son of Kadam Singh, Thakur by caste.It is mentioned in paragraph 2 of the complaint that other relatives of the complainant had gone to village Useth for picking up of 'Pattal' (handmade plate) in a marriage function.It is submitted that when complaint was registered, then statement of Ramdas (PW-4) was recorded.The statement which was given before the JMFC, were read over to him legibly and in pieces, but he denied having recollecting giving such statement.It is submitted that further in the light of admission that he had given his statement before the Court of JMFC in presence of Ramsevak (PW-5), his statement can be read and though he has denied recollecting giving such statement but on confrontation he has not been able to belie such statement, therefore, contention of appellant that there is variation in the statement of Urmila (PW-1) and Ramdas (PW-4) in regard to taking away of Naresh on 26.5.2001 has no force.-( 8 )- Criminal Appeal No.619/2007A perusal of the order-sheet dated 26.3.2007 reveals that accused persons were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Their defence statement was recorded.Appellant gave defence statement at length and such statement was recorded in detail.Appellant refused to give any evidence in defence, whereas accused No.2-Siyaram submitted that he would like to examine his father Gajendra and wife of accused No.1 Ramshankar, Smt. Manju in his defence.It has come in the order- sheet that when their statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded and Court was recording statement of appellant Ramshankar on its own and that of Siyaram by steno typist on the dictation of the Presiding Officer, then appellant Ramshankar admitted that he had shot at Ramesh and Naresh as informer of the police and accused Siyaram was party to such firing.Siyaram tried to interfere in the proceeding and said something to the appellant by mumbling when Court stopped taking statement of Siyaram and recorded statement of Ramshankar.At that point of time, Siyaram kicked Ramshankar from behind and thereafter Ramshankar also kicked Siyaram, as a result of which unpleasant situation had developed which was controlled by calling police force.Court recorded a finding that such ugly scene was created at the initiation of Siyaram.Bail bonds of Siyaram were suspended and case was fixed for next day.-( 9 )- Criminal Appeal No.619/2007During the proceedings Siyaram expressed that Ramshankar is mentally sick for the last one year and he was not appearing in the Court but was forcefully brought to the Court.With a view to examine mental status of Ramshankar Court had entered into a dialogue with him and asked him that why he had not appeared before the Court, then he replied that he had gone to Baroda to work as a security guard because he has three children and had no money to appear before the Court.He further replied that he thought that if he will not appear before the Court, then police shall come within 2-3 months and in the meanwhile he will be able to earn some money.When the Presiding Officer specifically asked whether appellant Ramshankar is understanding what he is saying, he gave a very balanced reply.When he was asked that why he has beaten his brother, then he said that his brother kicked him first and prior to starting of his examination he was unnecessarily harassing him.On the basis of such interaction, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Morena, recorded a finding about good health of the appellant.Thereafter Dr. Vikas Dubey was examined as court witness No. 2 and expressed that he is a medical specialist.He alongwith a team of civil surgeon Dr. R.C. Bandil and Dr. S.R. Sharma had examined Ramshankar and on systematic examination found that all the organs like heart, lungs, kidney and digestive system etc. to be normal and no abnormality was detected.On enqiury Ramshankar had expressed that he is not able to sleep, that may be the reason for time lag in giving reply to the questions put forth to him.Dr. Vikas Dubey also gave a statement that it is possible that accused may be deliberately giving late reply to the queries.This doctor stayed in court for half an hour during the proceeding and Ramshankar did not exhibit any abnormal conduct.In the light of statement of Dr. Vikas Dubey by whom conduct of the accused was examined, Court reached to the conclusion that story of mental illness has been fabricated after recording of the statement of Ramshakar under section 313 of Cr.P.C. so to save-( 10 )- Criminal Appeal No.619/2007 him from conviction in the light of his admission of guilt.On 26.05.2007 learned Additional Session Judge suo motu reopened the case under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. and directed that In-charge of Civil Hospital Ambah be directed to produce a carbon copy of postmortem report of deceased Naresh and concerning doctor who performed the postmortem shall remain personally present before the court.In view of such facts, postmortem report (Ex.P/14) was produced and its author G.C. Arya ( PW-6) was examined.Dr. G.C.Arya (PW-6) stated that on 30.5.2001 dead-body of Naresh was brought by SHO A.B.Pathak and alongwith him Kadam Singh R/o of Mahendirai Ke Pura was there.Dr. G.C.Arya alongwith Dr. R.P.Sharma conducted postmortem at about 1 pm.Two metal pieces were recovered from the right lung and death had occurred within 48-72 hours of the postmortem.This corroborates the story of the complainant that her husband was taken away on 26.05.2001 at about 4 p.m inasmuch as postmortem was conducted on 30.05.2001 and death had since occurred between 26.05.2001 and 30.05.2001 duration of death was 48-72 hours.On court query, doctor opined that time of death was more than 48 hours.This witness clearly denied the suggestion of defence counsel that death had occurred 4-5 days prior to postmortem.He also clearly deposed that only two-( 11 )- Criminal Appeal No.619/2007 injuries were found on the body as are mentioned in the postmortem report and it was not possible to explain the distance from which firearm was used inasmuch as because of decomposition of the body both entry and exit wounds eroded.Though defence witnesses Gajendra Singh Tomar (DW-1) father of the appellant and Smt. Manju (DW-2) wife of the appellant have been examined to point out that he is not keeping good health but court witness No. 1 Parmanand Kesariya, Jailer categorically deposed that he is jailer in Sub-jail, Morena for last six months.He was never informed in last six months about any unusual behaviour of Ramshankar.Prior to his tenure no adverse remark was found against his conduct or behaviour.He deposed that newspapers are available in each Barrack so also television.No complaint has been received in relation to Ramshankar to have entered into any dispute on the issue of newspaper or television.He further mentioned that no adverse information was received in regard to his toiletry habits.As all the accused persons wash their own clothes, he too washed his cloths.He moves with other accused persons in a normal manner.In cross- examination he deposed that every inmate is subjected to medical examination once in 2 - 2 1/2 months.He admitted that two such medical camps were organized during his tenure and further deposed that he has not brought complaint register of the inmates as there was no direction to bring such register.When defence counsel was asked whether he would like to call for such register and for such purpose evidence of jailer can be postponed, then he expressed that he does not wish to call for such register.He further expressed that none of the relatives or wife of Ramshankar either orally or otherwise gave any information in regard to his unsoundness of mind.When these statements are seen in the light of statement of court witness No. 2 Dr. Vikas Dubey and they are examined in the light of the provision contained in Section 329 of Cr.P.C. it is evident that no action was taken by the defence counsel before-( 12 )- Criminal Appeal No.619/2007 the learned Additional Session Judge even under the provisions of Section 329 of Cr.P.C. Thus it is evident that plea of unsoundness of mind was taken immediately after confessional statement was made by the appellant while recording his 313 Cr.P.C. statement before the Court.In fact, the trial court has connected the chain of evidence and has held that it is beyond doubt that theory of last seen has been proved by Urmila (PW-1) wife of the deceased.There is corroboration by Ramdas (PW-4) though later on he turned hostile.This corroboration is in the form of his admission of giving statement before the JMFC at the time of registration of private complaint.It has come on record that though appellant denied forcefully taking away of the deceased and submitted that when Ramsewak had reached his house at about 8 am on 27.5.2001 to look for his brother, at that time, he had gone to the river bank for taking bath alongwith Ramesh son of Pancham Singh.In reply to question No..20 that on 30.5.2001 SHO A.B.Pathak of police Station Mahua reached village Mehdirai Ka Pura alongwith 4-5 Constables, he replied that at that point of time he was taking care of dead-body of Ramesh on the other side of Chambal river.In reply to question No.24 that deceased Naresh was not part of any gang and was not involved in any dacoity, appellant replied that Ramesh Kushwah was absconding and was living in jungle.Naresh used to take food for him.In reply to question No.25 that accused Siyaram and Ramshankar had killed Naresh as has been stated by witness Urmila, he admitted that they had taken up the task as informer and as a result of which had killed him.He admitted that Naresh died because of firearm injury.He denied being part of Ramesh gang but admitted his meeting with the members of such gang.In reply to question No.38 that accused persons alongwith Ramesh and Naresh were consuming liquor every day, he submitted that he and Ramesh only used to consume liquor.When he was asked that whether he wants to-( 13 )- Criminal Appeal No.619/2007 say anything, he narrated the story that Ramesh was absconding after committing crime for the last 14-15 years in the wilderness of the forest and had come in his contact 6-7 years prior to his death.He was introduced by Ramdas at the place of Kadam Singh.He was kidnapping persons for ransom.There were 11 persons in his gang and since he had taken up the task of Mukhbari, therefore he had shot dead Ramesh with a bullet in his back.Naresh tried to run away with 306 bore gun, then he fired from his single bore gun and simultaneously Siyaram had fired on Naresh with double barrel gun.Naresh was hit by one bullet and died.He was watching the dead-body of Ramesh.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
169,939,562 |
(RAJENDRA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 3 Jabalpur, Dated : 22-04-2019 Miss. Indu Pande, counsel for the appellant.Shri Vishal Yadav, Dy.for the State.Heard on I.A. No.5167/2019, an application for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail on behalf of appellant Rajendra.Appellant stands convicted under Sections 376 (2) (f) (2-i) (2-1) of IPC and under Section 5 (1) (n) of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and fine of Rs.10,000/- in the first and second count respectively along with default stipulation.Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on proper perspective.There was some money transaction between the family of the prosecutrix and the appellant.The FSL report not supported the case of the prosecuton.The statement of the prosecutix is not reliable and even the doctor has is not supported the factum of forcible rape committed upon the prosecutrix.Counsel for the State vehemently opposes the aforesaid prayer and submits that the prosecurix categorically stated that she was subjected to intercourse.The appellant took her with the consent of her mother and keep her at the residence of his relatives and there, he committed rape upon her three to four times.Considering the aforesaid and the fact that in the FSL report in the smear slide prepared by the doctor, no sperms were found, Hyman of the prosecutrix was intact and doctor has not opined the factum of sexual Digitally signed by PRASHANT BAGJILEWALE Date: 24/04/2019 16:41:04 2 CRA-2457-2019 inter-course and further no injury was found on the private part of the prosecutrix without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the aforesaid I.A. is allowed.It is directed that the remaining jail sentence of the appellants is hereby suspended subject to depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited and on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand) along with one solvent surety of like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court, the appellant be released on bail with a further direction to mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on 13.05.2019 and also on such other dates as may be notified by the office in this regard till disposal of this appeal.List for final hearing in due course.C. C. as per rules.(VISHNU PRATAP SINGH CHAUHAN) JUDGE pb Digitally signed by PRASHANT BAGJILEWALE Date: 24/04/2019 16:41:04
|
['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
169,941,699 |
This is second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with Crime No.320/2017 under Section 363, 366,376 (2) (n) and 506 of IPC and under Section 5/6 (th) and 5(L)6 of the POSCO Act, 2012 registered at Police Station - Lasudiya, District Indore.The only changed circumstances pointed out by learned counsel representing the petitioner is delay in trial.Appropriate steps to 2 MCRC No. 14766/2019 ensure the presence of the prosecution witnesses have been taken by the learned trial Court.2 MCRC No. 14766/2019Therefore, I do not think it proper to allow this second bail application on the ground taken by the petitioner.
|
['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
169,942,903 |
IV, Coimbatore.During night hours around 22.30 hours, when witness Tmt.Nithya (PW1) came out from bathroom, the accused Ponnusamy @ Ramasamy gagged her mouth.When she raised alarm, her uncle Kannan came to rescue her.On witnessing Kannan who came to the scene of occurrence, the accused out of provacation, intentionally, lifted him and threw on floor,http://www.judis.nic.in 3 resulting in blunt head injury and the said Kannan swooned.This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., against the Judgment dated 09.06.2011 passed in SC.No.http://www.judis.nic.in 2 180/2010 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. IV), Coimbatore at Thiruppur.The respondent Police registered a case in Cr.729 of 2009 against the appellant for offence under Sections 323 & 307 IPC.After investigation, Police filed charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Avinashi, for offence under Sections 323, 307 @ 302 IPC and the same was taken on file in PRC.No.04/2010 and since the offences are triable by the Court of Session, the same was committed to the Principal District Sessions Judge Coimbatore.The learned Principal District Sessions Judge Coimbatore took the case on file in S.C.No.180/2010 and made over the case to the learned Additional District Sessions Judge/F.T.C.No.Subsequently, injured Kannan, maternal uncle of witness Nithya died on 19.06.2009 at 11.50 hours at C.M.C. Hospital, Coimbatore.Therefore, the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.Before the trial court, in order to prove the case of prosecution, PWs.1 to 12 were examined and Exhibits P.1 to P.13 were marked.After completing prosecution witnesses, when incriminating circumstances culled out from the prosecution witnesses and put before the accused, he denied as false.On the side of the defense, no one was examined and no document was marked.The learned Trial Judge, after completing trial, found the accused for the offence under section 325 IPC, and by judgment dated 09.06.2011, the learned trial judge convicted the accused for offence u/s.325 IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 five years with a fine of Rs.3000/- i/d.R.I.for 6 months.Against the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred this appeal.Therefore, Ex.P.1 complaint ishttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 suspicious.He further submitted that medical evidence did not corroborate the prosecution case.It is submitted that doctor has opined that the death is due to head injury and its consequences and that the injury was not caused by the accused.He further submitted that the evidence of the witnesses are not cogent and reliable.There are contradictions between the prosecution witnesses and the trial court should have extended benefit of doubt to the accused, but convicted and sentenced the accused for the offence u/s.325 IPC, which warrants interference.It is further argued that the trial court had erred in not considering Ex.P.2 which was prepared at 6.30 a.m., on 19.06.2009 which shows that the offence in crime No.792/2009, as 302 IPC, whereas the respondent herein altered the offence only at about 3.45 p.m., on 19.06.2009 which shows that the appellant/accused has been falsely implicated in the case.The trial court not considered the contradiction that P.W.10 complainant's in her statement stated that she has no idea about the complaint and the respondent herein only received her signature in the statements which was already written by the respondent.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent-State would submit that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts by adducing clearhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 and cogent evidence and though there are certain discrepancies in the case of the prosecution as alleged by the learned counsel for the appellant, the same does not affect the prosecution case in its entirety and submitted that the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court does not warrant interference at the hands of this Court and hence prays for dismissal of this appeal.7. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.The appellant was charged for the offence punishable under Section 325 IPC.On seeing Ex.P.2 - observation mahazar which was prepared on 19.06.2009 at about 6.30 a.m., it is seen that the Sections of offence have been mentioned as under Sections 323, 307 IPC and thereafter, section has been altered as 302 IPC in Ex.However, as rightly pointed out by the trial court, this cannot be considered as material alteration.While looking at the act of the accused, who lifted the deceased Kannan and pushed him against the compound wall, the accused did not have the intention of causing death or causing bodily injury likely to cause death.More over neither the prosecution nor the defacto complainant filed any appeal or revision for enhancement of sentence or for acquittal of the appellant for the alleged charges.In such circumstances, the act of the appellant would come only under section 325 IPC and the trial court has discussed elaborately the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, and rightly convicted the appellant, which is being well founded.This court does not find any reason to take a different view on the conviction recorded by the trial court.In the result, the criminal appeal stands dismissed as devoid of merits and substance.Trial court is directed to secure the appellant immediately to serve remaining period of sentence, if any.24.06.2019 Index : Yes/No kmmhttp://www.judis.nic.in 7 To The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. IV), Coimbatore at Thiruppur.http://www.judis.nic.in 8 P.VELMURUGAN.J kmm Crl.A.No.371 of 2011 Date: 24.06.2019http://www.judis.nic.in
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 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.
|
169,943,656 |
Also heard on I.A. No.14946/2015, an application for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.The appellant has been convicted under Section 366, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years & fine of Rs.10,000/-, with default stipulation.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was on bail during trial and has never misused the liberty granted to him.It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the important prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses and looking to the contradictions and omissions, conviction cannot be based.The fine amount has already been deposited.It is also submitted that on the same set of evidence the appellant is acquitted from the charge under Section 120-B, IPC.List this case for final hearing in due course.C.C. as per rules.(SUBHASH KAKADE)
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,699,444 |
The scene village is known as Chinnalapatti lying within the jurisdiction of Ambathurai Police Station.The deceased Kalyani, agent about 23, was a resident of Marimuthu Asari Lane in Channakalikkam Patti, a suburb of Chinnalapatti.P.W. 3 is the mother of the deceased and he was the only son of his parents.His father died long prior to the occurrence.The deceased was permanently employed by P.W. 1, who had been letting on hire electrical goods, such as mike sets, tube lights, serial sets etc. having his business place in a portion of his house under the name of Rathinam Sound Service.The accused was also having a similar shop and was letting on hire mike sets, tube lights etc. besides having a betel-nut shop cum tea shop there.The accused's business premises was situate in the Bazaar Street running east-west.Ex. P-18 the rough sketch of the scene of occurrence gives the detailed location of the houses and shops of the witnesses and the accused and the scene place No. 5 in Ex. P-18, indicates the shop of the accused Nos. 7, 4 and 6 indicate the laundry of P.W. 6 the cycle shop of P.W. 7 and the house of P.W. 8 respectively.In front of the house of P.W. 8 and a little away on the north west to the shop of the accused, the occurrence in question took place.It is said now that the business place of P.W. 1 is about 1 1/2 furlongs to the south of the shop of P.W. 7 and the house of the accused is to the north of the scene place in Angana Asari Lane, which runs south to the north opposite to the shop for the accused.P.W. 8 and one Selvam were under the employment of the accused in that P.W. 8 was a tea master in the tea stall of the accused had taken on hire four tube lights from P.W. 1 but he did not either pay the rental charges or return the tube lights.So P.W. 1 sent his servant Kalyani (the deceased) to collect the necessary rental charges as also to get back the tube lights.The deceased as per the direction of P.W. 1 went to the shop the accused on the morning of 11-9-1979, and demanded the charges and the tube lights which were hired.In the shop of the accused, P.W. 8 and one Selvam were present, P.W. 2 had also come to the shop of the accused to take tea.When the deceased demanded the rental charges and the return of the tube lights, a wordy altercation arose between the accused and the deceased during which the accused told the deceased in a very angry tone that the transaction was between himself and P.W. 1, that the deceased had no business to demand anything from him and that if the deceased persisted in his attempts, the accused would go even to the extent of stabbing him.The deceased, unscared of the threat uttered by the accused, persisted in his attempts.Then the accused, on being aggrieved at the persistent conduct of the deceased, threatened the deceased with dire consequences and said that he would finish his chapter by murdering him.However, at the intervention of P.W. 2 no untoward incident had happened and P.W. 2 separated the accused and the deceased.Thereafter, the deceased returned and informed P.W. 1 what had happened.On 12-9-1979, at about 7 p.m. the accused went to the shop of P.W. 1 and informed him of the incident and asked P.W. 1 to terminate the services of the deceased and threatened him by saying that if he did not accede to the demand of the accused, the accused would stab not only the deceased but also P.W. 1 At that time the deceased was not available in the shop.On the next day, i.e. on 13-9-1979, when the deceased came to the shop P.W. 1, P.W. 1 apprised him by the threat held out by the accused on the previous evening and asked the deceased that it would be better if he did not turn up for work for sometime and also temporarily terminated his service.The deceased had informed his mother P.W. 3 of the termination of the service by P.W. 1 consequent upon the threat held out by the accused.On the morning of the date of occurrence, the deceased went out of his house after informing him mother P.W. 3 that he would go to the shop of P.W. 1 and persuade him to get him reinstated in service.After the deceased had left the house, P.W. 3 went to Ambathurai for the purpose of making a courtesy call on the wife of P.W. 2, who had been admitted in clinic known as Sarojini Clinic for acute stomach pain, and returned home at about 12.30, that afternoon.Subsequently, as the deceased had not returned home by then, she went in search of her son through the Bazaar Street.In the meantime, the deceased went to the shop of the accused where P.W. 8 and Selvam were alone present.The accused had been to his house for the purpose of taking his mid-day meal.The deceased asked P.W. 8 and Selvam whether it was proper for their master (the accused) not only to have instigated P.W. 1 to terminate his services but also to threaten his life.So saying, he was standing in from of the shop of the accused, facing west.When the deceased was about to fall on the ground, the accused gave some more cut on the left leg below the knee P.W. 3 who by then had reached the Bazaar Street, witnessed the entire occurrence and rushed to the scene, making a distress cry "Don't cut, don't cut".After inflicting the injuries, the accused ran away with M.O. 1 towards north through Angana Asari Lane.The accused was chased by the Marimuthu, who is a resident of Samiarpatti and who had come to the Bazaar by chance in search of one of his relations, but in vain.The occurrence was witnessed by P.Ws. 6, 7 and 8 besides P.Ws. 3 and 5 P.W. 3, kept her son, the deceased, on her lap and wept leaning over him.A little later, P.W. 3 went to the house of the Village Munsif along with Marimuthu and found the village Munsif not available.Then P.W. 9 went to the scene place and made an endorsement on the complaint and sent it through his thalyari, directing him to hand over the original Ex. P. 1 at the police station and Ex. P-4 in the Court of Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Dindigul.P.W. 10 the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ambathurai received Ex. P-1 at about 3.30 p.m. registered the same in crime No. 564 of 1979 and prepared express report and sent them to the concerned officials.Ex. P-11 is the printed F.I.R. sent to the Court.He informed P.W. 14 through wireless message about the incident.Then, on the direction of P.W. 14, P.W. 10 went to the scene place and provided the necessary bandobust and was waiting for the arrival of P.W. 14 who reached the scene at about 4 P.W. 14 who reached the scene at about 4 p.m. and took up further investigation.P.W. 14 prepared an observation mahazar Ex. P-5 attested by P.W. 9 and another.At about 4.30 p.m. and 7 p.m. he held inquest over the dead body of the deceased during which he examined P.Ws. 3 and 5 and others.Ex. P-17 is the inquest report.Then he despatched the dead body through P.W. 12 along with Ex. P-2 for the purpose of autopsy.P.W. 14, after despatch of the dead body for post-mortem examination, seized from P.W. 3 M.O. 2 saree and M.O. 3 jacket at about 7.15 p.m. under Ex. P-7 attested by P.W. 9 and another.He prepared a rough sketch of the scene place Ex. P-10 and searched for the accused, but the accused was absconding.Then he examined P.W. 2 and others.He visited the houses of P.Ws. 2 and others.JUDGMENT Ratnavel Pandian, J.This appeal is preferred by the accused in S.C. No. 6 of 1980 on the file of the Court of Session, Madurai Division challenging the correctness and validity of the judgment, convicting him under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentencing him to imprisonment for life.P.W. 8 sent word to the accused through Selvam.At about 1.30 p.m. the accused emerged from Angana Asari Lane with M. O. 1 and inflicted a cut on the left shoulder of the deceased and on receipt of the cut the deceased turned back.Immediately, the accused inflicted another cut with M.O. 1 on the left shoulder followed by yet another cut on the right shoulder and on the back of the neck in quick succession.P.W. 4, the Civil Assistant Surgeon attached to the Headquarters Hospital, dindigul on receipt of Ex. P-2 commenced the post-mortem examination on 16-9-1979 at about 10.30 a.m. He found the following external injuries :An abrasion about 3/4" x 1/2" just 1/2" behind the left ear in the lower part.An abrasion about 1 1/2" x 1/4" in the upper part of neck, left side.An incised wound about 1 1/2" x 3/4" x 2" in the upper part of the left shoulder in the medial aspect.Probe length about 3 1/2" in the upward direction from the anterior aspect of the wound.An incised wound about 1 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/2" in the upper part of the left scapula.An abrasion about 3/4" x 1/2" over the upper part of the right scapula.An incised wound about 3/4" x 1/2" x 1 1/2", in the back of the middle of the left leg.Probe length about 3".An incised would about 1" x 1/2" x 1 1/2" just 1 1/2" below injury No. 7 Probelength about 3".A small ulcer about 1/4" x 1/4" x 1/2" in the base of the 3rd toe right side in the dorsal aspect dressed with plaster.On internal examination, he found collection of haematoma in the anterior fold of the axilla, intra clavicular, supra clavicular and on the lateral side of the neck.Axillary artery and vein were found cut.Ex. P-3 is the post-mortem certificate issued by him.He has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and hemorrhage due to the injuries to the axillary artery and vein on the left and that death should have occurred about 20 to 24 hours prior to autopsy.He visited the houses of P.Ws. 6, 7 and 8 and found neither of them present.On 16-9-1979, he examined P.Ws. 1, 6 to 8 and 12 and others.In pursuance of the confession the accused took P.W. 14 and his party to the pump-set room of his father-in-law wherefrom he took out M.O. 1 aruval from the eaves of the pump-set room and the same had been seized at 4 p.m. under Ex. P-9 attested by P.W. 9 and another.On 18-9-1979, P.W. 14 examined P.W. 4 and sent a requisition to the Court to make arrangements for recording the 164 statements of the witnesses.He sent Ex. P-13 to the Court requesting the Court to send bloodstained articles for chemical examination.P-15, and Exs.P-16 are the reports of the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist respectively which were later received by the Court.The accused when questioned under Section 313, Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating pieces of evidence appearing against him, denied his complicity in the offence in question, He would state that four days prior to the occurrence while he was in his shop, the deceased came there and told him that P.W. 1 had asked him to collect the rental charges and fetch the tube lights hired to him and he, turn, told the deceased that he would settle the transaction with P.W. 1 directly.No sooner did he say like that the deceased got wild and proclaimed that both of them belonged to Kallar community and he knew how to extract things from him.So saying, the deceased went away.On the day of occurrence, he had been to his garden land and on his way back he was informed that there was a rioting and stabbing incident in the bazaar.According to him he was taken by the police while he was in his house and he did not know anything about this occurrence.The learned Sessions Judge who has unhesitatingly accepted the ocular testimony of the prosecution witnesses Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 and also accepted the evidence relating to the motive for the occurrence, has held that the prosecution has satisfactorily and convincingly established the charge against the appellant-accused and consequently convicted and sentenced him as aforementioned.(5) As the medical evidence given by P.W. 4 is totally in conflict with the oral testimony of the eye witnesses and spells out that the deceased should have received the injury not by an aruval M.O. 1, but by a different weapon namely, stabbing instrument, the entire ocular testimony of witnesses has to be totally rejected.(6) The evidence of P.W. 4 given before the trial Judge as well as before this court on his further examination and the averments in column No. 7 of the inquest report Ex. P-17 belie the version of the eye witnesses and therefore in view of the inconsistent and diametrically contradictory evidence of the medical expert as against the testimony of the witnesses, this court has no other option except to throw out the entire case as unacceptable.(7) In support of the above contentions the learned counsel has cited a number of decisions, which was would like to refer at the appropriate place.Therefore, the question that would arise for our consideration in the case on hand is, whether the injuries to which the deceased had succumbed instantaneously were inflicted by the appellant and the appellant alone in the manner as spoken to by P.Ws. 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 or in different circumstances as opposed to the version given by the prosecution.Mr. A. A. Selvam, learned counsel for the accused would vehemently and forcefully contend that Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-11 should have been prepared only after the arrival of the police at the scene and they have been sent to the Court thereafter and this is the reason for the delay of nearly 6-1/2 hours in handing over the First Information Report to the Magistrate at 10 p.m. He would further submit that the delay had occasioned on account of the inability of the police to secure any witness from that locality and that the police who were not conversant with the true facts of the case had, ultimately, on seeing the injuries on the dead body, trotted out a story as averred in Ex. P-1 purely drawing it out from their imagination that the deceased was cut with an aruval and done to death, without knowing the nature of the weapon, the manner of attack and the real assailant etc. According to the defence, P.W. 3 could not have gone to the Bazaar Street a the psychological moment when the deceased was attacked and witnessed the occurrence.The reason given by P.W. 3 that she went to the Bazaar in search of his son as he had not returned for his midday meal, is quite improbable and unacceptable, because in a village part people could not returned for his midday meal, is quite improbable and unacceptable, because in a village part people could not be expected to take their midday meal on every day at 1-30 or 2 p.m. and that no mother would go in search of her son, simply for the reason that her son had not come to the the house to take his meal by 1-30 p.m. Had not P.W. 3 gone in search of her son, she could not have got the chance of witnessing the occurrence.Admittedly she did not know anything about her son creating any galata in front of the shop of the deceased.The normal course of conduct one would expect of a person, more so a woman, would be to approach the police authorities and report the matter of death and seek their help and protection.In the present case, the conduct of the woman in not going to the police but only to the Karnam who normally did not take the complaint of a murder, is quite unnatural and improbable.Further, P.W. 5 would not accompany P.W. 3 nor would he go to the police station.Whatever might be the reason for P.W. 3 for approaching the Karnam P.W. 9, instead of the police, the telling and attendant circumstances do create a suspicion in our mind whether Ex. P-1 would have been prepared in the manner as put forth by the prosecution and whether P.Ws. 3 and 5 would have witnessed the occurrence at all.This conduct of P.W. 3 in not approaching the police and the conduct of P.W. 5 in not accompanying P.W. 3 compel us to hold that the defence suggestion cannot be brushed aside as devoid of any merit.Much incisive argument was advanced by Mr. A. A. Selvam, forcefully contending that the injuries found on the deceased would not have been caused by a weapon like M.O. 1, but all these injuries should have been inflicted by the assailant, whomsoever he was only by a stabbing instrument.According to him when it is shown beyond all reasonable doubt that M.O. 1 was not the weapon used by the assailant in causing the injuries to the deceased, then the Court has to come to the conclusion that the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 5 as well as that of P.Ws. 6 to 8 is nothing but a bundle of falsehood.Now, in order to appreciate the above argument we shall advert to the medical evidence.Injury No. 9 is a small ulcer (old one).Injury No. 4 is described as an incised wound measuring 1 1/2" x 3/4" x 2" in the upper part of the left shoulder in the medical aspect.The probe length of that injury was about 3 1/2" in the upward direction from the anterior aspect of the wound.Injury No. 5 is an incised wound measuring 1 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/2" in the upper part of the left scapula.Injury No. 7 is another incised wound measuring 3/4" x 1/2" x 1 1/2" in the back of the middle of the left leg.The probe length of this injury was about 3".Injury No. 8 is described as an incised wound measuring 1" x 1/2" x 1 1/2" just 1/2" below injury No. 7 and the probe length of this injury was 3".On exploring injury No. 4 the Medical Officer found collection of haematoma in the anterior fold of axilla, intra, clavicular, supra clavicular and on the lateral side of the neck.The axillary artery and vein base had been cut.On exploring injury Nos. 7 and 8, there were no blood vessels injured and there was no collection of haematoma in the subcutaneous region.When the doctor was asked his opinion about the nature of the injuries and their cause and effect, he was given the following answers even in the chief-examination.We would like to extract the evidence as found in the deposition so that we could appreciate the argument of the learned counsel for the defence while assessing the medical evidence and the testimony of the eye-witnesses :Ques :- Whether injury No. 4 could have been caused by the tip of M.O. 1 ?Ans :- Not possible.Ques :- Whether injury Nos. 5, 7, and 8 could have been caused by infliction of separate cuts with a weapon like M.O. 1 ?Ans :- Not possible.The above answers given by the Medical Officer P.W. 4 unambiguously show that the Medical Officer is assertive in his opinion that none of the injury Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 8 could have been inflicted by cut by a weapon like M.O. 1 aruval, nor by the tip portion of the aruval coming into contract with the particular part of the body of the deceased.But coming to the injuries found on the deceased, he would not agree with the suggestion made by the learned Public Prosecutor, but would reiterate what he had opined already, stating that injuries 4, 5, 7 and 8 an aruval.The criminal appeal is allowed.Appeal allowed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,699,445 |
P. 1 to P. 12 besides marking 18 material objects as M.Os.On behalf of the defence, they would examine, one Thandavamoorthy as D.W. 1 for oral evidence with no documents marked on their side.The case of the prosecution is that accused 1 to 13 are members of the banned organisation by the Tamil Nadu Government viz., 'Al-umma's, that between 27-3-1997 and 14-2-1998, at Door No. 34, Maroof Sahib Street, Anna Salai, Chennai, the accused conspired to plant powerful explosives in major cities all over Tamil Nadu and to strike terror in the minds of the general public and to cause serious danger to life and damage to public properties by themselves or through others and in pursuance of the conspiracy, on 14-2-1998, at the said place, which is the headquarters of the office of the said banned organisation, they possessed explosive substances and engaged themselves in illegal activities in promotion of the ideals of the organisation.The prosecution case in evidence through the witnesses examined and documents and material objects marked, as aforementioned, is that P.W. 1 who was the Inspector of Police, Law and Order in D2-Anna Salai P.S. would depose that on 14-2-1998, at various places in Coimbatore, bomb blasts were carried out particularly aiming at Mr. L.K. Advani as the target orchestrated by Muslim Fundamental organisation 'Al-umma' having Coimbatore as its headquarters, not only to show its protest against Bharatiya Janata Party but also to express its displeasure with the functioning of the said party and to create disturbance and disharmony among the religions, that the founder-leader of the organisation viz. Basha, having been arrested in many other cases based on the cases registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation and got released and was staying along with his accomplices and they were conspiring to disturb the ensuing elections making use of the explosive substances and indulging in extremist activities as it came to be known on reliable information; that on information of threat to BJP leader Sri Advani, who was to visit Madras, they have inspected the place occupied by the said group on 14-2-1998 at about 8.15 p.m. and sent messages and sending advance intimations in Ex. P.1 to the concerned Courts, he prepared FIR and when he approached the particular place, the first accused Basha and 12 others were engaged in preparing country bombs and petrol bombs with the help of empty liquor bottles and on seeing the police party, they attempted to escape but coordinating the place, all the 13 persons were arrested in the presence of the witnesses viz. G.P. Papa and Santharupan; that they also seized various types of knives, patta knives and veechu aruvals numbering 25, ten wooden logs, empty liquor bottles of 250 ml.filled with iron particles numbering seven and soda bottles numbering 20, petrol bottles with the thread numbering three, bottles with iron scrap numbering 11 and 180 ml.bottles with thread numbering 22 and 5 litre petrol contain can, 2 kg.chilly powder bag, many incriminating books, cash of Rs. 14,800/-belonging to the first accused, a jute bag containing 40 black stones and yet another bag containing 40 broken bricks, five country bombs, ordinary detonators numbering 50, gelatine sticks numbering ten and electric detonators numbering ten have been seized under the cover of Ex. P. 2 mahazar attested by the witnesses; that having taken all the accused and the seized articles to the police station, he registered the case in his station crime No. 294/98 under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act in Ex. P. 3 FIR and recorded the confessional statement of the accused and sent the FIR and the M.Os.to the Court and on 15-2-1998, the accused were remanded to judicial custody.P.W. 3 would depose that he is a resident of Nair Appa Pillai Street, Chennai-14 and this witness would speak about his landlord Humayun Bai asking him to arrange somebody as tenant of yet another house belonging to the landlord at Anna Salai and through a tea stall owner Ali Bai two persons viz. Sikander and Apsar came to engage the house for rent and on payment of Rs. 75,000/- as advance they agreed to be the tenants for a monthly rent of Rs. 4,000/- and the key was handed over and the said house was occupied that day itself and when he went there the next day, at the door steps, one of them was standing with AK-47 and did not allow him to enter in and thereafter he met these two persons Sikander and Apsar, that he saw the first accused and ten others occupying that house; that when he enquired with Sikander as to who they were, he replied that he would give the pipeline and asked him to go out; that it was intimated to the owner of the house and thereafter he did not go that side at all and then he came to know that they were members of the 'Al-Umma' terrorist organisation.P.W. 4 is the tea shop owner at Mount Road and a resident of a place near Paragon theatre opposite Kalaivanar Arangam and having his tea shop next to the place of occurrence and this witness would also adduce evidence adhering P.W, 3 regarding letting out the house to Sikander and Aktar.P.W. 5 is the landlord and this witness would also speak to the letting out of his house in favour of Sikander and Aktar and on coming to know that some other persons have been occupying the place, he asked Sikander and Aktar to vacate the house for which they replied that they would vacate it in a month; that for one month, they did not also give the rent; that he issued legal notice and lodged a complaint with the police but no action was initiated and when he went there demanding rent, he was not allowed to enter in and he was asked to come only telephoning; that thereafter from the newspaper, he came to know that the police have caused the arrest of Basha and his gang; that then he came to know that his house was sealed.P.W. 6 is a tailor stitching seat covers for two wheelers and he would depose that he knew the first accused, who used to come to the Mosque for prayer and he would also depose that some other persons would also come along with him.P.W. 7 is a motor mechanic.He would depose that he knew A. 1 since he used to come for prayer to the mosque and that from the news he came to know that he was arrested.P.W. 9 is the Scientific Officer in the Chemical Research Centre at Madras at the time of occurrence.He would depose that on receipt of the requisition letter from the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai for chemical analysis of the material objects seized in connection with Cr. No. 294/98, Anna Salai P.S., since the bombs were live, they were sent back for defusing and thereafter they were again sent as empty; that they received seven articles of that sort; that they found petrol in first three items and in the 4th item, they detected Sulphur, Aluminium, Ammonium, Nitrate and Nitroglycerine and Nitrocellulose; that in the 5th item; they detected Nitroglycerine and Nitrocellulose and items Nos. 6 and 7 contain petrol.P.W. 12 was the Inspector of Police and the Investigating Officer and he would adduce evidence to the effect that he took-up the investigation in Cr. No. 294/98 of D.2 Anna Salai P.S. on 16-2-1998; that al-ready another Inspector caused the arrest of the accused and sent them for remand and has also sent the M.Os.for chemical analysis; that he had also examined the witnesses and recorded their statements on 14-2-1998 and 15-2-1998, he had sent the accused for remand and the M.Os.to the Court; that on 14-2-1998, he had registered the FIR and sent the same to the Court; that the accused were also put under preventive detention taking such steps; that this witness having done re-investigation, having verified and re-examining all that being done by his predecessor, he would also examine witnesses Mohadeen Basha and Humayun Alifa and also witnesses Nos. 2 and 3 who have already been examined by his predecessor; that he also examined Shabuddeen and Kadirvel and recorded their statements; that on 21-2-1998, he examined the Court Clerk of the XIII M.M., Egmore, Chennai.He also examined one Muthusamy of the Tamil Nadu Commander School for Detection and Destruction of Explosive Substances; that on 26-2-1998, he examined the chemical analysis and thereafter obtaining the sanction from the District Collector which was Ex. P. 7, he proceeded with the further investigation.He would further depose that the amount of Rs. 14,700/- seized from the first accused is belonging to the first accused himself.This witness would ultimately depose that on completion of his investigation on 1-7-1998, he filed the charge-sheet under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Sections 17(1) and 14 of the Criminal Amendment Act and under Section 120-B of the IPC.P.W. 13 is the sanctioning authority and the then District Collector, Chennai and this witness would depose that the Commissioner of Police, Chennai sent his requisition dated 17-6-1998 for according sanction in the matter of D3 Anna Salai P.S. Crime No. 294/98 since under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act also, the case has been registered against certain accused; that on receipt of the request on 26-6-1998, which is Ex. P. 6, he also received all the material documents of the case; that having examined those documents' under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act as per G.O. Ms. No. 1188 Home dated 28-5-1991, he accorded sanction for prosecution on his being satisfied that the case was fit enough for prosecution and the sanction order was accorded in Ex. P. 7 against the accused Nos. 1 to 13 named therein.On the part of the defence, the sole witness examined by them was one Thandavamoorthy and this witness would depose that when he was serving as Grade-I Constable in G-2 Anna Salai P.S., one Marudapandiyan was the Inspector at that time, that on the date of raid of the residence of S.A. Basha, he was not in the raiding party and after finishing his duty, he had gone back home at that time, but he could not remember what time did he finish his duty that day; that he could not also remember what was his duty time that day but would say that on 15-2-1998, he came back for duty and even that day, what time did he come for duty he did not know; that on 23-2-1998, he was given a sealed cover by the Court of XIII M.M., Egmore, Chennai, but he does not know what is the dimension of the cover nor the weight of the same, but he was asked to hand it over to the explosive detection and destruction squad; that he took it, keeping the same in the cycle carrier and excepting that cover, he did not take any other article or item; that at 2.30 p.m., he gave it to somebody in the office, but he could not remember what is the rank of the officer concerned; that thereafter he went to the police station at Egmore and again at 6.30 p.m., he went to the property stores of the Court; that the next day, from the explosive department, they gave another cover which he entrusted with the forensic department; that he did not know what they did with the cover that was entrusted the previous day; that at the time of giving cover or thereafter when he was examined, they did not give anything to him; that he did not serve at the residence where A. 1 lived; that he did not know that at the time of entrustment of this job, whether in the requisition it was stipulated that he should bring the passport.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
169,946,116 |
In default of Rs. 3,000/-.In default of Rs. 1,000/-.In default of payment of fine- RI for 6 payment of fine- RI for 1 payment of fine- RI for months month 15 days Pintu @ Bintu RI for life and fine of Rs. RI for 5 years and fine of RI for 1 year and fine of 10,000/-.In default of Rs. 5,000/-.In default of Rs. 1,000/-.In default of payment of fine- RI for 6 payment of fine- RI for 2 payment of fine- RI for months months 15 days Raju RI for life and fine of Rs. RI for 3 years and fine of RI for 1 year and fine of 10,000/-.In default of Rs. 3,000/-.In default of Rs. 1,000/-.In default of payment of fine- RI for 6 payment of fine- RI for 1 payment of fine- RI for months month 15 days Santosh RI for life and fine of Rs. RI for 3 years and fine of RI for 1 year and fine of 10,000/-.8), who has testified that on 20th July, 2007 at 6.45 P.M., Kamla was brought to the hospital in a burnt condition.She was examined and PW-8 had prepared the MLC (Exhibit PW-8/A).Kamla was unable to speak due to burn injuries, which were 100%, deep to superficial.The patient was referred to S.R. Surgery and from that department; she was referred to the LNJP Hospital.He identified signature of Dr. Anuj of S.R. Surgery, who had left services of the hospital and his whereabouts were not known.On external examination, dermo-epidermal burn injuries involving the whole body except middle front of abdomen and soles were noticed.Degloving was also present.The total surface area involved was approximately 95%.Skin had peeled off with reddish base at some places and skin had blackened at other places.The scalp hair was burnt and singed at places.However, no smell of kerosene was present.Dr. J.V. Kiran (PW-14) proved the post-mortem report marked Exhibit PW-14/A. The death, he opined was due to burn injuries, which were ante mortem and fresh in duration.Shanti Devi (PW-1) too had suffered burn injuries, which is proved and established beyond doubt by Dr. Brijesh Singh (PW-8), who had examined her at about 6.50 P.M. She had 25% burn injuries on the right hand, right side of the face, right lower limb below knee, left hand, left forearm and right side of the back.Her MLC was marked Exhibit PW-8/B. She was declared fit for statement.She was referred to S.R. Surgery, and then to the LNJP Hospital.Dr. Brijesh Singh (PW-8) also examined Pooja (PW-4) at about 8 P.M. vide MLC (Exhibit PW-8/C).She had superficial burns on her left Crl.Thus, Pooja (PW-4) and Meenu (PW-11) were cousins.The appellants herein were related to them, being the children of jeth of Shanti Devi (PW-1), named Bahadur Singh.They were living in the neighborhood.Shanti Devi (PW-1) and Meenu (PW-11) have deposed that at about 6 P.M. on 20th July, 2007, the deceased Kamla Devi and Shanti Devi (PW-1) were speaking to each other when the appellants came there.The Appellant-Pammi had thrown kerosene oil on them and Bintu, who had a danda with a cloth wrapped around it had set the deceased Kamla Devi and Shanti Devi (PW-1) ablaze.The other appellants-Suresh, Raju and Santosh had caught hold of Shanti Devi (PW-1) and the deceased Kamla Devi.At that time, Pooja (PW-4) and Meenu (PW-11) were studying in the inner room in C9/292, Sultan Puri, Delhi.The variation is possible as the two houses were opposite to each other and were occupied by the two sisters i.e. C9/261 Sultanpuri, Delhi by the deceased Kamla Devi and C9/292 Sultanpuri, Delhi by Shanti Devi (PW-1).C-9/292, Sultan Puri, Delhi, which was in front of house No. C-9/261 as is clear from the unscaled site plan (Exhibit PW-19/B) and the scaled site plan (Exhibit PW-2/A), the exhibits collected from the said spot, photographs marked Exhibits PW-7/1 to 8 and their negatives marked Exhibits PW-7/1A to 8A, depositions of Shanti Devi (PW-1), Meenu (PW-11), SI Rajesh Kumar (PW-19) and Insp.Mohd. Iqbal (PW-21).Noticeably, Pooja (PW-4) in her deposition has stated that she had seen the occurrence and her mother, i.e., deceased Kamla Devi and her Crl.His mother Shanti Devi (PW-1), who was also present, had sustained burn injuries on her arms, face, chest, legs and other parts of the body.He lifted the deceased Kamla Devi and took her to SGM Hospital, Mangol Puri in a three wheeler scooter.His mother Shanti Devi (PW-1) followed them in a rickshaw to the hospital.Kamla Devi was treated in SGM Hospital and was later referred to the LNJP Hospital, but she expired on the same night.Shanti Devi (PW-1), Amit (PW-6), Meenu (PW-11) and Madan Lal (PW-5), husband of Kamla Devi, have spoken about the cause and motive behind the occurrence.The FSL reports marked Exhibits marked PW-24/A and B, proved by Dr. A.V. Hingrajia, Scientific Officer, Directorate of Forensic Science Laboratory, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, corroborate the aforesaid deposition of Shanti Devi (PW-1), Meenu (PW-11) and Pooja (PW-4).The FSL report opines presence of kerosene in the scalp hair of the deceased Kamla Devi.A. 220/2013 Page 9 of 14 a kerosene stove or otherwise as Kamla Devi was cooking, is a mere pretence and precipitous.The kerosene oil stove found at the spot and seized, was sent for FSL examination.The FSL reports (Exhibits PW- 24/A and B), opines that the kerosene stove 'Mahan' contained 500 ml blue colored liquid which on chemical examination, tested positive for kerosene.Presence of kerosene oil in the stove incontrovertibly establishes that the said stove had not burst and had not caught fire.The stove was not the cause for the ablaze, which was specifically targeted and directed towards the deceased Kamla Devi and Shanti Devi (PW-1).It is a case wherein the fire was deliberately ignited by throwing kerosene oil on the persons, the deceased Kamla Devi and Shanti Devi (PW-1).Pammi @ Heera, Suresh, Pintu @ Bintu, Raju and Santosh Kumari children of Bahadur Singh by the present appeal impugn judgment dated 29th August 2012 convicting them under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short) for the murder of Kamla Devi; under Section 307 IPC for having caused burn injuries to Shanti Devi (PW-1); and under Section 452 IPC for trespassing into the house No C9/292, Sultan Puri, Delhi.The trial court has attributed common intention and applied Section 34 IPC for convicting the appellants under the aforesaid sections of the IPC.By order on sentence dated 1st September, 2012, the appellants have been sentenced as under:-A. 220/2013 Page 1 of 14Section 302/34 IPC Section 307/34 IPC Section 452/34 IPC Pammi @ Heera RI for life and fine of Rs. RI for 5 years and fine of RI for 1 year and fine of 10,000/-.In default of Rs. 5,000/-.In default of Rs. 1,000/-.In default of payment of fine- RI for 6 payment of fine- RI for 2 payment of fine- RI for months months 15 days Suresh RI for life and fine of Rs. RI for 3 years and fine of RI for 1 year and fine of 10,000/-.In default of Rs. 3,000/-.In default of Rs. 1,000/-.In default of payment of fine- RI for 6 payment of fine- RI for 1 payment of fine- RI for months month 15 days Benefit of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C., for short) has been granted.The sentences are to run concurrently.The fine, if recovered, has been directed to be paid to the family of the deceased Kamla Devi and Shanti Devi (PW-1) in the ratio of 70:30 respectively.The prosecution primarily relies upon the testimony of three eye witnesses, namely, Shanti Devi (PW-1), her daughter Meenu (PW-11) and Pooja (PW-4), daughter of the deceased Kamla Devi.A. 220/2013 Page 3 of 14 hand and thenar area.She was given dressing and first aid before being discharged.A. 220/2013 Page 3 of 14This brings us to the testimony of Shanti Devi (PW-1), Meenu (PW-11) and Pooja (PW-4), the professed eye witnesses; implicating the appellants as the perpetrators.Shanti Devi (PW-1) and Meenu (PW-11) have deposed that the occurrence had taken place in house No. C-9/292, Sultan Puri, Delhi where Shanti Devi (PW-1) and Meenu (PW-11) used to reside.Deceased Kamla Devi was the sister of Shanti Devi (PW-1).On hearing the noise, they came out and tried to put off the fire.The appellants had shouted and warned Pooja (PW-4) and Meenu (PW-11), who had come out.Pooja (PW-4) was hit on her head by a danda and a burnt cloth had thereupon fallen on her hand thereby causing burn injuries.A. 220/2013 Page 4 of 14Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the versions given by Shanti Devi (PW-1) and Meenu (PW-11) should not be accepted as Pooja (PW-4) has contradicted them.Pooja (PW-4) has stated that on 20th July, 2007, she along with her cousin Meenu (PW-11) was present inside her house i.e. C-9/261, Sultan Puri, Delhi when all of a sudden accused Pammi, Raju, Suresh, Bintu and Ms. Santosh had entered.In her cross examination conducted by the Ld. Counsel for the accused, she again deposed that she was in the inner room of her house along with Meenu (PW-11).PW-4 has accepted that the house of Shanti Devi was situated just opposite to her house and she was younger to Meenu by two years and sometimes they used to study together.She could not understand the scaled site plan (Exhibit PW-2/A) wherein pt.E is stated as the position from where Pooja and Meena had witnessed the occurrence.The said point was just outside House No. C9/292, Sultan Puri, Delhi.The place of occurrence cannot be disputed as the match stick, burnt clothes, burnt bottle etc. are recovered from House No. C9/292, Sultan Puri, Delhi.The site/ exact place of occurrence was proved by the two eye- witnesses i.e. Shanti Devi (PW-1) and Meenu (PW-11).Pooja (PW-4) also does not dispute that the occurrence had taken place in House No. C9/292, Sultan Puri, Delhi.It is not disputed that the two houses are in front of each other, on either side of the street, about 10-13 feet in width.It is apparent that Pooja (PW-4) did get confused about the place where they were studying and had wrongly stated that she and Meenu (PW-11) were studying in the inner room of property No. C9/261, Sultan Puri, Delhi.From the said location, neither Pooja (PW-4) nor Crl.A. 220/2013 Page 5 of 14 Meenu (PW-11) could have seen the occurrence, about which they have lucidly elaborated in their testimonies.Thus, we are inclined to accept the versions given by Shanti Devi (PW-1) and Meenu (PW-11) as they had deposed in seriatim as to the presence of Pooja (PW-4) and Meenu (PW-A. 220/2013 Page 5 of 1411) in the inner room in premises No. C9/292, Sultan Puri, Delhi.The two have given an elaborate description of the room, and have deposed as to the window in the inner room where the two cousins were studying.Mohd. Iqbal (PW-21) in their testimonies have stated that the place of occurrence was C9/292, Sultan Puri, Delhi.SI Suraj Bhan (PW-12) had also deposed that he had received information on the wireless set to reach at the scene of crime i.e. C9/292, Sultanpuri, Delhi and denied that in the wireless message the premises number was told as C9/261, Sultanpuri, Delhi.However, Ct.Rajshri (PW-The depositions of Shanti Devi (PW-1), Pooja (PW-4) and Meenu (PW-11), in concert, state that the deceased Kamla Devi and Shanti Devi (PW-11) had come on the street outside property numbers C-9/261 and C-9/292 and were standing there, when the public gathered.Kamla Devi was Crl.A. 220/2013 Page 6 of 14 residing in C-9/261 and it is possible that the person, who gave information, assumed that she had caught fire at her residence.As recorded above, there is overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence to show that the occurrence had taken place when the deceased Kamla Devi and Shanti Devi (PW-1) were present in property number C-9/292 and not in C-9/261.There is ample evidence and material to conclusively and affirmatively hold that place of occurrence of the offence was C9/292, Sultanpuri, Delhi.A. 220/2013 Page 6 of 14The said ambiguity and difference as to the house number should not distract us from the weighty and conclusive evidence to show that the occurrence in question had taken place in House No.A. 220/2013 Page 7 of 14 aunt, i.e., Shanti Devi (PW-1) had raised an alarm.Pooja (PW-4) deposed that the deceased Kamla Devi and Shanti Devi (PW-1) were sitting in the courtyard of the house and were chatting, when all of a sudden accused Pammi, Raju, Suresh, Bintu and Ms. Santosh entered the house.Accused Pammi was having a plastic can in his hand; accused Bintu was having a danda, having a cloth wrapped on its one end.Accused Santosh and Suresh caught hold of her mother, the deceased Kamla Devi and accused Raju caught hold of her maushi, Shanti Devi (PW-1).Accused Pammi poured the kerosene oil from the can on Kamla Devi and Shanti Devi and accused Bintu was having a danda which was wrapped with a piece of cloth which he lighted and had set Kamla Devi and Shanti Devi on fire.A. 220/2013 Page 7 of 14Pooja (PW-4) has also deposed that Amit (PW-6) had reached the spot and had taken Shanti Devi (PW-1) and the deceased Kamla Devi to the hospital.Amit (PW-6) has deposed that on 20th July, 2007 he was present in DDA Market, C-9, Sultan Puri when he learnt that his mother had been burnt and on reaching home he found that his Aunt Kamla Devi was lying on the ground in a burnt condition.The appellants absurdly believed that the deceased Crl.A. 220/2013 Page 8 of 14 Kamla Devi and Shanti Devi (PW-1) were responsible for the death of wife of the appellant-Pammi.The Appellants perceived that the deceased Kamla Devi and Shanti Devi (PW-1) had resorted to witchcraft.Pooja (PW-4) in her cross-examination by the counsel for the accused was specifically asked whether they had visited the house of Pammi after the death of his wife.Pooja (PW-4) replied in negative, and had stated that there was no enmity with the appellants.Thus, it is apparent that the two or rather the three were closely related, but the relationship was rather sullen and crabbit.This is apparent as the deceased Kamla Devi, Shanti Devi (PW-1) and their families had not visited the house of Pammi, after the death of his wife which had occured a few days earlier.A. 220/2013 Page 8 of 14Presence of kerosene was also found in Exhibit Mark 1, i.e., burnt match stick and a match box, Exhibit Mark 2, i.e., burnt clothes, Exhibit Mark 3, i.e., burnt plastic bottle and Exhibit Mark 5, i.e., burnt wooden danda with some burnt clothes.Hence absence of the smell of kerosene oil on the deceased deposed by Dr. Brijesh Singh (PW-8) and Dr. J.V. Kiran (PW-14) pales into insignificance.Importantly, PW-8 and PW-14 have stated that Kamla Devi had suffered burn on 95% of the total body surface.Inanimate contention of the appellants that the deceased Kamla Devi and Shanti Devi (PW-1) may have suffered burn injuries due to bursting of Crl.Pooja (PW-4) had also suffered injuries.Versions of Shanti Devi (PW-1) and Pooja (PW-A. 220/2013 Page 9 of 144) implicating the appellants are thus duly corroborated.FSL Reports (Exhibits PW-24/A and B) as noticed above records that kerosene oil was found in the scalp hair of the deceased Kamla Devi.Learned counsel for the appellants has referred to the testimony of Sohan Lal (PW-10).Sohan Lal (PW-10) was residing in House No. C- 9/246, Sultan Puri, Delhi and also had a jewellery shop at the said address.At about 6 P.M., he had heard noise in the street and thereafter had seen Shanti Devi (PW-1) crying.Kamla Devi, he noticed, was completely burnt.He had then made a call at number 100 and Shanti Devi (PW-1) and Kamla Devi were taken to the hospital.PW-10 claims that thereafter he had returned to the shop for work.In his cross-examination on behalf of the appellants, Sohan Lal (PW-10) claimed that the appellants Bintu and Suresh were present at his shop.He had engaged the two for doing white wash in his shop.The Appellants Bintu and Suresh, PW-10 professed had followed him from the shop to the spot and after the incident they had left.The Trial court has disbelieved this version given by PW-10, in his cross-A. 220/2013 Page 10 of 14examination, as worthless and an untrustworthy attempt to absolve and exonerate the appellants-Bintu and Suresh.Sohan Lal (PW-10) in his re- examination on behalf of the Public Prosecutor has stated that he had not told the police that the appellants-Bintu and Suresh had followed him.He accepted as correct that whatever was stated by him to the police was correctly recorded.PW-10 also accepted as correct that he had known the appellants-Pammi, Santosh and Raju for the last 16-17 years.There are thus good and cogent reasons and grounds not to accept the improbable version given by Sohan Lal (PW-10) that the appellants-Suresh and Bintu were at his shop, when the occurrence in question had taken place.This statement by Sohan Lal (PW-10), as accepted by PW-10 in his cross examination can be contrasted with his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which PW-10 has accepted is the correct and true version given by him to the police.There was no reason and cause for Sohan Lal (PW-10) not to inform and tell the police, that the appellants Suresh and Bintu had been wrongly implicated as they were working in his shop and were thus not the perpetrators.It is noticeable that the appellant-Santosh had claimed that she had gone to katran market at Sultan Puri and that appellant-Raju had gone along with his partner Bhupesh to Chandni Chowk.The said alibi has not been substantiated as the said appellants have not led any defence evidence.There is no material and evidence, to accept the said stand and stance.Learned counsel for the appellants had also drawn our attention to the death summary report of Kamla Devi, (Exhibit PW-22/A).In the said death summary report, it is recorded that the deceased Kamla Devi had Crl.Under the column 'short history', it is recorded that the deceased had alleged history of homicidal chemical and flame burn as given by her sister Shanti.The patient was cooking food on kerosene stove in her home when suddenly son of her brother-in-law had rushed with a container of acid and kerosene and had first poured acid and then kerosene oil and ignited the kerosene oil.The said death summary report was prepared by Dr. Mohd. Amir (PW-22).The report (Exhibit PW-22/A) records that it was a case of 95% burns of total body surface.The said report does refer to homicidal death and the factum that the son of brother- in-law had ignited the fire after pouring chemical and kerosene.The said history it is stated was given by Shanti Devi (PW-1).We do not think that the aforesaid recording made by PW-22 in the death summary marked (Exhibit PW-22/A) should be read and accepted as if only one son of Bahadur Singh was involved in the occurrence and the other children have been falsely implicated by Shanti Devi (PW-1), Pooja (PW-4), the injured witnesses and Meenu (PW-11).Their court depositions on the said aspect are candid and clear.The names of the appellants are also recorded and mentioned in the FIR (Exhibit PW-20/A), which was seen and signed by the Metropolitan Magistrate on 21st July, 2007 at 10 A.M. The said FIR specifically mentions the name of Santosh as one of the perpetrators, who had come to the spot and had committed the said offence.A. 220/2013 Page 11 of 14The nature and extent of injuries suffered by the deceased Kamla Devi and that the fact that Shanti Devi (PW-1) had suffered burn injuries when the two were present in the latter's house, indicates that the offence in question was committed by a group acting in concert with a desire and object to cause burn injuries.The ocular testimonies state that the perpetrators had carried kerosene oil in a can which was thrown on the two Crl.A. 220/2013 Page 12 of 14 ladies and then fire was ignited.Meenu (PW-11) and Pooja (PW-4) were present at that time but could not react and were taken aback.Pooja (PW4), when she had tried to intervene and help, had suffered minor burn injuries.The ocular versions given by Shanti Devi (PW-1), Meenu (PW-A. 220/2013 Page 12 of 1411) and Pooja (PW-4) clearly and categorically index and names the five appellants as perpetrators.Their versions are reliable and get duly corroborated and get support from the manner in which the offence was committed at the residence or house of Shanti Devi (PW-1).The occurrence was premeditated and carried out with precession and was certainly not an act of one or two persons.Kamla Devi and Shanti Devi (PW-1) hardly had any opportunity to fight or save themselves.They were simply over powered, by the perpetrators.However, in the immediate earlier portion, PW1 has stated that she had informed the doctors about the assailants and the case history, while accepting that she was not in proper senses in the SGM hospital.It is apparent that Shanti Devi (PW1) in her deposition recorded on 17th September, 2008 had tried to magnify and exaggerate as to her poor medical condition on account of burn injuries and thus the aforesaid difference or discrepancy has arisen.PW1 is categorical that she had informed the doctor about the assailants and the case history which implies that she was in her senses and in a position to speak and state facts.The MLC (Ex. PW8/B) of Shanti Devi (PW1) specifically records that she was fit for statement.Dr. Brijesh Singh (PW8) who had examined Shanti Crl.A. 220/2013 Page 13 of 14 Devi (PW1) at about 6.50 PM on 20th July, 2007 has deposed that she had 25% burns on right hand and right hand side of her face and left hand fore- arm and right side of back, but was fit for statement.In his cross- examination PW8 reiterated that the general condition of Shanti Devi (PW1) was conscious and she was oriented.The aforesaid statement of Dr. Brijesh Singh (PW8) should be accepted.A. 220/2013 Page 13 of 14The appellants have been convicted under Section 452 IPC for having committed house trespass after having made preparation for causing hurt or assaulting any person etc. Possibly, the appellants had committed a more severe offence under Section 449 IPC (see Matiullah Sheikh and Others versus State of West Bengal, (1964) 6 SCR 978).However, we refrain going into the said aspect as the appellants already stand sentenced to imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 IPC and the State has not raised the said plea or argument.We have also not issued notice.In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find that the appeal is sans merit and the trial court was correct in convicting the appellants under Section 302 IPC for having committed murder of Kamla Devi, under Section 307 IPC for attempt to murder Shanti Devi (PW1) and Section 452 IPC for having committed trespass in house number C-9/292 Sultan Puri, Delhi.The conviction and sentence of the appellants are upheld.The appeal is dismissed.(SANJIV KHANNA) JUDGE (ASHUTOSH KUMAR) JUDGE JULY 21, 2015/VKR Crl.A. 220/2013 Page 14 of 14A. 220/2013 Page 14 of 14
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
169,952,086 |
The applicant has prayed for bail in connection with Crime No.133 of 2018, registered in Police Station Beed City, Taluka and District Beed for the offences punishable under Sections 354-A and 354-D of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC", for short) and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act ("POCSO Act", for short) ::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2018 02:47:31 ::: 2 ba1056-18::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2018 02:47:31 :::The victim girl, aged about 17 years, alleged that on 30.05.2018 at about 3.00 p.m. to 4.00 p.m. when she was going to meet her maternal uncle from near the bed of Bindusara river, the applicant came from behind and asked her to sit on his motorcycle.When she refused to do so, the applicant got down from the motorcycle, pulled her hand and asked her to allow him to kiss her and have sexual intercourse.The victim girl raised shouts and therefore, the applicant fled away.While going away from that spot, he threatened her that if she did not withdraw the case that has been filed against him, he would make her obscene photographs public and defame her.He further threatened to kidnap the daughter of her maternal uncle.The victim girl lodged report about the incident on 25.06.2018The learned counsel for the applicant submits that a false case has been filed against the applicant with a view to harass him.He pointed out to the earlier F.I.R. dated 23.04.2018 filed by the victim girl against the applicant on the basis of which crime No.273 of 2018 has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354-A, 363, 366-A and 504 of the IPC and ::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2018 02:47:31 ::: 3 ba1056-18Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act. He has been granted pre-arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge considering the facts of that case.He submits that the victim girl filed an application for cancellation of pre-arrest bail on 12.06.2018 on the false grounds.Though the alleged incident is stated to have taken place on 30.05.2018, the F.I.R. has been lodged on 26.06.2018 without explaining delay.He, therefore, prays that the applicant may be granted the relief of bail.::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2018 02:47:31 :::The learned A.P.P., who is assisted by Mr.Sayyed Yaseen, the learned Advocate appearing for the informant, strongly opposed the application.She submits that the applicant is in the habit of torturing the victim girl.He repeatedly tried to outrage modesty of and have sexual intercourse with the victim girl.The applicant had threatened the maternal uncle of the victim girl.The learned A.P.P. submits that considering the repeated attempts made by the applicant to outrage modesty of the victim girl, he may not be granted the relief of bail.::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2018 02:47:31 :::Perused the contents of the F.I.R. The alleged incident took place on 30.05.2018 between 3.00 p.m. to 4.00 p.m. However, no report was lodged by the victim girl on that day against the applicant.It is on the next day of the incident that the letter was sent by the victim girl to the Superintendent of Police stating therein that the applicant tried to outrage her modesty on the previous day.There is no explanation as to why the victim girl did not approach the Police Station and lodge the F.I.R. immediately and why she took about 25 days for lodging the F.I.R. against the applicant.After completion of the investigation, chargesheet has been filed.In the circumstances, I think fit to extend the relief of bail to the applicant ::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2018 02:47:31 ::: 5 ba1056-18on certain conditions.::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2018 02:47:31 :::The observations made in this order, being prima facie in nature, would have limited effect for deciding the present application only and would not influence any other proceeding arising out of the present crime.In the result, I pass the following order :-(i) The application is allowed.(ii) The applicant shall be released on his executing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with a solvent surety in the like amount, on the following conditions:-(a) The applicant shall not pressurise the witnesses or tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner.(b) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity.::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2018 02:47:31 :::::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2018 02:47:31 :::
|
['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
169,955,695 |
The deceased in this case was one Mr.P.W.1 is his wife and P.W.3 is his son.P.W.2 is his brother-in-law.They were all residents ofThattanendhal Village.The accused also belong to the same family.Theywere neighbours of the deceased.Some time before the occurrence, it isalleged that the deceased had sold away his land to the first accused bymeans of a registered sale deed.But patta was not transferred in the nameof the first accused.The deceased was resisting the move for transfer ofpatta.This resulted in enmity between the two families.On 19.06.2009, at about 8.00 p.m., the deceased, P.W.1 and P.W.3 were sitting in their house.At that time, all these five accused came infront of their house.However, they were not armed with any weapon.In thecourse of the said transaction, it is alleged that the first accusedquestioned the deceased as to why he was resisting patta being transferred inhis name.He also abused him in filthy language.This resulted in aquarrel.In culmination of the said quarrel, it is alleged that the accused1 to 3 attacked the deceased on his head and chest with hands.The deceased fell down.P.Ws.1 and 3 intervened.They were attacked by the accused 2 to5 with hands.The deceased died instantaneously.P.Ws.1 and 3 with the helpof their neighbours took the deceased to a private hospital on the beliefthat the deceased was still alive.But the Doctor, on examination, declaredhim dead.Therefore, P.Ws.1 and 3 brought the dead body back to their house.Then, P.W.1 informed P.W.2, who had gone to Madurai, about the incident.P.W.2 reached to the village immediately.Thereafter, P.W.2 took P.Ws.1 and3 to the police station.P.W.1 appeared and presented Ex.P1 complaint.He registered a case on the said complaint inCrime No.282 of 2009 under Sections 147, 294(b), 323 and 302 IPC.P5 isthe FIR.Then he forwarded Exs.P1 and P5 to the Court and handed over thecase diary for investigation to the Inspector of Police.P.W.8 was the then Sub Inspector of Police attached toThiruppuvanam Police Station.He proceeded to the place of occurrence, prepared anobservation mahazar and a rough sketch in the presence of witnesses.Heexamined P.Ws.1 and 3 and few more witnesses and recorded their statements.Then, he forwarded P.Ws.1 and 3 to the hospital for treatment.He recovereda plastic chair from the place of occurrence (M.O.1).On the same day, at 7.15 a.m., he examined P.W.3 and found the following injuries:An abrasion measuring 2 x 2 cm on the face and a small contusion nearthe right arm pit.According to him, the injuries are simple in nature.On the same day, at10.00 a.m., he conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased.The appellants are the accused Nos.1 to 3 in SC No.189 of 2010 on thefile of the learned Sessions Judge, Sivaganga.There were as many as five charges framed by the trial Court.The first charge is against all the accused under Section148 IPC.The 2nd charge is against the first accused under Section 294(b)IPC.By judgment dated 21.08.2014, the trial Court convicted theaccused 1 to 3 under Sections 304(II) IPC and sentenced them to undergorigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month andconvicted the accused 2 to 5 under Section 323 IPC and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for twoweeks.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the accused 1 to 3 arebefore this Court with this appeal.On completing theinquest, he forwarded the dead body for postmortem.P.W.7 Doctor Chinna Elangovan examined P.W.1 on 20.06.2009 at 7.05 a.m., on examination, he found a contusion on the back of her neck.According to him, the injury is simplein nature and the same would have caused by attack with hands.He found thefollowing injuries:?External injury: 5 x 6 contusion (lt) side parietal region (lt) Palminjected injury Dressing Dore (I and D) Internal examination: fracture (Lt)7th 8th ribs. (Lt) side lung Hemorrhage, Rt side lung congested.Heartchamber 20 ml of blood collection found.Spleen-normal- congested.Stomachcontains 200-250 ml of undigested food present.Blood collection over theThorax present.(Lt) kidney Hemorrhage spot.(F) (Rt) kidney normalcongested.Intestine congested.Depressed fracture (Lt) side parietalRegion.Brain congested.(Lt) side hemorrhage spot (F) on the brain hyoidbone intact.?According to him, the death of the deceased was due to hemorrhagic shock.P8 is the postmortem certificate.Hearrested the 2nd accused on 09.08.2009 and third accused at 11.00 a.m. on thesame day.P.W.10 examined the Doctors, collected the records and filed final report against theaccused.Based on the above, the trial Court framed charges as detailed inthe first paragraph of the judgment.The accused denied the same.In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined as many as 10witnesses and exhibited 12 documents and one material object.Out of thesaid witnesses examined, P.Ws.1 and 3 are the injured eye witnesses to theoccurrence.P.W.4 is a neighbour, who also claims to be an eye witness andhe has also spoken about the entire occurrence.P.W.5 has spoken about the observation mahazar prepared and the recovery of the material object M.O.1.P.W.6 has spoken about the registration of the case and P.W.7 has spokenabout the treatment given for P.Ws.1 and 3 and the postmortem conducted by him.The others are the police officials, who have spoken about theinvestigation.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused underSection 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.However, they did notchoose to examine any witness on their side.Having considered all theabove, the trial Court found them guilty as detailed in the first paragraphof the judgment.That is how, they are before this Court with this appeal.I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor and I have also perused the records carefully.He would further submit that P.Ws.1, 3 and 4are all interested witnesses and therefore, their evidences should berejected for want of evidence from independent sources.He would furthersubmit that since the occurrence had taken place just in front of the houseof the deceased, where there are also other houses, independent witnesseswould have been present.The learned counsel would further submit thatassuming that the appellants had attacked the deceased, their overt act wouldnot make out any offence of culpable homicide as defined under Section 299IPC.The learned counsel would therefore, submit that at the most, theaccused may be convicted only for offence under Section 323 IPC.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would vehemently opposethis appeal.He would further submit that there is no evidence thatthere were independent witnesses present at the time.So far as theindividual overt acts are concerned, though there are some contradictions, aspointed out by the learned counsel, these contradictions would not go to theroot of the case, so as to make the Court to disbelieve the entire version ofthe prosecution case.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would,therefore, pray for the dismissal of the entire appeal.I have considered the above submissions.Their positive defence itself is that P.Ws.1,3and the deceased were present and these accused were also present at the place of occurrence at the crucial time.After the deceased was declareddead, he was brought back to his house.This would have been the naturalhuman conduct.One cannot expect P.W.1, who is an illiterate woman to immediately rush to the police station instead of taking the deceased to thehospital to save his life.After the body was brought back to her house,since it was night hours, it was quite natural that she would not havethought of rushing to the police station immediately.Quite naturally seekinghelp, she had informed her brother.That is how, P.W.2 had rushed to thevillage.It was only thereafter P.W.1 had gone to the police station andmade the complaint.Thus, as rightly contended by the learned AdditionalPublic Prosecutor, the delay has been duly explained away by the prosecutionand thus, the appellants have got no case on this score.Turning to the next submission of the learned counsel for theappellants that no independent witnesses was examined, a careful scrutiny ofthe entire records would go to show that it is not on record that independentwitness were present at the place of occurrence.There is enough evidence to prove that these accused were present and theyattacked the deceased.Fortunately, for the accused in this case, though there werecharges under sections 147 as well as 149 IPC, the trial Court found thatthere was no unlawful assembly with the common object of committing any crime.Accordingly, the trial Court has acquitted the accused from thecharges under Sections 147 and 149 IPC.Therefore, it is necessary for theprosecution to prove the individual overt acts of each accused.The hemorrhage was due to the injury to the lung, ribs and to the skull.The cumulative effect ofall these two injuries has resulted in the death.P.W.3 on thecontrary would say that A1 attacked first on the chest of the deceased withleg, then A2 pushed him and then A3 stamped him on his chest.Now, let us move on evidence of P.W.4. P.W.4, who claims to be aneye witness, would say that the first accused attacked the deceased on hischest with a chair.It isthe further evidence that the first accused then attacked the deceased withhands.He has not stated whether such attack was made either on the head oron the chest.He has also stated that the first accused stamped the deceasedon the chest.At the same time, the accused cannot be let off.Admittedly, theywere present and they attacked the deceased either with hands or with legs.The learned AdditionalPublic Prosecutor would however submit that they should be convicted undersection 325 IPC, because, injuries on the head as well as on the chest wereall grievous.In my considered view, this is not possible because there isno clear proof as to who caused these injuries.Since the appellants have already undergone the sentence, they need not becommitted to prison.Regarding the injuries caused on the witnesses by A2 and A3, theconviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court under Section 323 IPCdeserves to be confirmed as there is no ground to interfere with the same.In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed in thefollowing terms:(i) The conviction of the appellants under Section 304(II) IPC and thesentence imposed thereon are set aside and instead, they are convicted underSection 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for sixmonths.Since the accused have already undergone the said sentence, they need not be committed to prison.(ii) the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants 2 and 3under Section 323 IPC by the trial Court is confirmed.The Registry shall forward a copy of the operativeportion of the order forthwith to the Superintendent, Central Prison, Trichy,who shall forthwith set them free.1.The Sessions Judge, Sivaganga.2.The Inspector of Police, Thiruppuvanam Police Station, Sivagangai District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
169,958,086 |
In nutshell the prosecution story is that complainant-Liladhar is the brother of appellant No.2 Tulsiram.He had given certain amount of his land to appellant No.2 Tulsiram.There was an outstanding balance of Rs.800/-.On 7.6.1998 at about 10.30 pm, Tulsiram was standing in front of his house, the complainant- Liladhar went to the house of Tulsiram and demanded balance amount of Rs. 600/-.It is alleged that the appellant No.1-Chandan Singh came out from his home and assaulted the complainant- Liladhar by means of knife.(01/06/2017)This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 25.9.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khurai (Sagar), whereby the appellant No.1-Chandan Singh has been convicted for the offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced for 3 years RI with fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of fine, RI for one month and appellant No. 2-Tulsiram has been convicted under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to the period already undergone (i.e. 112 days) with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of fine further RI for 15 days.2 CRA 2599/2000When complainant-Liladhar raised alarm, his father Bhuganti also reached there and appellant No.2 Tulsiram went to his house and came back with lathi and assaulted Bhuganti on his nose causing simple injury.FIR was lodged and a Crime under Section 323/34 and 307/34 of IPC was registered at police Station, Bina.During the incident, the appellants sustained injuries, because they have been assaulted by the complainant party.The appellants have also lodged FIR against Leeladhar, Bhuganti and Shantibai for offence under Section 323/34 of IPC.The learned trial Court held Chandan Singh guilty of offence under Section 307 of IPC, hence he has been convicted under Section 307 and sentenced aforementioned.-Tulsiram has been convicted under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced as aforementioned.3 CRA 2599/2000Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the present appeal has been filed on the ground that the learned trial Court has erred in holding that the appellants guilty for the offences, whereas the appellants have been falsely implicated.The trial Court has not considered the fact that appellants assaulted Liladhar and Bhuganti only in their defence.The prosecution suppressed the injuries sustained by the appellants, which were caused in the same incident.It is the duty of the prosecution to explain how accused persons have suffered these injuries, which shows that Liladhar was the aggressor and he came and assaulted the appellants.The learned trial Court on the basis of testimony of interested witnesses, which were full of contradiction and omissions relied upon the prosecution story, convicted the appellants with excessive sentence.The appellants abjured their guilt.They took the plea that they were assaulted by the members of the complainant party in the incident.They tried to prove the FIR of the counter case and the medical reports, but no specific defence evidence was adduced.Hence, the appellants have prayed that they be acquitted from the charges.Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that he has not challenged the conviction and sentence of appellant No. 2 Tulsiram.He further submitted that offence is not made out under Section 307 of IPC.Case is made out under section 308 of IPC 4 CRA 2599/2000 against appellant No. 1 Chandan Singh because there was sudden quarrel between the parties.The appellants also got injuries.Both parties used sharp and cutting weapons and both parties are close relatives to each other.The incident occurred without any premeditation.They quarreled for a petty amount which was due for repayment.Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that a counter case has also been filed by the appellants against Liladhar, Bhuganti and Shantibai.The learned Panel Lawyer has vehemently opposed the contentions and submitted that the learned trial Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment after appreciating every evidence and the facts and circumstances of the case.Hence, he prayed that this appeal be dismissed.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.9. Learned counsel for the appellants has not denied the occurrence of incident, wherein Liladhar sustained injuries by appellant Chandan.He mainly argued for conversion of offence from Section 307 to Section 308 of IPC.Section 308 of IPC reads as under :-"308. Attempt to commit culpable homocide.- Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homcide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may 5 CRA 2599/2000 extend to three years, or with fine, or with both; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a terms which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both."He drew the attention of the Court to the illustration, where A, on grave and sudden provocation, fires a pistol at Z, under such circumstances that if he thereby caused death he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.A has committed the offence defined in this section.It is not in dispute that the appellant No.1 Chandan Singh is real nephew of injured Liladhar and grand son of injured-Bhuganti.The appellant-Tulsiram is the real younger brother of injured Liladhar and son of injured Bhuganti.In para 1 of the testimony of Liladhar (PW1), it is apparently clear that firstly Liladhar came to his brother-Tulsiram's home and at that time Tulsiram was standing at the door without any arm.Liladhar demanded Rs.800/- from Tulsiram and thereafter appellant No.1 Chandan Singh came out from his house with knife and gave three blows; two at the chest and one at stomach.As per the opinion of Dr.P.K. Jain (PW8) he examined the injured on the date of incident and found (1) incised penetrating wound over left side of abdomen 2x1/2cm;(2) incised wound over left side of the chest about 2x1/2cm deep;6 CRA 2599/2000 (3) incised penetrating wound in right side of chest 2x1/2cm;(4) abrasions over the right side of chest and (5) multiple abrasions at left forearm.The aforesaid incised wounds were caused by hard and sharp object and abrasions were caused by hard and blunt object.Dr. P.K. Jain (PW8) has also scribed the dying declaration of injured Liladhar on the same day i.e. on 07.06.1998 at about 11.45 PM.Liladhar has stated that he was assaulted by his brother Tulsiram and his nephew Chandan Singh by means of knife.As per the statements of Liladhar (PW1) and Dr. P.K. Jain (PW8), it is clearly proved that such type of injuries were caused by appellant No.1 Chandan Singh to Liladhar by knife.In para-7 of the cross-examination of Dr.P.K. Jain (PW8), has also stated that at the time of examination of injured Liladhar, he found the general condition of the injured was not severe and no symptom was shown that the aforesaid injuries were sufficient to cause death nor he has stated that the injuries were fatal and dangerous to life.At the time of aforesaid medical examination Liladhar was conscious.Learned counsel for the appellant has referred Section 300 Exception 4 of IPC, which prescribes that culpable homicide is not murder, if it is committed without premeditation, in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.He relied upon the case of Posuram Deshmukh 7 CRA 2599/2000 Vs.State of Chhattisgarh [AIR 2009 SC 2482] and drew the attention of this Court in para-7, which reads as under :-"7. .............................. A `sudden fight' implies mutual provocation and blows on each side.In para 5 of the cross-examination of Liladhar (PW1), he has stated that while returning home from Bina, he met with Tulsiram at the door of his house.When he asked for payment of outstanding sum of Rs.800/-, appellant No.2 Tulsiram and appellant No. 1 Chandan Singh without any conversation suddenly assaulted him.In para-9 he has admitted that a counter case is pending on the report of appellants.Similarly his wife Shantibai (PW2) has supported version of Liladhar.Bhuganti (PW4) father of complainant-Liladhar and grand-father of Chandan Singh also confirmed that the incident occurred due to the demand of Rs.800/-.In sudden quarrel appellant Chandan Singh inflicted thrice by knife on the vital body part of Liladhar.8 CRA 2599/2000Evidence of witness showed that the complainant was an aggressor as he had proved the same.Appellant No. 1 Chandan Singh inflicting injury to Liladhar on his chest and abdomen.Since there was an attempt to commit culpable homicide by the said appellant.As it has already been said the intention or knowledge has to be ascertained from the nature of injury that is caused and when the doctor has clearly stated that the injury was not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death and if death cannot be caused by such an injury, there is no question of accused being liable under Section 307 of IPC.Taking into account the back ground in which the incident took place, the type of knife which was used, the accused had the intention of causing death or he had an intention of causing such injury which is sufficient in the ordinary course or nature to cause death, though in the circumstances, all that can be said is that when the appellant No. 2 Chandan inflicted the injury on the person of victim with the said knife, he must have the knowledge that the said injury was likely to cause death and therefore, his offence can fall under Section 308 of IPC and not under Section 307 of IPC.Hence, this appeal is partly allowed.Accordingly, appellant No.1 Chandan is acquitted from the offence under Section 307 of IPC.He is convicted for offence under Section 308 of IPC and sentenced for 2 years RI along with fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of fine, he shall further undergo sentence for six months.As appellant No. 1 Chandan Singh was in custody for 112 days, therefore, the same shall be adjusted against the two years sentence as imposed under Section 308 of IPC and he will be liable to undergo only the remaining part of sentence.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 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.
|
170,814,020 |
(i)Both P.W.1 Devakumar and P.W.2 Murugavel are brothers and running anIdly shop near Nallathambi hospital at Alagesapuram main road.They know theaccused persons.P.W.3 Rajaram is an Auto driver.While, on 02.04.2004Friday at 10.00 p.m. P.W.3 parked his auto bearing registration No.TN 69 F0229 in front of the tea shop of A2 which was situated in the opposite ofIdly shop of A1 and returning from his house, both the accused entered intothe Auto as shouted ?whose auto is this?.On seeing this, P.W.3 came thereand asked them as to who they were and a quarrel has been started betweenthem.On seeing the same, P.Ws.1 and 2 came out of their shops and askedthem as to why they were shouting and at that time, A1 took the knife fromhis hip and tried to attack P.W.1 on his chest by saying ?eP ahh; jhnahHp> ePcapnuhoUf;ff; TlhJ? and ?,j;njhL bjhiye;J ngh? and since P.W.1 move aside,the attack was inflicted on his right rib and caused blood injury and onseeing the same, the adjacent shop owners viz., Raja, Manikandan and Kutty @Balakrishnan were scolded them.At that time, A2 throw the bomb towardsP.W.1 and since he made bend it was fallen on the ground and bursted.Eventhough all were panic, they tried to catch them, the accused criminallyintimidated them by saying ?ahuhtJ fpl;l te;jhy; ,d;bdhU jlit btoFz;iltPrptpLnthk;? and ran away from the scene of occurrence.(ii)On 02.04.2004, at about 10.30 p.m., P.W.9 Dr.Alexander, treatedP.W.1, who was brought by his friend Rajaram and issued Ex.P10, A.R.Copy andat 11.20 p.m., on his own wish, he gone to private hospital.On 02.04.2004at 11.50 p.m., P.W.7 Dr.Thangamani, who was working in A.V.M.Hospital, hastreated P.W.1 and took C.T.Scan and he issued Ex.P8 wound certificate andopined that the injury is grievous in nature.(iii)P.W.10, Ganesh Kumar, Sub Inspector of Police, Tuticorin NorthPolice Station received an intimation from the Government Hoispital andrushed there and recorded the statement of P.W.1, who was taking treatmentthere and obtained a signature from P.W.12 and recovered M.O.2 bloodstainedshirt and M.O.3 bloodstained white dhoti, which was produced by P.W.1 in thepresence of P.W.5 Thangapandi under Ex.P5 seizure mahazer.(iv)P.W.11, Ramarajan, Inspector of Police took up the investigationand gone to the place of occurrence on 03.04.2004 at 4.15 a.m. And preparedM.O.3 observation , M.O.12, rough sketch in the presence of P.W.4 Murugan andrecovered M.O.4 threads, M.O.5, burnt cloth with sulfur smell, M.O.6 burntnails, M.O.7 glass pieces and M.O.8, pebbles under Ex.appeals Common Prayer: Criminal appeal filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C., to set asidethe judgment of conviction and sentence dated 09.07.2007 made in S.C.No.259of 2006 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge cum FastTrack Court No.II, Thoothukudi.The Criminal Appeals are directed against the judgment of convictionand sentence dated 09.07.2007 made in S.C.No.259 of 2006 on the file of theAdditional District and Sessions Judge cum Fast Track Court No.II,Thoothukudi, wherein, the appellants/A1 and A2 were convicted and sentencedas follows:Name of AccusedChargesFindingSentenceA1.VijicoSecs.307 and 506(ii) of I.P.C.Found guilty underSecs.307 and 506(ii) of I.P.C.307 : 7 years R.I. and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default six months S.I.506(ii): 3 years R.I. and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default six months S.I.A2.PonrajSecs.3 and 4 of Explosives Substance Act and Section 307 read with 34 ofI.P.C. and 506(ii)Found guilty underSec.3 of Explosive Substance Act and Section 506(ii) of I.P.C.3 of E.S.Act :7 years R.I. and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default six months S.I.506(ii): 3 years R.I. and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default six months S.I.2.The case of prosecution briefly is as follows:Thereafter, hecame to the police station and registered a case in crime No.162 of 2004 forthe offence under Section 307 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. and Section 3 and 4 ofExplosives Substance Act and prepared Ex.P11, First Information Report anddespatched he same to the Court and the Inspector of Police.P4 seizure mahazer.Thereafter, on 03.04.2004, he arrested the accused and recorded Ex.P.6,voluntary confession statement of A1, on the basis of which, he recoveredM.O.1 knife under Ex.P7 seizure mahazer.He gave a requisition Ex.P13, tosend M.Os.4 to 8 for chemical examination and as per Ex.P14, court letter thesame were sent for chemical examination and he received Ex.P 15 chemicalreport.On 10.10.2004, he sent the file to the District Collector forobtaining permission prosecute the accused for the offence under ExplosivesSubstance Act and the District Collector issued Ex.P9, permission toprosecute the accused under Explosives Act and after due completion ofinvestigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.3 .The learned trial Judge, after following the procedures, framednecessary charges against the accused.Since the accused pleaded notguilty, to prove the charges, P.Ws.1 to 11 were examined and Exs.P1 to P15and M.Os.1 to 8 were marked.Accused were questioned under Section 313Cr.P.C. about the incriminating evidence and circumstances.Accused deniedthe same in toto and stated that a false case has been foisted against them.No defence witness was examined on the side of the accused.He would further submit that the District Collector,who sanctioned permission to prosecute the accused for the offence underExplosives Act was not examined and the recovery of M.O. Knife was not provedby the independent witnesses.Hence, he prayed for setting aside theconviction and sentence.But, here P.W.8Krishnan, who was working as C4 clerk in the Collectorate, has been examinedand through him, Ex.14.Furthermore, in the A.R.Copy, it was specifically mentioned thatP.W.1 was brought by P.W.3 Rajaram and he was seen at 10.20 p.m. and it wasalleged that P.W.1 was attacked by knife by two unknown persons at 10.00 p.m.at opposite to Nallathambi hospital and he sustained by one stab injury.Admittedly, in the chief examination, P.W.1 has stated that he know theaccused persons, since they are residing in S.S.Pillai Street and Ponnagaramand they used to come to his shop, whereas, in the hospital, when he wasexamined by doctor, he has stated that he was assaulted by two unknownpersons.Furthermore, it is appropriate to consider the evidence of P.W.9,Dr.Alexander.In his cross examination, he has admitted that there arecorrections in A.R.Copy and hence, I am of the view that there arecontradictions between the medical evidence and ocular evidence.15.Moreover, perusal evidence of P.W.10 Ganeshkumar, Sub Inspector ofPolice would show that he has gone to the Government Hospital and recordedthe statement.But, in column No.14 of Ex.It is truethe defective investigation will be a reason for acquittal of the accused.But, here, P.Ws.1 and 3, who are alleged to be eye witnesses have given onestatement at the time of chief examination and have given another statementat the time of cross examination.In his cross examination, P.W.3 has fairlyconceded that since the matter was compromised between themselves, he hasgiven contra evidence.In such circumstances, I am of the view that it isnot safe to convict the accused on the basis of partly reliable evidence ofP.W.1, which was not corroborated by other witnesses.16.In respect of A2 is concerned, it was alleged that he has possessedcountry made bomb and thrown the same on the floor and it was exploded.Asper the evidence of P.W.4 Murugan, attestor, Ex.P3 observation mahazer hasbeen prepared and materials objects have been seized.P.W.5 Thangapandi, inhis evidence has stated that M.Os.2 and 3 have been seized in his presence.Even though material objects have been seized from the place of occurrenceand the same had been sent for chemical analysis, report of the chemicalanalysis would show that the constituents detected in the material objectsare the explosion residues of improvised explosive device (country bomb) andit is a low explosive and the country bomb when exploded may endanger humanlife.But, to prove the same, no one was examined viz., the author ofEx.P15, chemical analysis report.In such circumstances, even though theevidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 have been proved that M.Os.2 and 3 have been seizedin their presence, since no one was examined to prove Ex.P15, I am of theview that the prosecution has not proved that the material objects seizedfrom the scene of occurrence only was used by A2 and since other witnesseswere available, they were not examined and the prosecution has no proved theguilt of the appellants/accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the trialCourt has not considered the factum and convicted the accused and hence, thebenefit of doubt shall be given in favour of A1 and A2 and they are liable tobe acquitted.17.In fine,The Criminal Appeals are allowed.Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 09.07.2007 passed in S.C.No.259 of2006 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Fast TrackCourt No.II, Thoothukudi.The bail bonds, if any executed by the appellants, shall stand cancelled.25.11.2014Index : Yes/No website: Yes/NoArulTo1.The Inspector of Police, North Police Station, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.2.The Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Fast Track Court No.II, Thoothukudi.3.The Additional Public prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
170,822,390 |
Through: Mr. Lovkesh Sawhney, APP.Both the cases have been heard together and a common order is being passed.Nos.592/2013 & 596/2013 Page 1 of 82. Heard the counsels for the parties in both the cases.The petitioners in both the petitions have put a challenge to the order dated 3.5.2013 passed by ASJ-02, North District, Rohini Courts in Sessions Case No.89/2011 in connection with FIR No.242/2011 (P.S.Crime Branch) whereby the prayer for discharge of the offences under Sections 447/120B and 34 of the IPC read with Section 3(1)(v) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been refused.The prosecution case as projected by the petitioners is that during the floods of 1961-62 the lands in village Mohammadpur were washed away.The villagers left the village for settling at safer places and the village land remained vacant.In 1977 the village was again ravished by floods in Yamuna.Later with the flood water receding, the land was reclaimed.A resolution was passed in 1977 under the Chairmanship of Gram Pradhan distributing the land of the village amongst landless people belonging to Scheduled Castes and other landless residents.The aforesaid resolution was passed under 20 point programme.The complainants came in possession of the land in question which was allotted under the aforementioned scheme.Another resolution came into effect on 14.11.2010 wherein the Lal Dora land which was washed away in floods and later reclaimed was decided to be divided and allotted amongst villagers equally as the land belonging to village Mohammadpur.Nos.592/2013 & 596/2013 Page 2 of 8The dispute began from this time when it was alleged that the accused persons, in order to benefit themselves trespassed the land which was allotted to the complainants and started leveling the land by means of tractors and JCB.Police was called to forestall the possibility of bloodshed.The IO found that the saplings were uprooted.It was alleged that accused persons namely Kanwal Singh, Raj Singh and Leela (Petitioners in Criminal Revision Petition No.596/2013) abused the victims by taking their caste name Balmiki.On completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted whereupon cognizance was taken.On point of charge, the petitioners submitted that they have been falsely implicated and no caste remark was made against the complainants of the case.Nos.592/2013 & 596/2013 Page 3 of 8 tried to disparage their dignity by abusing the complainants by their caste name.Nos.592/2013 & 596/2013 Page 3 of 8As referred to earlier by order dated 3.5.2013, the prayer for discharge was refused and charges were framed under various sections of IPC referred to above and under Section 3(1)(v) of the Act read with Section 120B of the IPC.Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that from November, 2010 to September, 2011 proceedings were pending with respect to the said lands before Superior Courts.The property in question was Lal Dora property and, therefore, it could not have been used for any other purpose except residence.It was further submitted that the present case is only a ploy to blackmail and pressurize the petitioners so that they relinquish their claim over the land.However, the offences under the Act are to be investigated by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (refer to Rule 7 of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules).There is no submission as to which officer conducted the investigation qua the allegations under the aforesaid Act. The investigation by an officer of a special rank is specifically limited to the offences relatable to the Act. In the present case, the petitioners have Crl.The petitioners, if so advised can raise all the grounds available to them, in trial, especially whether investigation with respect to the Section 3(1)(v) of the Act was undertaken in the manner provided under Rule 7 of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules.The petitions are dismissed.M.A.15969-70/2013 & Crl.M.A. 15992-93/2013In view of the main petitions having been dismissed, these applications have become infructuous.Nos.592/2013 & 596/2013 Page 7 of 8These applications are disposed of accordingly.ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J July 16, 2015 k Crl.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,708,255 |
The complaint before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate(E.O.2), Egmore, Chennai was preferred by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chennai against the accused for an offence punishable under Sections 9(1)(a)(i), 9(1)(b)(i) and 9(1)(b)(b)(i) (four counts)of Central Excise and Salt Act 1944 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for the violation of payment of excise duty to the goods manufactured and fabricated by the accused.Admittedly, the first accused is engaged in the fabrication of steel structural for BHEL, Trichy, Ashok Leyland, Welmen Incondacent India Limited, South India Carbonic Gas India Limited, S.F.India Limited, Industrial Engineerings India Private Limited alias Foundary Limited, Hack Prestige Heavich Easan Limited.The second accused is the Managing Partner of the first accused.On the basis of the authorisation issued by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise Department Preventive Unit conducted a raid on 6.9.1982 in the premises of the first accused and the Officers of the Central Excise conducted a random check up of the accounts maintained by the accused firm for the year 1979 and it was brought to the light that the value of the clearance of goods for the year 1979 had exceeded the prescribed exemption limit of Rs.30 lakhs.According to the accused, the defence taken before the trial Court was that they were manufacturing the steel structural fabrications either out of the raw materials supplied by others or out of their own raw materials.According to the complainant, the first accused manufacturer had cleared the goods without obtaining Central Excise Licence and without payment of duty.In C.C.1680 of 1989, P.Ws 1 and 2 were examined .Exs P1 to P13 were marked.In C.C.No.1681 of 1989 P.Ws 1 and 2 were examined and Exs P1 to P20 were exhibited.In C.C.No.1682 of 1989 Pws 1 and 2 were examined.Exs P1 to P20 were marked.In C.C.No.1683 of 1989, P.Ws 1 and 2 were examined.Exs P1 to P12 were marked.4 In C.C.No.1680 of 1989, P.W.1 Romand, the then Superintendent of Central Excise Department(Preventive Unit) would depose that as per Ex P6, the accused have produced manufactured goods to the value of Rs.29,38,360.48ps for the year 1979-80 and as per the accounts under Exs P8,9 and 10, the accused ought to have paid Central Excise Duty to the tune of Rs.57,534.42ps for the value of the goods Rs.29,38,360/48ps manufactured by them and for the period from 8.1.1980 to 31.3.1980, the value of the goods manufactured by the accused comes to Rs.5,48,891/04 and after considering the representation made by the accused, the excise tax to be paid by the accused was fixed as Rs.13,180/01ps, but the accused without paying the above said central excise duty , they marketed the goods manufactured by them.P.W.2, Thiru C.Hari Rao, the then Superintendent of the Central Excise Department during the relevant period would depose that he had issued a show cause notice dated 1.1.1985 to the accused under the Original of ExP11.Ex P12 is the order of the departmental enquiry held by the Collector of Central Excise Department Thiru K.J.Raman.As per the said order of the Collector of Central Excise , the accused have been levied a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- under Section 173(q) of the Act and that evasion of tax by the accused for the year 1979-83 comes to Rs.4.97,222/24ps.In C.C.No.1681 of 1989, P.W.1 is Mr.Ex P16 is the order of the Collector of Central Excise Department dated 24.10.1985 wherein he has levied Rs.1,00,000/- towards Central Excise duty for the evasion of tax to the tune of Rs.4,97,222/24ps.6.In C.C.No.1682 of 1989, P.W.1 Thiru A.Romond, the Superintendent of Central Excise Department (Preventive Unit)who had conducted a search on 6.9.1982 at 11.00.a.m., in the premises of the first accused along with his colleagues and in the said raid, it was brought to light that the accused have manufactured steel goods to the value of more than Rs.30 lakhs for the year 1980-81 which comes under Tariff 68 .The accused have manufactured the goods from out of the raw materials supplied by the various companies like BHEL, Trichy, Ashok Leyland, Welmen Incondacent India Limited, South India Carbonic Gas India Limited, S.F.India Limited, Industrial Engineerings India Private Limited alias Foundary Limited, Hack Prestige Heavich Easan Limited.As per ExP6 and Ex P7 bills, the accused have manufactured goods worth of Rs.40,26,754/28 and marketed the same and that they are liable to pay the Central Excise duty to the tune of Rs.3,22,140/34 ps.P.W.2 , Mr.In C.C.No.1683 of 1989, P.W1 Thiru A.Romond, the Superintendent of Central Excise Department(Preventive Unit) would depose that the accused have manufactured steel goods to the value of more than Rs.30 lakhs and from the records seized under Exs P2 to P5, it came to light that the accused have manufactured the goods with the help of raw materials supplied by BHEL, Trichy, Ashok Leyland, Welmen Incondacent India Limited, South India Carbonic Gas India Limited, S.F.India Limited, Industrial Engineerings India Private Limited alias Foundary Limited, Hack Prestige Heavich Easan Limited.The Principal Sessions Judge, ChennaiA.No.475/1997 The short facts of the case relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as follows:i) P.W.1 was residing at Kolathupalayam Village, wherein he had landed properties.On 8.3.2000 he went to cut leaves in his land and on his way to his land he saw the deceased.After cutting the leaves, P.W.1 returned from his land with leaves and saw the deceased proceeding in his cycle.when the deceased reached the main road from canal, P.W.1 was nearing the bridge.At the time the deceased was crossing A1's rice mill, A1 to A3 and one Palanisamy Gounder and Ramalingam were standing there.A1 was armed with knife and others were armed with stick.The accused intercepted the deceased and caught hold of him and from road dragged him into the rice mill.Palanisamy attacked the deceased on the fore head of the deceased with stick.Ramalingam beat on the chest of the deceased with stick.When deceased tried to escape from there, Palanisamy again best the deceased.But, that attack fell on A2 and A2 fell down.A2 beat the deceased.At that time, P.W.1 raised alarm.A1 cut the deceased and deceased fell down.Palanisamy Gounder and Ramalingam kicked the deceased on his flank.Then the accused ran away towards western side.ii) On hearing P.W.1's hue and cry, P.W.2 and P.W.3 came to the scene of occurrence.P.W.3 informed about the occurrence to P.W.4, who is the brother of the deceased.P.W.4 came to the scene of occurrence.P.W.5 arranged a car and took the injured to the hospital for giving treatment.At 2.30 p.m. injured/Sathasivam without responding to the treatment died in C.K.Hospital. P.W.1 went to the Kodumudi Police Station and gave a written complaint-Ex.P.W.5 is the driver, who took the deceased to C.K.Hospital at Erode.iii) P.W.13 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who had registered a case in Cr.No.77/2000 under Section 341, 342 and 302 IPC on 8.3.2000 at 6.00 p.m. on the basis of the complaint-Ex.On 9.3.2000 at 1.00 am, P.W.13 went to the Erode Government Hospital and recorded the statement of A3 and based on the statement of P.W.13 registered a case in Cr.No.78/2000 under Section 341, 324 IPC and that report is Ex.The First Information Report is Ex.iv) P.W.15, the Inspector of Police, Malayapalayam incharge of Kadumudi Police Station, on receipt of the First Information Report, went to C.K.Hospital and conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of panchyatars.P.27 is the inquest report.Vijayakumar had sent the death intimation to Kodumudi Police Station.P.W.11 is the Doctor, who had conducted postmortem over the corpse of Sathasivam on 9.3.2000 at 8.20 am and issued Ex.P.22-Postmortem certificate.The Doctor has opined that the cause of death is due to head injury and other injuries.P.W.15 went to the scene of occurrence and prepared the observation mahazar and drew rough sketch-Ex.A1 surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate on 20.3.2000 and P.W.16 took the custody of A1 and recorded his confession.On the basis of the confession statement of A1, P.W.16 recovered M.O.3-blood stained aruval under Ex.After observing the other formalities, P.W.16 had completed his investigation and filed final report.P.W.16 closed the First Information Report in Cr.No.78/2000 (complaint preferred by A3) as mistake of fact.On 6.11.2000 P.W.16 received a letter from Joint Secretary(Home) to conduct further investigation.P.W.17 took up further investigation and after completing the investigation filed charge sheet against the accused 1 to 3 under Sections 341 and 302 r/w 34 IPC.vi) The case was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi in PRC.No.7/2000 and on appearance of the accused copies under Section 207 of Cr.When questioned the accused denied their complicity in the crime.On the side of the prosecution P.W.1 to 17 were examined, Ex.P.1 to 31 and M.O.1 to 13 were marked and on the side of the accused D.W.1 was examined and Ex.D.1 to 6 were marked.4.The point:- Originally there were five accused viz., 1.Sengottaiyan, 2.Palanisamy, 3.Ramalingam, 4.Muthayee Ammal and 5.Kolandaisamy Gounder, cited in the First Information Report as well as in the charge sheet filed under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. A2's son-in-law viz. Kathirvellu had presented a petition dated 13.3.2000 to the Secretary to the Home Department, Tamil Nadu stating that the accused Palanisamy Gounder and the accused Ramalingam were innocents and they were not present at the time of occurrence and an enquiry was conducted by the CB-CID Police, Coimbatore and the report of the DSP was accepted by the Additional Director General of Police(Crime), CB-CID.According to the said report, the accused Palanisamy and the accused Ramalingam were not present at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence.Further the occurrence had taken place at 11.00 am on 8.3.2000, but P.W.1 has preferred Ex.P.1-complaint only at 6.00 p.m. After having deliberations with P.W.4 and that other advocates.The preponderance of possibilities seems to indicate that not only Palanisamy and Ramalingam were falsely implicated in this case earlier, but also the present accused 1 to 3 have been falsely implicated.There is no overtact attributed against A3, whereas the overtact attributed against A2 is that she had assaulted the deceased-Sathasivam with a wooden stick on the hands. P.W.3 in his evidence has stated that A2 had assaulted with a wooden stick on the left hand of Sathasivam.Bail bonds stand cancelled.1.The Addl.A.Romond, the Superintendent of Central Excise Department(Preventive Unit) .Ex P3 is the statement of A2 and as per the bills Exs P6 and P7 produced by the accused, the value of the goods manufactured by the accused for the year 1980-81 comes to Rs.36,99,661/62ps and that they are liable to pay the Central Excise duty to the tune of Rs.55,972/93ps.The Collector of Central Excise, after considering the representation made by the accused, had levied only Rs.22,722/97ps towards Central Excise duty.As per Ex P6,P8 and P9 for the year 1982-83, the accused have manufactured the goods to the value of Rs.17,39,736/49ps.But they have evaded the central excise duty of Rs.1,39,178/92ps and the Collector of Central Excise Department has also levied a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- to the accused for the violation of Section 9(2) r/w 10 & 7A of the Act.On the above evidences, when incriminating circumstances under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were put to the accused, they would deny their complicity with the crime.The learned trial Judge, after going through the evidence both oral and documentary let in before him, has come to a conclusion that the guilt against the accused has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted the accused under Central Excise Rules 174 r/w Section 9(1)(a)(2) and also under Section 9(1) r/w 9(1)(b)(2)of the Act and under Rule 173-F r/w Section 9(1)(b)(ii) and Rule 173-B r/w Section 9(1)(bb)(ii), Rule 173 C r/w Section 9(1)(bb)(ii),Rule 173-G r/w Section 9(1)(bb)(ii) and sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and also slapped a fine of Rs.500/- under each count with default sentence in all the above said Calendar cases.The learned first appellate Judge, after meticulously scanning the evidence let in before the trial Court and also after due deliberation to the arguments advanced by the learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the appellants has held that there was no evidence let in by the prosecution to show that the goods manufactured by the accused exceeded the limit prescribed under the Act and that the trial Court without giving due consideration for the Notification Nos.118/75 issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government in the Ministry of Finance(DR &T) which has exempted goods falling under Item No.68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act 1944(1 of 1944) and also the Notification No.119/75 dated 30.4.1975 issued by the Central Government in the Ministry of Finance wherein as per rule 8(1) of the Central Excises Rules,1944,the Central Govoernment hereby exempted the goods falling under Item No.68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944(1 of 1944), manufactured in a factory as a job work from levy of excise duty and has held that the accused were not liable under the charge levelled against them and accordingly acquitted both the accused thereby allowing the appeal and setting aside the findings of the learned trial Judge.Aggrieved by the findings of the learned Principal Sessions Judge in C.A.Nos.20 to 23 of 1992, the Central Excise Department/complainant has preferred this appeal.10.Now the point for consideration in this appeal is whether the findings of the learned Principal Sessions Judge in C.A.Nos.20 to 23 of 1992 is liable to be set aside for the reasons stated in the memorandum of appeal?The Point:Even according to the evidence of P.W.1, the raw materials for the manufacture and fabrication of steel goods to the accused were supplied by various companies like BHEL, Trichy, Ashok Leyland, Welmen Incondacent India Limited, South India Carbonic Gas India Limited, S.F.India Limited, Industrial Engineerings India Private Limited alias Foundary Limited, Hack Prestige Heavich Easan Limited.The learned first appellate Judge has allowed the appeal only on the ground that as per Notification No.119/75 -CE, dated 30.4.1975 issued by the Central Excise, Ministry of Finance, the accused are liable to be exempted from the Central Excise duty.The learned Special Public Prosecutor for Central Excise cases would contend before this Court that Notification No 119/75 came into force only in the year 1985 and hence the accused are not entitled to take shelter under the benefits conferred in the above notification.This contention of the learned Special Public Prosecutor cannot be upheld because absolutely there is no pleadings in the grounds of appeal to the effect that the Notification No.119/75 dated 30.4.1975 came into force only in the year 1985 and that the benefits conferred under the above said notification cannot be extended or availed by the accused.It is pertinent to note here that even before the learned Sessions Judge, Chennai in the first appeal, the said defence was not taken by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, who had argued the appeal.If the Notification 119/75 dated 30.4.1975 would apply to the accused then the entire charge levelled against them will go, as correctly held by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai.It is pertinent to note that the accused had already undergone the imprisonment till rising of the Court as ordered by the learned trial Judge.Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the well considered order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge in C.A.Nos.20 to 23 of 1992 which is neither illegal nor infirm.Point is answered accordingly.In the result, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed confirming the judgment dated 25.9.1996 passed in C.A.Nos 20 to 23 of 1992 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge,Madras.The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.2, Egmore, Chennai3. -do- the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore,Chennai4.The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise,Preventive Unit,Chennai-33The Special Public Prosecutor for Central Excise Cases, Madras.Vii) When incriminating circumstances were put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, they pleaded innocence.On the basis of the available evidence both oral and documentary, the learned Additional Session Judge(FCT.I), Erode has come to a conclusion that A1 to A3 are liable to be convicted under Section 341 and 302 r/w 34 IPC and conbsequently convicted and sentenced them to undergo one month simple imprisonment under Section 341 IPC each and sentenced under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC to undergo life imprisonment each of the accused.Aggrieved by the findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge,(FTC.I), Erode, the accused have preferred this Appeal.The Inspector of Police, Kodumudi Police Station filed M.P.1439/2000 before the Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C for permitting to conduct further investigation in Cr.No.77/2000 (complaint preferred by P.W.1) on the file of Kodumudi Police Station and the said petition was allowed and on that basis, P.W.16 has conducted further investigation and filed fresh charge sheet-Ex.P.30 only against A1-Sengottaiyan, A2-Muthayee Ammal and A3-Kolandaisamy Gounder.The charge sheet was dropped against the accused Palanisamy and Ramalingam on the ground that they were not present at the time and place of occurrence.Ex.P.29, petition of the Inspector of Police under Section 173(8), contains the report of the Additional Director of CB-CID, as per the report of the Additional Director of CB-CID, on the date of occurrence i.e., on 8.3.2000, A3-Kolandaisamy Gounder and his wife Muthayee Ammal(A2) and their son Sengottaiyan(A1) were drying the turmeric in the disputed place without heeding to the words of the deceased-Sathasivam and since the deceased-Sathasivam had objected the accused, for drying turmeric in the disputed place, all the three accused had attacked him, which resulted in the death of Sathasivam in the hospital and the complaint was preferred by the brother of the deceased-Sathasivam after consulting the advocates and after implicating Palanisamy Gounder and his son Ramalingam as accused, the murder case was registered against the above said five accused.It has been further stated in the report that on investigation it was brought to light that on the date of occurrence at the time of occurrence the accused Palanisamy and his son Ramalingam were not present at the scene of occurrence, but they were working in the turmeric field some four kilometers away from the place of occurrence and they retuned only at 6.30 p.m. on the date of occurrence to their house.The above said report was also filed along with Ex.P.29 by P.W.16, which cuts at the root of the prosecution case for the following reasons:i) According to P.W.1 to 3 the place of occurrence is the rice mill belonging to A1 and at the time of occurrence A1 had assaulted the deceased-Sathasivam with knife and the accused Palanisamy and accused Ramalingam (Who have been dropped subsequently in the re-investigation from the charge sheet) also attacked the deceased-Sathasivam with wooden stick on the head and chest of the deceased respectively and A2 had assaulted Sathasivam with a wooden stick and Palanisamy and Ramalingam kicked Sathasivam on the flanks.According to P.W.1 the accused had way laid Sathasivam and dragged him into the rice mill belonging to A1 and assaulted him.P.W.2 and 3 have also deposed to the fact that all the accused along with the accused Palanisamy and the accused Ramalingam assaulted the deceased-Sathasivam. P.W.3 has also corroborated that A1 to A3 along with Palanisamy and Ramalingam have assaulted the deceased-Sathasivam.According to P.W.3, the motive for the occurrence was that there was some enmity prevailing between Palanisamy and Ramalingam on one hand and the accused on the other in respect of a ditch and the motive for the occurrence against A2 & A3 and the deceased-Sathasivam was in respect of 5 cents of lands.In the cross-examination, P.W.3 would depose that about 25 cents of land belong to one Kolandaivel Samboornam, who had appointed the deceased-Sathasivam as his power of agent, already had executed the entire 25 cents in favour of A3, but P.W.3 has purchased 5 cents in the same survey number in the above said 25 cents of land from the power of attorney agent deceased-Sathasivam and there was a civil dispute pending before the civil court at Kodumudi.P.2-sale deed will go to show that the deceased-Sathasivam had executed the sale deed as a power of attorney for Sambooranam in favour of P.W.3-Palanisamy, in respect of 5 cents in survey No.542/16 of Kulathupalayam village.According to P.W.1, the entire 25 cents in the said survey number property was purchased by A1 and had constructed a rice mill thereon, but through the deceased-Sathasivam as power of attorney for Sambooranam, another sale deed in favour of P.W.3 was executed for 5 cents.As per Ex.P.29, as per the investigation of CB-CID both the erstwhile accused Palanisamy and Ramalingam were not present at the place of occurrence, that is why, they have been dropped in the charge sheet filed after reinvestigation under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. On the other hand, P.W.1 to 3, the eye witnesses, would depose that the said Palanisamy and Ramalingam also assaulted the deceased/Sathasivam at the place of occurrence.So the evidence of P.W.1 to 3 cannot be believed at all.ii) As per the evidence of P.W.9, the Doctor, who had deposed on behalf of Doctor Vijayakumar, who had conducted autopsy, there were three cut injuries on the head to bone deep, and stab injury behind the left ear and a contusion on the right fore head and another contusion on the left fore head and an aberration on the left forearm and left thigh.In the cross-examination, the Doctor-P.W.9, who had admitted and treated the deceased/Sathasivam at about 12.30 p.m. On 8.3.2000 at C.K.Hospial Erode, has deposed that Sathasivam had expired due to massive heart attack.But, P.W.11-Doctor, who had issued Postmortem certificate-Ex.P.22, would depose that the deceased-Sathasivam would have died due to the injuries he had sustained on the head.So, with regard to the cause of death also there is a discrepancy between the evidence of P.W.9-Dr.S.K.Krishnan and P.W.11-Dr.iii) Yet another point to be noted is the fracture of occipital bone on the skull seen as per Ex.P.22-Postmortem report.According to P.W.1 to 3, the other two accused viz. Palanisamy and Ramalingam were also assaulted with wooden stick on the head of the deceased/Sathasivam.But according to the prosecution, the said Palanisamy and Ramalingam, who were previously shown as accused in the charge sheet before re-investigation were not at all present at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence.Under such circumstances, we cannot give any credit to the evidence of P.W.1 to 3 to arrive at a conclusion that the occurrence had occurred in the manner as alleged by them.iv) The next point to be noted is that A3 also sustained injury and according to P.W.16-Investigation Officer, a case under Cr.No.78/2000 of Kodumudi Police Station was registered on the complaint made by A3 and Ex.But, without investigating the same, the said First Information Report was closed as mistake of fact.But, P.W.16, the Investigation Officer, has stated in his evidence that he had not seen any bleeding injury on the left hand of the deceased-Sathasivam.The delay in preferring the First Information Report, the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by A3 and the implication of Palanisamy and Ramalingam falsely into the crime will cast cloud on the investigation of the prosecution case and the benefit of doubt shall go to the accused.We are of the constrained opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused under Section 341 and 302 r/w 34 IPC beyond any reasonable doubt.In the result, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed against the appellants herein-A1 to A3 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,(FTC-I), Erode in S.C.No.174/2001 is hereby set aside and the appellants herein/A1 to A3 are acquitted from the charges levelled against them.District & Sessions Judge, FTC-I, Erode.2.The District & Sesions Judge, Erode.3.The Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi, Erode.4.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode.5.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kodumudi, Erode.6.The Superintendent of Central Prison for women, Vellure.(for A2)7.The Superintendent of Central Prison, Coimbatore, (for A1 & A3)8.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.9.The District Munsif-Cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi.
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
170,830,407 |
(i) In the event of his arrest in connection with C.R.No.4/2018 registered with Ranjangaon Police Station, the Applicant is directed to be released::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 01:02:48 ::: 6/6 23-ABA-1293-19.odt on bail on his furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with one or two sureties in the like amount.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 01:02:48 :::(ii) The Applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station from 22/7/2019 to 25/7/2019 between 03.00 to 05.00 p.m. and shall co-operate with the investigation.(iii) Application stands disposed of accordingly.(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 01:02:48 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 01:02:48 :::
|
['Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
17,083,746 |
This is 6th repeat application for grant of bail by applicant- Shehjad son of Bhooru Khan, who is being implicated in crime no.99/2012, registered at police station Tal Dist.3. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention to the order sheet of March 2014 passed in M.Cr.C.No.9325/2013 and submits that the present applicant was taken in custody at 07.35 pm at Nimba Heda, which is about 200 Kms far from the place of incident and the applicant is in custody at Nimba Heda under Section 151, in arrest memo, thedescription of the accused has been shown as in this case.In the order sheet dated March 2014, the following observation has been made :-"In the present case, plea of alibi has been raised whereby it is stated that the date and time of incident is 6.30 pm near petrol pump at Aalot Road, police station Taal and FIR of the said incident lodged at 8 pm.It is said that he present applicant was taken into custody at 7.35 pm at Nimba Heda which is about 200 Km far from the place of incident and the applicant is in custody at Nimba Heda under section 151, in arrest memo, the description of the accused has been shown as in this case.In counter to the aforesaid, it is urged that the offence has been registered against the accused persons under section 212, 201, and 120-B of IPC to get registered a false case at Nimba Heda.But, the aforesaid would not be sufficient until an offence has been register against the Sub-Inspector, who registered an offence at Nimba Heda, against accused persons.Learned PL for the respondent prays for and is granted two weeks time to produce the relevant documents.In the meantime, it shall be explained by the learned PL that what is the distance between Nimba Heda and the place of incident and how much time may be taken to reach Nimba Heda from the place of incident.List after two weeks, as prayed."On 17.7.2014, the application was finally dismissed on merit.Order dated 17.7.2014 reads as under :-"This second repeat application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail has been filed by the applicant - Shehzad Kha S/o Bhuru Kha.He is implicated in Crime No.99/2012 registered at Police Station - Tal, Alot, District - Ratlam for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 323 of the IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.2.As per case diary, the allegation against the applicant and other co-accused persons is of committing murder of Khattulala @ Mubarik Ali and Shahrukh Khan.On 13.04.2012, after taking tea, complainants Meharban Ali, Sikandar Ali, Khattulala @ Mubarik Ali and Shahrukh Khan were returning to Tal on their motorcycles, when they reached near S. R. Petrol Pump at Alot road of Police Station Tal, one Tavera of red colour came in front of both the motorcycles and stopped them.In the said Tavera vehicle, total 15 persons were there, who were armed with deadly weapons like sword, knife, satur and country made pistol.The allegation against the applicant is of causing fatal injury to Khattulala @ Mubarik Ali and causing injuries to other persons.3.The first bail application was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 15.07.2013 passed in M.Cr.4.It is submitted that on 13.04.2012, the present applicant was taken into custody at 7.35 PM at Police Station Nimba Heda (Rajasthan), which is about 180 kilometres from the place of occurrence and the applicant was in custody at Police Station Nimba Heda under Section 151 of the Cr.P.C., in arrest memo, the description of the accused has been shown in this case .At the time of occurrence, applicant was taken into custody at Police Station Nimba Heda and only on 16.04.2012, he has been released by the SDM and prays that this application for grant of bail be allowed and he be released on bail.6.In reply, learned G. A. submits that applicant was never arrested on 13.04.2012 and he is one of the main assailant for committing the murder of the deceased Khattulala.He submits that 151 proceeding and arrest memo was investigated and after investigation, it came to the knowledge of the authorities that false case under Section 151 at Police Station Nimba Heda was registered against the applicant, just to show his arrest in 151 proceeding and, thereafter, another case has been registered against the applicant and other accused persons under Sections 212, 201 and 120-B of the IPC.He further submits that the court statement of eye- witnesses namely, Meharban Ali (PW-1) and Sikandar Ali (PW-2) were recorded.Both the eye-witnesses were extensively cross-examined by the learned counsel for the applicant and at the time of cross-examination, no plea of alibi has been raised nor plea of alibi was put-forth to the aforesaid eye-witnesses and in view of the court statement of PW-1 and PW-2, the present applicant is the main assailant and prays for its rejection.7.Shri R. S. Parmar, learned counsel who is appearing on behalf of the objector supported the arguments of the learned counsel for the non-applicant and also prays for its rejection.As per statement of PW-1 and PW-2, case diary statement of injured and other eye-witnesses, specific allegation has been made against the applicant that he was armed with sword and caused fatal injury to Khattulala @ Mubarik Ali.9.In respect of plea of alibi, the matter was investigated by the non-applicant whether the applicant was arrested on 13.04.2012 at Police Station Nimba Heda in 151 proceeding.During investigation, it was found that applicant was never arrested and prima-facie, documents by which the applicant was arrested on 13.04.2012 at 7.30 P.M. and was released on 16.04.2012 are manipulated documents.One more case was registered against the applicant and other co-accused persons under Sections 212, 201 and 120-B of the IPC in which, session is going on before the Trial Court in S.T. No.138/2013 and, therefore, at this stage, plea of alibi can be accepted and moreover, no plea of alibi was put-forth before the Trial Court when PW-1 and PW-2 were examined by the prosecution.The relevant part of the order reads as under :-Onus of proving alibi is on defence and accused.As per statement of PW-1 and PW-2, no question was put on behalf of defence in regard to alleged plea.Even otherwise, after the enquiry by the non-applicant, it was found that applicant was never arrested on 13.04.2012 and another case has been registered against the applicant and other co- accused persons and trial is going on.In view of the aforesaid, it will be highly risky to rely upon such a feeble evidence in order to accept plea of alibi to grant bail for the alleged crime.13.At the time of consideration of first bail application, this plea was available.On 20th January, 2016, third repeat application of the applicant has been dismissed on merit.The said third repeat application was filed after recording the court statement of PW5 (Badri), PW10 (Manish) and PW12 (Ikrar Ali).Learned public prosecutor and learned counsel for the objector opposed the prayer and submitted that all these material were considered earlier while deciding the second and third repeat application.At the time of considering of the third application, court statement of PW1 to PW12 were considered and there is no change in the circumstances and prays for rejection of the bail application.On due consideration of the aforesaid, so also the fact that present applicant is main accused and he has caused fatal injury to Khattulla @ Mubarak Ali and considering the fact that it is a case of double murder, no case for grant of bail as prayed is made out.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
108,461,044 |
pk CRM No. 17103 of 2014 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 3.12.14 in connection with Thanarpara P.S. Case No. 102/14 dated 16.9.14 under Sections 448/323/325/380/34 of the Indian Penal Code.448/323/325/380/34 of the Indian Penal Code have come to this court for anticipatory bail.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Ishan Chandra Das, J.)
|
['Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 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.
|
108,461,783 |
In the present case, the prosecution examined 3witnesses; they are, Liladhar (PW1), the father of victim andwho lodged report (Exhibit 23); victim (PW2), and Dr.VandanaMarotrao Wavare (PW3) who examined victim on 10.4.2010and proved medical certificate (Exhibit 34) and also obtainedmedical samples.Investigating Officer was not examined.On 25.3.2010, victim (PW2) on her own left herhouse on pretext that she wants to go to house of her friend.::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 01:01:36 ::: Judgment apeal515.11 2 4When she did not return till 5:00 p.m., she was searched,however she could not notice anywhere.On 30.3.2010,Dewanand, son-in-law of Liladhar(PW1), informed Liladhar thathe noticed victim going on motorcycle with the appellanttowards Wardha.On 3.4.2010, Liladhar reiterated his reportand on the basis of the said, crime vide No.68/2010 foroffences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 wasregistered.On 8.4.2010, Liladhar received a message fromhis sister Shobha that victim reached to her house and,therefore, he along with his wife went there and that time itwas informed to him by victim that on the promise ofmarriage the appellant committed sexual intercourse on her.He, therefore, taken her to police station.Victim's statementwas recorded and, thereafter, offence punishable underSection 376 of the Indian Penal Code was also added.Shewas medically examined.Though in First Information Report date of birth ofvictim (PW2) was not disclosed by first informant Liladhar(PW1), the father of victim, the said was disclosed by him inhis substantive evidence.During investigation, as per evidence ofLiladhar, Investigating Officer demanded birth certificate ofvictim, however since the said was not available with him, heapplied for the birth certificate with Wardha Municipal Counciland obtained the same.Police obtained a photocopy of thebirth certificate from him.During recording of his evidence,he brought with him original birth certificate of victim issuedby Wardha Municipal Council.By the impugned judgment and order ofconviction, though the appellant was charged for offencespunishable under Sections 363, 366, and 376 of the IndianPenal Code, he was only convicted for offences punishableunder Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and was .....::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 01:01:36 ::: Judgment apeal515.11 2 2directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years for boththe offences and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default ofpayment of the fine amount to suffer rigorous imprisonmentfor 1 month.Learned Judge of the Court below directed thatthe sentence shall run concurrently and also set-off was givento him under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Proceduresince the appellant was in jail.::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 01:01:36 :::On 18.11.2011, this Court (Coram : M.N.Gilani, J.)admitted the present appeal and called record andproceedings of the case.By order dated 11.1.2012, paper-book was dispensed with.Consequently, the paper-book wasnot prepared.On 21.3.2012, this Court (Coram :M.L.Tahaliyani, J.) released the appellant on bail.Today, the present appeal is taken up for its finalhearing.In view of earlier order dated 11.1.2012, the paper-book is not prepared, however in pursuance to order18.11.2011 record and proceedings were called and those areplaced before me.Heard learned counsel Shri R.M.Daga for the .....3/-::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 01:01:36 ::: Judgment apeal515.11 2 3appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor ShriM.J.Khan for the State.Also, perused entire record andproceedings of the case with able assistance of both learnedcounsel very minutely.::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 01:01:36 :::The appellant was charged that on 25.3.2010 hetook away victim (PW2) from lawful guardianship of herparents.Thus, he committed an offence punishable underSection 363 of the Indian Penal Code for which the appellant isnot convicted.The appellant is convicted for offences underSections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code.Investigating Officer, aftercompleting usual investigation, such as seizure of clothes ofboth the appellant and victim and their medical samplessending them to Chemical Analyzer, filed chargesheet.::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 01:01:36 :::During Trial, the appellant admitted spot .....5/-::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 01:01:36 ::: Judgment apeal515.11 2 5panchnama (Exhibit 35), Crime Detail Form (Exhibit 36),seizure of clothes (Exhibit 37), seizure of pubic hair of victim(Exhibit 38), seizure of his motorcycle (Exhibit 39), and seizureof medical samples (Exhibit 42, 44, and 45) of victim.::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 01:01:36 :::The .....6/-Thus, on date of incident i.e. on 25.3.2010 ageof victim was 15 years 7 months and 13 days.::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 01:01:36 :::When victim (PW2) was medically examined, noinjury was found either on external or genital part of her body,however as per Dr.Vandana Wavare (PW3), victim hadexperienced multiple sexual acts.Evidence of victim (PW2), shows that she on herown left her house without there being any enticement fromthe appellant and, therefore, he was rightly acquitted bylearned Judge of the Court below of offence punishable underSection 363 of the Indian Penal Code for kidnapping.Herevidence shows that right from her childhood she wasacquainted with the appellant.Her evidence further showsthat she was in love with the appellant and on day of incidentshe herself invited the appellant and went away with him andmarried secretly.Thus, there is no doubt that victim was aconsenting party, however the said consent has no value inthe eyes of law since at the relevant time her age was 15years 7 months and 13 days i.e. below 16 years of age as at .....7/-::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 01:01:36 ::: Judgment apeal515.11 2 7the relevant time in view of clause (6) of Section 375 of theIndian Penal Code, it would be a rape with or without consentwhen girl is under sixteen years of age.::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 01:01:36 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 01:01:36 :::Throughoutthe Trial, the appellant was in jail.Thus, for more than 22 months theappellant was in jail.It is reported to the Court that during thependency of the present appeal victim (PW2) married withthird person and she is leading a happy married life.Similarly,the appellant is also a married person.At the time of incident,the appellant was 24 years of age.::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 01:01:36 ::: Judgment apeal515.11 2 9S.Varadarajan vs. State of Madras, reported at AIR 1965SC 942 will apply in this case fully inasmuch as at the time ofincident victim was having age of understanding.Since theappellant has already suffered jail sentence for about 22months and in view of the law laid down in the case of Premchand and another vs. State of Haryana, reported at AIR1989 SC 937 which can be a guiding lamp for this Court forexercising discretion in favour of the appellant, in my view,this is a fit case wherein the Court should exercise itsdiscretion in favour of the present appellant.Consequently, Ipass following order:::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 01:01:36 :::(a) The criminal appeal is partly allowed.(b) Judgment and order of conviction dated 13.7.2011 passedby learned Sessions Judge, Wardha in Sessions CaseNo.137/2010 stands confirmed to the extent of imposingconviction for offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376of the Indian Penal Code.(c) Judgment and order of conviction dated 13.7.2011 passed .....::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 01:01:36 ::: Judgment apeal515.11 2 10by learned Sessions Judge, Wardha in Sessions CaseNo.137/2010 stands quashed and set aside to the extent ofimposing punishment of undergoing rigorous imprisonment for7 years.::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 01:01:36 :::(d) No order in respect of the fine amount.JUDGE!! BRW !! ...../-::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 01:01:36 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 01:01:36 :::
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
108,463,839 |
Relevant facts for the purpose of the present appeal are that on 26th February, 2003 a telephonic information was received from the Duty Constable in AIIMS at P.S. Ambedkar Nagar about the admission of one Shyam Bir Singh, s/o Ram Bir Singh, r/o B-3, Subash Camp, Dakshin Puri aged 18 years, by his mother in an unconscious condition.This information was recorded as DD No. 18A at P.S. Ambedkar Nagar at 11.35 PM and a copy of the same was handed over to SI Balraj Singh, who reached the hospital along with Constable Pratap Singh where he found one Bir Singh (PW1) present who made a statement.On the basis of this statement SI Balraj Singh made an endorsement for the registration of an FIR u/s 302 IPC, on the basis of which FIR No. 87/03 was registered at P.S. Ambedkar Nagar.In the meantime ASI Roshan Lal (PW 13), who had reached block No.3, Dakshinpuri pursuant to a call regarding quarrel in that block, came to know that some people had gathered near block No. 5 and 6, Dakshinpuri and a quarrel had taken place and one injured had already been removed and another injured was in his house.He went to the house of the injured person and found that the injured was the appellant/accused, Lalit Kumar.Thereafter the appellant was sent to AIIMS hospital through Constable Ved Prakash.ASI Roshan Lal had Crl.Appeal 470 of 2006 Page 2 of 38 observed a pair of chappal and some blood lying at the spot and a blood stained knife lying near the place of occurrence.Appeal 470 of 2006 Page 2 of 38SI Balraj also reached the scene of the crime from AIIMS after collecting the MLC of the deceased and took over the investigation of the case.He prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence in Subash Camp and got the scene photographed.Blood stained earth and a pair of hawai chappal were lifted from the scene of the crime and were sent to the FSL for expert opinion along with the clothes worn by the deceased Shyam Bir and his blood sample.The appellant, Lalit Kumar has challenged the order and judgment of the Trial court dated 13th March, 2006 and 16th March, 2006 whereby he was convicted of the offence u/s 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.Appeal 470 of 2006 Page 1 of 38Appeal 470 of 2006 Page 1 of 38The clothes worn by the accused, Lalit Kumar were also taken from him.The knife alleged to have been used in the crime was also recovered from a khatta.The CFSL report was submitted in Court and charges were framed against the accused u/s 302 IPC to which the accused pleaded not guilty.The case of the prosecution before the trial court was that on 26th February, 2003 the deceased Shyam Bir was present in his jhuggi along with his mother Ramwati (PW-7) and Mausa (uncle) Bir Singh (PW-1).At about 9.30 PM, the accused Lalit came to the jhuggi of Ramwati and called the deceased out.The deceased then went with the accused and after some time PW-1 and PW-7 were informed by one lady that a quarrel was taking place on the road between the deceased and the accused in which the accused stabbed the deceased, because of Crl.Appeal 470 of 2006 Page 3 of 38 which the deceased fell on the ground and the accused fled the scene after throwing the knife in the nearby khatta.The prosecution examined 18 witnesses to prove the case against the accused.Appeal 470 of 2006 Page 3 of 38In his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied the prosecution case and stated that on 26th February, 2003 he was present in his house and when he came out of his house on hearing some noise, someone threw stones on his head as a result of which he fell down and sustained injuries.The accused examined two witnesses in his defense.It was also contended by the accused before the trial court that he was in his house when the deceased along with one of his friends came to his house, as the deceased was having a grudge against the accused and a scuffle took place between the two.When the deceased took out a knife for inflicting injuries upon the accused, the accused tried to snatch the knife from the deceased by twisting his arm towards his back which resulted in the deceased receiving injuries from the knife he was holding.It was also contended that the person accompanying the deceased had hit the accused on his head with a stick.So the version of the defense was that the incident had occurred near the house of the accused and the deceased received stab injuries when the accused tried to snatch the knife from the deceased for defending himself.Appeal 470 of 2006 Page 4 of 38Appeal 470 of 2006 Page 4 of 38The trial court after perusing the evidence of the witnesses and considering the submissions of the counsel for the state as well as the counsel for the accused came to the conclusion that the testimony of the eyewitnesses, PW-1 and PW-2 are reliable and trustworthy and that the testimonies of DW-1 and DW-2 does not create any doubt on the prosecution case.The trial court opined that the three stab wounds inflicted by the accused were of such a nature so as to show that the accused inflicted the wounds with an intention to cause death.Appeal 470 of 2006 Page 6 of 38 of scuffle between the appellant and the deceased.After analyzing the Crl.It was further held that every person who witnesses the murder reacts in his own way.Appeal 470 of 2006 Page 18 of 38Appeal 470 of 2006 Page 18 of 38The learned counsel also emphasized that FSL report had not been proved as no FSL witness was examined rather it is apparent from the evidence that the knife was rusted.Referring to Exhibit 2/A it is asserted that the knife sketch does not mark any blood on it nor could PW-14 say that he had noticed blood stains at the initial stage.The learned counsel has also pointed out the discrepancies between the statements of ASI Roshan Lal PW-13 and Bir Singh PW-1, about the time of recovery.It is contended that the recovery of weapon was not made in the appellants presence and the weapon was allegedly recovered from an open plot underneath bricks and not from a dustbin (Kuredaan).In the circumstances it is emphasized that the recovery cannot be attributed to the appellant and it has not been established that the weapon recovered was the weapon of offence.Appeal 470 of 2006 Page 19 of 38Appeal 470 of 2006 Page 19 of 38The contradictions in the statements of PW-1 Bir Singh; PW-2 Shanti Lal and PW-7 Ramwati cannot be construed to be major contradictions so as to disbelieve the entire prosecution version.The plea of the appellant that recovery of weapon was not attributable to him also cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances on account of alleged contradictions in the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 on the ground that PW1 & 2 had deposed that the weapon was thrown in kuredaan (dustbin) whereas PW7 & 13 had stated that it was thrown in khatta.Photographs of PW 12/8 to PW 12/10 are the photographs of the Khatta from where the knife used by the appellant was recovered.The photographs show garbage of building material lying there.It appears khatta is an open place where garbage is thrown and accumulates.In the circumstances, the description of the same place by two sets of witnesses in different words will not result into major contradictions as has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant.Law Journal 1957, Machindra Namdeo Deokar v. State of Maharashtra in which case the deceased had picked up a quarrel with the accused by unlawfully demanding money from him and attempting to search his pockets.When he was stopped no money was found, he had stabbed with a knife.Whereas PW-6 had stated that the accused was arrested from his house.PW-1 did not depose anything about it whereas Exhibit PW6/H, arrest memo of the appellant reflects that he was arrested at the spot.Regarding the time of arrest also there are discrepancies in as much as PW-1 stated that the appellant was arrested after he returned from the hospital whereas according to PW-2 appellant was already arrested when he returned from the hospital.The time of arrest has been shown Crl.Appeal 470 of 2006 Page 21 of 38Regarding the time of quarrel also certain inconsistencies have been pointed out by contending that as per PW-2 the incident took place at 9.00 P.M whereas according to PW-1 Bir Singh the incident took place at 9.30 P.M. Constable Ved Prakash gave the time of incident as 9.05 P.M and the rukka stipulates 9 P.M. ASI Roshan Lal, PW-13 deposed that the quarrel took place at 8.30 P.M however, he did not specify as to for how long the altercation between the deceased and the appellant continued whereas PW-2 Shanti Lals version is that the quarrel/altercation continued for 3-4 minutes after he reached the spot.In the circumstances, the plea of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the place of arrest, time of arrest and duration of altercation has not been established beyond reasonable doubt and in the circumstances it cannot be held that the incident was pre meditated so as to convict the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and this casts a grave doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case.Regarding the contradictions in the statements of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-7 on behalf of appellant it is pointed out that PW-1 is related to Crl.Appeal 470 of 2006 Page 22 of 38 the deceased being the mausa (mothers sisters husband) and, therefore, his testimony has to be viewed with caution.Though he was related and reached the spot when altercation was going on but he did not endeavour to stop the quarrel or to extricate the deceased.Referring to the testimony of PW-1, the learned senior counsel has pointed out that he is silent about the presence of PW-2 Shanti Lal although the site plan, Exhibit PW11/A reflects that Bir Singh was standing adjacent to Shanti Lal.PW-1 Sh.Bir Singh rather stated that he was not aware as to when Shanti Lal came to the spot.The learned counsel has also pointed out that PW1 Bir Singh had stated that the appellant had caught hold of the collar of Shyam Bir and stabbed him whereas PW-2 Shanti Lal had stated that the appellant was holding his head after being hit by the brick.PW-1 Bir Singh also deposed that he did not intervene in the quarrel to save the deceased whereas Ramwati, PW-7 had deposed that Bir Singh had chased the appellant.Appeal 470 of 2006 Page 22 of 38On behalf of the appellant the emphasis is also laid on the fact that PW-2, Shanti Lal had neither revealed that he was living in the house of deceased nor did he disclosed his relationship with the mother of the deceased.Thus PW- 2, Shanti Lal is also a related witness and much reliance cannot be placed on his deposition in view of the inconsistencies between these Crl.Appeal 470 of 2006 Page 23 of 38 three witnesses.PW-2 Shanti Lal had claimed that he was present during the argument preceding the incident for 3/4minutes but surprisingly he did not intercede.In his cross examination he had stated that the quarrel started on the issue of the deceaseds sister, however, he could not depose as to which sister.Impeaching the testimony of PW-2 it has been argued that though he is a resident of the same area and the incident had occurred at the market place, but still he could not tell as to who had the shops in the area near the place of incident.Appeal 470 of 2006 Page 23 of 38Doubt is also cast on the testimony of PW-7 on the ground that she is not an eye witness as she had only seen the accused running after the incident and she therefore, could not depose as to what happened during the alleged altercation.She did not name the appellant at the time of admission to the hospital, in the MLC Exhibit PW4/A which is the first record by the said witness of the incident.Inconsistency in her statement has also been pointed out to the fact that she stated that she met the appellant at the hospital but PW-6 Pratap Singh stated that he met her at the spot at 3-4 A.M. Even PW-1 Bir Singh and PW-2 Shanti Lal had mentioned the presence of PW-7, Ramwati during the investigation at the spot.In the circumstances, it is contended that on the conjoint reading of the statements of these three witnesses culpability of the appellant is not made out.The learned counsel for the appellant has also pointed out that from the testimonies Crl.Appeal 470 of 2006 Page 24 of 38 of PWs 1, 2, 13 & 16 and from the MLC of the appellant (Exhibit PW4/D) the injury on the head of the appellant has been established, however, no explanation is offered by the prosecution as to who had caused the injuries.The brick which caused the injury on the head of the appellant was not recovered.Shanti Lal had confirmed that there was blood on the cloth of the appellant, however, neither PW-6 noticed the same nor was it incorporated in the seizure memo of clothes of the accused (Exhibit PW6/C).The emphasis is also laid by the learned counsel in the delay in filing the FIR as according to him the delay of 5 hours has not been satisfactorily explained.Appeal 470 of 2006 Page 24 of 38On behalf of appellant it is also contended that material witnesses have not been examined.According to the learned counsel Gauri, sister of the deceased who was allegedly teased by the accused was a material witness who had not been examined nor was any explanation given for the same.The woman who had informed Ramwati regarding the incident pursuant to which she had gone towards the spot and had seen the appellant running away has not been named nor examined.The said woman might have witnessed the quarrel and her testimony would have been very material in the circumstances.Also none of the public persons who were in the crowd at the time of the altercation have been examined.It has been contended that the statements of 4-5 public persons were recorded but none of these witnesses were examined nor were their statements under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Crl.Appeal 470 of 2006 Page 25 of 38 Code placed on record.No effort was made to locate the person from the crowd who threw the stone at the appellant nor was the owner of khatta from where the knife was recovered been examined.The learned counsel has contended that since FSL expert Srivastava was not examined, reliance could not be placed on the report of FSL.Appeal 470 of 2006 Page 25 of 38Regarding the chappals it is submitted that if these were left by the accused/appellant and he had ran 10 steps to his house, they could have been connected with the appellant to show his presence and the role attributed to him.Though the chappals were recovered and were covered with blood, however, from the FSL report it cannot be established that the blood on the chappals was that of the appellant.PW-2 Sh.Shanti Lal had not identified the chappals as that of appellant and even Bir Singh, PW-1 is silent about the identity of the chappals.Consequently, it is contended that the prosecution has not been able to establish its case and the conviction of the appellant is liable to be set aside.The learned counsel has also pointed out contradictions in the statement of PW-3 ASI Roshan Lal who stated that he received a call regarding the quarrel at 8.30 PM whereas PW-16 Constable Ved Prakash had stated that the call was received at 9.05 P.M. Inconsistencies in the statements of PW-6 and PW-11 has also been referred to in as much as PW-6 had deposed that SI Balraj Singh Crl.Appeal 470 of 2006 Page 26 of 38 (deceased) Investigating Officer had prepared the site plan at the spot whereas PW-11 SI Mahesh had stated that he had visited the spot on 7th April, 2003 and prepared the site plan on being pointed out by PW-1 Sh.Bir Singh.Setting aside the order of conviction is also sought on the ground that the testimony of the witnesses DW-1 Awdesh Kumar and DW-2 Ghanshyam has not at all been considered though equal credence must be given to the testimonies of the defence witnesses.In the circumstances, the plea is that the prosecution has failed to make out the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and consequently the conviction and sentence of the appellant is liable to set aside.Appeal 470 of 2006 Page 26 of 38The inconsistencies pointed out regarding the time of arrest would also not belie the prosecution version.As has been pointed out PW-2 had deposed that the incident took place at 9 PM whereas PW-1 gave the time of incident as 9.30 PM.Constable Ved Prakash had given the time of incident as 9.05 PM and the rukka stipulates 9 PM.From the testimony of these witnesses it is apparent that the time of incident is about 9 PM.Variation about the time of incident in minutes in the present facts and circumstances of the case cannot be construed to be such major contradictions as to disbelieve all these witnesses.This cannot be disputed in the facts and circumstances that the incident had taken place and the weapon is the knife that caused the injuries on the deceased.Similarly, variation in respect of place of arrest would also Crl.Appeal 470 of 2006 Page 27 of 38 not discredit the entire prosecution version.PW-6 Constable Pratap Singh had deposed that the appellant was arrested by IO and he was present when the appellant was arrested from gali just in front of his house.Perusal of exhibit PW-6/H arrest memo reflects that the appellant was arrested from the spot.From the plan exhibit PW-11/A reveals the house of the accused at point H whereas the Jhuggi of the deceased is at point B3 and their Jhuggi and houses are almost opposite to each other.The place of incident where the appellant is alleged to have stabbed the deceased is also about 3 jhuggis away.In the circumstances PW-6 had deposed that the accused was arrested from the gali just in front of his house and arrest memo discloses that the appellant was arrested from the spot, hence there is no major contradiction or such contradiction which will not be reconcilable.The place of incident, the jhuggi of the deceased and the house of the appellant are in the vicinity of each other and in the circumstances the appellant cannot discredit the prosecution version on these minor variations.On behalf of appellant the testimony of PW-1 is attempted to be discredited on the ground that he being the mausa (mothers sister husband) did not even endeavour to stop the quarrel or to extricate the deceased though he had reached the spot when the altercation was going on.The plea of the learned counsel for the appellant is based on an assumption that every person who witnesses Crl.Appeal 470 of 2006 Page 28 of 38 the murder would react in a similar way.This assumption cannot be countenanced as every persons who witnesses murder reacts in a different way as some are stunned and become speechless and stand rooted to the spot whereas some become hysteric and start wailing.Shanti Lal although the site plan exhibit PW-11/A shows that he was standing adjacent to Shanti Lal.Bir Singh PW-1 in his deposition had stated that he was not aware as to when Shanti Lal came to the spot.This deposition in our opinion will not discredit his testimony in any manner as at the time he was witnessing the scuffle which had taken place between the deceased and the appellant and the stabbing of the deceased.Being related to the deceased if his attention was solely on the incident of stabbing, that he had not noticed as to when Shanti Lal came there, on this ground it cannot be inferred that his deposition suffers from such material inadequacy or would be so unnatural so as to be unreliable.According to the testimony of PW-7 Smt.Ramwati, Bir Singh, PW-1 after the incident was chasing the appellant and in the circumstances if he had not noticed as to when Shanti Lal came at the spot his testimony cannot be doubted.Appeal 470 of 2006 Page 29 of 38Appeal 470 of 2006 Page 27 of 38Appeal 470 of 2006 Page 28 of 38Appeal 470 of 2006 Page 29 of 38The plea of the learned counsel for the appellant that the testimony of Shanti Lal, PW-2 would also be doubtful as he did not disclose that he was living in the house of the deceased and his relationship with the mother of the deceased will also be not sustainable.PW-7 mother of the deceased did not say that Shanti Lal is her brother but rather deposed that he is related like a brother.PW-7 had deposed that he lives about 200-205 yards away in his house.Shanti Lal, PW-2 had rather deposed that he does the job of preparing locks and keys and his house was in Block A. He had deposed that deceased was not related to him, however, the mother of the deceased was treating him like a brother.In the circumstances, the plea of the learned counsel for the appellant that the deposition of PW-2 Shanti Lal is not creditworthy as he is related to the deceased and that he had not disclosed his relationship is not to be accepted.The testimony of PW-7 is unimpeachable and categorical to the extent that when she came to the Jhuggi she found that the appellant after stabbing her son was running away and Bir Singh, PW-1 was chasing him.She had also deposed that appellant had stabbed deceased on his back and thereafter he ran to his house and closed the door.The place of incident where the stabbing took place is very near to the Jhuggi of PW-7 which is apparent from the site plan exhibit PW- 11/A. From the testimonies of the witnesses it is also apparent that Crl.Appeal 470 of 2006 Page 30 of 38 before the stabbing incident, a verbal altercation had taken place between the deceased and the appellant.The deceased had told the appellant that "Yadi Tumne Meri Behan Ke Taraf Dekha To Achha Nahi Hoga".The appellant had retorted "Yadi Tu Mere Beech Me Aayega To Tera Kaam Tamam Kar Dunga".This verbal altercation rather reveals that the appellant had not come to the Jhuggi of the deceased and taken the deceased slightly at a distance from his Jhuggi with the intention to attack him there, because had this been the intention of the appellant there wouldnt have been any verbal altercation and he would have stabbed the deceased immediately after taking him to a certain distance.Had the intention of the appellant been to take him away from the Jhuggi and then to stab him he wouldnt have done it in the middle of the market which was bustling with activity, as has been borne out from the evidence.The plea of the learned counsel for the appellant that PW-7 did not name appellant at the time of admission in the hospital in the MLC exhibit PW-4/C is also not of much consequence.In the circumstances, PW-7 not mentioning the name of the appellant in the hospital in the MLC exhibit PW-4/A is not of much consequence as on the conjoint reading of the testimonies of the witnesses including the defence witnesses it is apparent that it was the appellant who was involved in the incident of stabbing the deceased after a verbal altercation had taken place between the deceased and the appellant Crl.Appeal 470 of 2006 Page 31 of 38 after which he threw the knife in the khatta while running away and thereafter locked himself in the room.Appeal 470 of 2006 Page 30 of 38Appeal 470 of 2006 Page 31 of 38The plea of the appellant that though the statement under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code of 4-5 public persons were recorded, however, none of those witnesses were examined will not affect the prosecution version.If the testimony of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-7 is reliable and cannot be rejected mainly on the ground that they were interested or related witnesses, non examination of other 4-5 public witnesses will not be very material.The plea that the chappals which were left at the spot could not be connected to the appellant also does not impact the prosecution version in such a manner so as to infer that the appellant was not involved in the altercation with the deceased and subsequently in stabbing him.The other contradictions pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant in the testimonies of PW-3 ASI Roshan Lal and PW-16 Constable Ved Prakash are also minor in the facts and circumstances and do not dislodge the prosecution version completely so as to give any benefit to the appellant.There is no proposition in law that relatives are to be treated as untruthful witnesses.Appeal 470 of 2006 Page 32 of 38 Relationship would not result in the mechanical rejection of the testimony of the witnesses.Settled norms of appreciation of evidence require that the evidence of such witnesses is to be assessed with caution as was held in (2007) 2 SCC 310, Amitsingh Bhikamsingh Thakur Vs State of Maharashtra.Appeal 470 of 2006 Page 32 of 38Non examination of Gauri, sister of the deceased would also not exculpate the appellant in any manner.The dispute is not whether the appellant had teased Gauri or not which is apparent from the verbal altercation about which PW-1 Sh.Bir Singh and PW-2 Shanti Lal have deposed.Certain facts which are apparent in the case on the basis of testimony of various witnesses is that the appellant lives almost across the jhuggi of deceased where Gauri was also living.Either the appellant was teasing the sister or was trying to develop a relationship with her which was not accepted and consented to by the deceased.The appellant had come to the Jhuggi of the deceased and had called him and thereafter both went to some distance from the Jhuggi where the verbal altercation had taken place.The deceased was of the opinion that the appellant should not have any relation with his sister whereas the appellant emphasized that he is no one to come between him and his sister Gauri.In the circumstances the non examination of Gauri by the prosecution will not impact substantially the prosecution version as the fact about the verbal altercation and thereafter the deceased receiving Crl.Appeal 470 of 2006 Page 33 of 38 the stab injuries and the appellant running away from the scene being chased by Bir Singh, PW-1 cannot be denied.In the circumstances, the testimony of Gauri would not have been so material so as to exculpate the appellant completely in absence of her testimony.Appeal 470 of 2006 Page 33 of 38On the conjoint reading of the testimonies it is inevitable to infer that exception 4 to Section 300 can be invoked in the present facts and circumstances as the fight was without pre-meditation.The appellant had called the deceased from the Jhuggi and both of them had gone to a little distance from the Jhuggi and the verbal altercation had taken place in the market in the presence of a number of people around.Had the intention of the appellant been to stab the deceased pursuant to a pre-meditated plan he would not have done it in an open market in the presence of so many other people near the house of the deceased.The other ingredient for invoking Exception 4 to Section 300 is also apparent as there was a verbal altercation which led to the incident of stabbing.Verbal altercation unequivocally reflects the sudden fight.The fact that the appellant had also received the injuries cannot be doubted.Whether the appellant got an injury before the stabbing or afterwards cannot be inferred conclusively from the evidence, however, this is sufficient to establish the elements of sudden fight between the appellant and the deceased.Though in view of the ocular evidence alternative medical opinion is not to be given preference but such Crl.Appeal 470 of 2006 Page 34 of 38 evidence will not rule out completely that the injuries were caused to the deceased in the course of the sudden fight.Millo Tabin, PW-5 had categorically deposed that injuries No.2 and 3 i.e the stab wound in the left side of back in the scapular region 1.5/0.7 cm size, 8 cm from midline and 20 cm from shoulder tip which was muscle deep and stab wound in the left side of back below scapular 2/1 cm size and 14/5 cm from mid axiliry line and 6 cm from midline and 8.5 cm could be caused in a scuffle.The testimony of Dr.Millo Tabin is as under :-Appeal 470 of 2006 Page 34 of 38"Injury No.1 can be possible by a fall while walking.It is wrong to suggest that injury no.2 is a superficial injury.Muscle deep injury which I have mentioned it is generally more cm in depth.Possibility cannot be ruled out that injury no.2 can be a result when a person holding a knife is opposed by the other person by twisting the arm to snatch the knife and may be caused in a scuffle.But it cannot be a self inflicted injury.Injury no.2 and no.3 are on the back side.I cannot comment on the law of physics that action and reaction are opposite and equal.It is correct that injury no.3 punctured vena cava which is blood vessel and death was caused by excessive bleeding.It is correct that injury no.3 can also be a result of a scuffle.The distance between injury no.2 and 4 was roughly about 10 to 15 cms.All the three injury were on the left side of the back.It is correct that possibility cannot be ruled out that injury no.3 and 4 caused by twisting of hand of the person holding knife by other person to snatch the knife."Since there was a verbal altercation in which the deceased had challenged the appellant by saying "Yadi Tumne Meri Behan Ke Taraf Dekha To Achha Nahi Hoga" and the appellant had retorted stating "Yadi Tu Mere Beech Me Aayega To Tera Kaam Tamam Kar Dunga" reflects that they must have been facing each other at the time.It is Crl.Appeal 470 of 2006 Page 35 of 38 inconvincible that this verbal duet was going on when the appellant was looking at the back of the deceased and the deceased was looking not towards the appellant facing him and rather facing in some other direction.In these circumstances the injury inflicted in the back of the deceased must be on account of scuffle in which the deceased suffered the injuries on his back which proved to be fatal.In the present scenario, considering the testimonies of Sh.Bir Singh PW-1 and Sh.Shanti Lal PW-2 and the mother of the deceased Ramwati PW-7 it cannot be held that no undue advantage of the situation was taken by the appellant.The verbal altercation and stabbing which took place in the market was rather over within a short time whereafter the appellant/ accused ran from the place of incident in a hurry and threw the knife in the khatta nearby.The incident as has happened cannot be termed to be unusual nor can it be inferred that the appellant had acted in a cruel manner.Appeal 470 of 2006 Page 35 of 38The defense put up by the appellant that the deceased had brought the knife and had come with another person cannot be inferred and believed on the basis of cogent evidence by PW-1 Bir Singh and PW- 2 Sh.Shanti Lal.PW-1 had very categorically deposed that the appellant had taken out the knife from his right pant pocket which version was also supported by PW-2 Sh.Shanti Lal who also had categorically Crl.Appeal 470 of 2006 Page 36 of 38 deposed that the accused/appellant took out a knife from his right pant pocket and had given the blows to the deceased.Appeal 470 of 2006 Page 36 of 38The other relevant factor for applicability of 4th exception is that the fight must have been with the person killed.Though "fight" occurring in exception 4 is not defined in IPC, however, it cannot be denied that it has to be between the two persons.The utterances made by the deceased to the appellant and the appellant to the deceased and thereafter stabbing will constitute fight in the facts and circumstances in which the deceased Shyam Bir died and consequently another factor to bring the incident under 4th exception of Section 300 of IPC also cannot be ruled out.Another factor which is relevant is that in the fight which ensues on account of heat of passion there must not be enough time for passion to cool down.In the present case the appellant and the deceased had worked themselves into a fiery state on account of the verbal altercation and consequently this cannot be held that there was ample time for the appellant and the deceased to cool down.Taking all the facts into consideration on the basis of the testimonies of various witnesses and other documents this Court has no doubt in inferring that the 4th exception to Section 300 of IPC would cover the facts of the present case.Appeal 470 of 2006 Page 37 of 38Appeal 470 of 2006 Page 37 of 38
|
['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,084,653 |
However, he does not seem to be that lucky with men in his life; this, at least, is the impression which one gathers.Is it for this reason that on the cover of the book one finds only women around him?(2) A little while from now, I will revert to some of the women and men in his life.I will have to, since Neelam Mahajan Singh feels that some of the passages in the book have the tendency to deprave the character of the persons in whose hands the book is likely to fall and that the writer had discussed sex in a manner which, according to her, is offensive to public decency and morality and likely to "pander to lascivious prurient or sexually precocious mind.(3) The petitioner tells us that she had purchased the book "in a routine manner" and after going through the same had felt "against (sic) and shocked at the cheap vulgar and obscene writings about the dead persons" hurting thereby her "sensitivities as a woman".She thus reminds us of that excellent saying of Solon' and worthy of the wisest of the Seven, who, when he was asked "what would rid the world of injuries? - "If the bystanders", says he "would have the same resentment with those that suffer the wrong."(Old and True.(5) The .first was a wonderful mimic with no respect for the men and women she wrote about.She did not mind attending dinners without invitation and going to stag parties with blue films on the menu.Despite all this she was friendless, and essentially a private person.She was one of those women whose beauty lies in their bulk and yet being very self-conscious of their size, go on a crash course of dieting losing in the [Old and True, An Extemporary Anthology 1941-1943 English Universities Press] process little weight but much of charm.Though later stricken with paralysis leaving her one side completely numb, she underwent the ordeal singly for she was too proud to ask for help.And yet we find this very woman (when in the prime of her health) on being attacked by the sons of a male actor, rushing to Khushwant Singh with "tears streaming down her eyes" and repeating over and over again what those boys had threatened to do to her, "We'll bugger bloody bitch till you scream for help".She had once incurred the wrath of cine-hero Dharmendra also.(6) Indrani Aikath Gyaltsen did not remain in Khushwant Singh's life for long.Her father was a mine owner with home and fortune in Chaibasa.Her first husband was a Bengali in the I.A.S. Finding him a bore, she divorced him and married a very handsome tea planter and lived with him in a spacious well-kept bungalow done up in upper class European style with not a touch of desi about anything.She wrote poetry but was dissatisfied as there was no money in it.One winter when he was staying in Simla he invited Amrita for dinner.He had a fire lit for protection from cold and European classical music playing on his gramophone.He wasted the first evening talking of literature and music.He invited her again.He had the same log fire and the same European classical music.Before he knew what was happening, Amrita simply took her clothes off and lay stark naked on the carpet.She did not believe in wasting time.Even the very proper Badruddin Tyabji got the message." He sheds more light on her private life by telling us that Malcolm Muggeridge had got reduced to "a limp rag" within a week's time with her and that "For several weeks before her arrival in Lahore I had heard stories of her exploits during her previous visits to the city before she had married her cousin.She was a genuine case of nymphomania, and according to her nephew Vivian Sunderam's published account, she was also a lesbian." Khushwant Singh says that she wanted to seduce him too and though he was a willing target her untimely and sudden death deprived her of yet another trophy.(8) Coming to the men in the life of Khushwant Singh, I may confine to Inder Sain Johar since the petitioner has raised objections to certain passages appearing with regard to him only.(9) Inder Sain Johar had acted in some films, including a couple of Hollywood productions in English and had later turned from acting to directing.He married Rama Bans who after giving birth to two children from the marriage, divorced him but after a disastrous second marriage, resumed some kind of undefined relationship with him.It appears from the account that Johar was publicity crazy.The less work he got, the more stories he made to remain in the limelight.He was so keen to be in the news that in the presence of dozens of photographers and pressmen he got engaged never to be married later to Protima Bedi.If Johar was to be believed, he started his sex cupboard at the age of twelve.He was spending his vacation with his uncle and aunt who had no children of their own.One night he had (or pretended to have) nightmares and started whimpering in his sleep.His aunt brought him to her bed.He snuggled into her bosom and soon had an erection.He tried to push it into her.She slapped him and told him to behave himself.The next morning he was afraid he would be scolded and sent back home.However, his aunt was sweetness itself.After her husband had left for his office, she offered to bathe him.While she was soaping him, he again got sexually aroused.This time his aunt taught him to what to do with it.It became his daily morning routine.Whenever he felt like it, he would drop in on her, have a drink or two and then bed her.One evening he was in a particularly horny mood.When he got to the lady's flat, he was informed by her young Goan maidservant, "Memsahib bahar gaya" (madam has gone out)."Kab ayega?" (When will she return?) "Kya maloom? Bahut late hoga." (I don't know, she will be late), replied the maid.So Johar simply pushed the girl on the bed and mounted her.The girl protested."Memsahib ayega to hum boleyga" (when madam returns, I will tell her), and at the same time opened her legs to her mistress' paramour.Even more bizarre was his story of how he bedded two sisters and their mother.One sister had been his mistress for some years before she left him to get married.She introduced her younger sister to Johar and asked him to help her get into films.He not only got her a few minor roles but also asked her to stay in his flat.One evening she came back from the studios looking very tired.Johar asked her if she would like a hot cup of tea or something stronger to cheer her up.She replied, "if you really want to know what I would like best, I'd like a nice fuck." The girl left Johar to become a star.Her mother wrote to Johar to thank him for what he had done for her daughters and asked him if she could stay with him for a couple of days when visiting Bombay.One night she came to his bed, stark naked."I did not want to hurt the old lady's feelings," wrote Johar, and "obliged her the same way I had obliged her daughters." How could I have published these memoirs without inviting the wrath of the proprietors of the journal on my head? Johar accused me of cowardice.With tears streaming down her eyes she repeated over and over again what the boys had threatened to do to her, "we'll bugger you bloody bitch till your fat bum is blue; we will f......till you scream for help".(page 8) "On another occasion she wrote a very bitchy piece on Dharmendra allegedly based on an interview he had given her.He was known to be a bit of a stud; Devyani's account made him out to be a superstud.She wrote about how he serviced two to three starlets every day in the studios before he returned home to do his "home work" on his wife's bed.Dharmendra was understandably very upset".8.2ABOUT Indrani Aikath Gyaltsen "I thought Indrani was riding on cloud nine.She was a genuine case of nymphomania, and according to her nephew Vivian Sunderam's published account, she was also a lesbian.Her modus vivendi is vividly described by Badruddin Tyabji in his memories.One winter when he was staying in Simla he invited Amrita for dinner.He had a fire lit for protection from cold and European classical music playing on his gramophone.He wasted the first evening talking of literature and music.He invited her again.He had the same log fire and the same European classical music.Before he knew what was happening, Amrita simply took her cloths off and lay stark naked on the carpet.Even the very proper Badruddin Tyabji got the message"."HE was then in the prime of his youth - early 20s.In a week she had reduced him to a limp rag."I could not cope with her," he admitted." I was glad to get back to Calcutta.""HERself-portraits were exercises in narcissism.She probably had as a nice a figure as she portrayed herself in his nudes but I had no means of knowing what she concealed beneath her sari.What I can't forget is her brashness."8.4INDER Sain Johar "ONE night he had (or pretend to have) nightmares and started whimpering in his sleep.His aunt brought him to her bed.He snuggled into her bosom and soon had an erection.He tried to push it into her.She slapped him and told me to behave himself.The next morning he was afraid he would be scolded and sent back home.However, his aunt was sweetness itself.After her husband had left for his office, she offered to bathe him.While she was soaping him, he again got sexually aroused.This time his aunt taught him to what to do with it.It became his daily morning routine.Nevertheless, Johar confessed that in the years of his adolescence what he enjoyed most was being buggered by older boys.""THE autobiography did not mention Rama but in the years after their separation he wrote of a starlet (now a star I won't name) whom he set up in a flat in Malabar Hill.Whenever he felt like it, he would drop in on her.One evening he was in a particularly horny mood.When he got to the lady's flat, he was informed by her young Goan maidservant, "Memsahib bahar gaya" (madam has gone out)."Kab ayega? (When will she return?) "Ky maloom? Bahut late hoga.( I don't know, she will be late), replied the maid So Johar simply pushed the girl on the bed and mounted her.The girl protested."Memsahib ayega to him boleyga" (When madam returns, I will tell her", and at the same time opened her legs to her mistress paramaour, "EVEN more bizarre was his story of how he bedded two sisters and their mother.One sister had been his mistress for some years before she left him to got married.She introduced her younger sister to Johar and asked him to sleep her get into films.He not only got her a few minor roles but also asked her to stay at his flat.One evening came back from the studios look ing very tired, asked her if she would like a hot cup of tea or something stronger to cheer her up.She replied, "if you really want to know what I would like best, I'd like a nice fuck." The girl left Johar to become a star.Her mother wrote to Johar to thank him for what he had done for her daughters and asked him if she could stay with him for a couple of days when visiting Bombay.One night she came to his bed, stark naked."I did not want to hurt the old lady's feelings," wrote Johar, and "obliged her the same way I had obliged her daughters." How could I have published these memoirs without inviting the wrath of the proprietors of the journal on my head? Johar accused me of cowardice.With tears streaming down her eyes she repeated over and over again what the boys had threatened to do to her, "we'll bugger you bloody bitch till your fat bum is blue; we will f......till you scream for help".(page 8) "On another occasion she wrote a very bitchy piece on Dharmendra allegedly based on an interview he had given her.He was known to be a bit of a stud; Devyani's account made him out to be a superstud.She wrote about how he serviced two to three starlets every day in the studios before he returned home to do his "home work" on his wife's bed.Dharmendra was understandably very upset".8.2ABOUT Indrani Aikath Gyaltsen "I thought Indrani was riding on cloud nine.She was a genuine case of nymphomania, and according to her nephew Vivian Sunderam's published account, she was also a lesbian.Her modus vivendi is vividly described by Badruddin Tyabji in his memories.One winter when he was staying in Simla he invited Amrita for dinner.He had a fire lit for protection from cold and European classical music playing on his gramophone.He wasted the first evening talking of literature and music.He invited her again.What I can't forget is her brashness."8.4INDER Sain Johar "ONE night he had (or pretend to have) nightmares and started whimpering in his sleep.His aunt brought him to her bed.He snuggled into her bosom and soon had an erection.He tried to push it into her.She slapped him and told me to behave himself.The next morning he was afraid he would be scolded and sent back home.However, his aunt was sweetness itself.After her husband had left for his office, she offered to bathe him.While she was soaping him, he again got sexually aroused.This time his aunt taught him to what to do with it.It became his daily morning routine.When he got to the lady's flat, he was informed by her young Goan maidservant, "Memsahib bahar gaya" (madam has gone out)."Kab ayega? (When will she return?) "Ky maloom? Bahut late hoga.( I don't know, she will be late), replied the maid So Johar simply pushed the girl on the bed and mounted her.The girl protested."Memsahib ayega to him boleyga" (When madam returns, I will tell her", and at the same time opened her legs to her mistress paramaour, "EVEN more bizarre was his story of how he bedded two sisters and their mother.One sister had been his mistress for some years before she left him to got married.She introduced her younger sister to Johar and asked him to sleep her get into films.He not only got her a few minor roles but also asked her to stay at his flat.One evening came back from the studios look ing very tired, asked her if she would like a hot cup of tea or something stronger to cheer her up.She replied, "if you really want to know what I would like best, "I'd like a nice fuck".The girl left Johar to become a star Her mother wrote to Johar to thank him for what he had done for he daughters and asked him if she could stay with for a couple of days where visiting Bombay."ARE these passages obscene?This was on account of a "very bitchy" piece on him which made him out to be "a superstud".She wrote about how "he serviced two to three starlets everyday in the studios before he returned home to do his 'home work' on his wife's bed' This upset Dharmendra who waylaid her one afternoon and "gave her choicest Punjabi abuse and slapped her".This led her to lodge an F.I.R. at the police station and the news made the front pages of all the Bombay papers.This "fat, full of life, malicious, gossip, mimicry and zest for life" woman was Devyani Chaubal.Khushwant Singh made her write her first novel.It got excellent reviews and was accepted by foreign publishers.Her second novel did better than her first novel.But then she was a woman impatient for fame and money."Why don't people ask me for autographs? Why I am not as widely read as Shobha De'? She asked Khushwant Singh, who assured her that after she had published a few more novels, people would seek her out.And as for selling like Shobha De, he told her, "Put some fucking in your writing and you will be as widely read".Was it an advise or a comment on somebody else's style of writing? We do not know.Khushwant Singh tells us that Indrani Aikath Gyaltsen died of depression but not before being accused of plagiarism.(7) We know Amrita Shergil as a great painter.We came to know about her as a person through her own nephew and an artist in his own right and more so through the memoirs of a highly respected civil servant Badruddin Tyabji wherein he describes his own encounter with her.Khushwant Singh picks it up from there as follows: "Her modus vivendi is vividly described by Badruddin Tyabji in his memories.She usually stayed in Faletti's Hotel.She was said to have given appointments to her lovers with two hour intervals at times six to seven a day - before she retired for the night.If this was true (men's gossip is less reliable than women's) love formed very little part of Amrita's life.Sex was what mattered to her.He even wrote an autobiography and sent its manuscript for serialisation in the Illustrated Weekly.Says Khushwant Singh: "JOHAR sent me the manuscript of his autobiography for serialisation in The Illustrated Weekly.It was difficult to tell how much of it was factual, how much the creation of his sick fantasies.In any case, there was more sex in it than was permissible for journals at the time.I accused him of making up stories."NEELAM Mahajan Singh has confined herself to the accounts.of only the above noted persons.She finds some of the passages in their life sketches as "obscene".She has reproduced them in paragraph 8 of her Writ petition.They run as under:8.1.ABOUT Devyanichaubal "SHE went to the police station and lodged an F.I.R. against the two boys.The next morning she came to my office to tell me about the incident.But she was impatient for fame and money.We met at the Calcutta book fair.Her second novel Crane's Morning was due to be released that week."Why don't people ask me for autographs? Why am I not as widely read as Sobha De? She asked me.I assured her that after she had published a few more novels, people would seek her out.And as for selling like Shobha De, I told her, "Put some fucking in your writing and you will be as widely read." She did not approve of my language."I am not that kind of a writer," she replied with haughty disdain."8.3AMRITA Shergil "SHE was said to have given appointments to her lovers at two hours interval before she retired for the night.If this was true (men's gossip is less reliable than women's) love formed very little part of Amrita's life.Sex was what mattered to her.I accused him of making up stories."NEELAM Mahajan Singh has confined herself to the accounts.of only the above noted persons.She finds some of the passages in their life sketches as "obscene".She has reproduced them in paragraph 8 of her Writ petition.They run as under:8.1.ABOUT Devyanichaubal "SHE went to the police station and lodged an F.I.R. against the two boys.The next morning she came to my office to tell me about the incident.But she was impatient for fame and money.We met at the Calcutta book fair.Her second novel Crane's Morning was due to be released that week."Why don't people ask me for autographs? Why am I not as widely read as Sobha De? She asked me.I assured her that after she had published a few more novels, people would seek her out.And as for selling like Shobha De, I told her, "Put some fucking in your writing and you will be as widely read." She did not approve of my language."I am not that kind of a writer," she replied with haughty disdain."8.3AMRITA Shergil "SHE was said to have given appointments to her lovers at two hours interval before she retired for the night.If this was true (men's gossip is less reliable than women's) love formed very little part of Amrita's life.Sex was what mattered to her.He had the same log fire and the same European classical music.Before he knew what was happening, Amrita simply took her cloths off and lay stark naked on the carpet.Even the very proper Badruddin Tyabji got the message"."HE was then in the prime of his youth - early 20s.In a week she had reduced him to a limp rag."I could not cope with her," he admitted." I was glad to get back to Calcutta.""HERself-portraits were exercises in narcissism.She probably had as a nice a figure as she portrayed herself in his nudes but I had no means of knowing what she concealed beneath her sari.Nevertheless, Johar confessed that in the years of his adolescence what he enjoyed most was being buggered by older boys.""THE autobiography did not mention Rama but in the years after their separation he wrote of a starlet (now a star I won't name) whom he set up in a flat in Malabar Hill.Whenever he felt like it, he would drop in on her.One evening he was in a particularly horny mood.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
108,474,143 |
Allowed md.CRM No. 5227 of 2018 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 17.07.2018 in connection with Pandabeswar Police Station Case no. 69 dated 21.06.2016 (arising out of M.P. case no.264 of 2016), alleging commission of offence punishable under Sections 498A/406/307/376 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re:-Vikas Kumar ... Petitioner Mr. Amajit De, Advocate Ms. Roshni Singha Roy, Advocate ..for the Petitioner Mr. Imran Ali, Advocate Ms. Sutapa Banerjee, Advocate .. for the State The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Pandabeswar Police Station Case no. 69 dated 21.06.2016 (arising out of M.P. case no.264 of 2016), alleging commission of offence punishable under Sections 498A/406/307/376 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioner claims that the de facto complainant had an illicit relationship with the petitioner's brother which culminated in the birth of a child; whereupon the de facto complainant claimed that the petitioner-husband and the husband's brother had tortured the de facto complainant into submitting to the brother.1 2 The petitioner says that the brother against whom the charge under Section 376 of the Penal Code has been made has been granted anticipatory bail.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 petitioner subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2 3 3
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
108,488,019 |
On 09.06.2001, the appellant/accused forged certain documents purporting to be valuable security namely loan application dated 09.06.2001 purportedly writtend by one Vatsala Bhai, Form 16H for loan on RDP for Rs.1,50,000/- against RDP Receipt Nos.500000618, 500000619 and 500000635 each for Rs.75,000/- by forging the signature of the said Vatsala and her daughters P.Aruna and Swarnalatha, with an intention to defraud the Indian Overseas Bank, Tower Branch, Anna Nagar, Chennai, to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-.The accused knew or had reasons to believe at the time he used it, to be a forged document; thereby the appellant/accused committed the offence punishable under Section 467 IPC and Section 467 r/w 471 IPC.2-2.The appellant/accused on 11.06.2001 at Chennai forged certain documents namely SB account opening form bearing SB A/c.No.22123 and specimen signature card in the name of Smt.R.Vatsala Bhai by forging her signature intending that it shall be used for the purpose of cheating; thereby the appellant/accused committed the offence punishable under Section 468 IPC.2-3.The appellant/accused on 11.06.2001 at Chennai forged certain documents namely SB Account opening form bearing SB A/c.22123 and specimen signature card in the name of Smt.R.Vatsala Bahi by forging her signature, which the appellant/accused knew or had reasons to believe at the time he used it, to be a forged document and that thereby the appellant/accused committed offence punishable under Section 468 r/w 471 IPC.2-4.The appellant/accused on 11.06.2001 at Chennai cheated Indian Overseas Bank, Tower Branch, Anna Nagar, Chennai by dishonestly inducing the said bank to deliver a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the appellant/accused as loan against RDP Receipts as mentioned above in the previous charges by forging the signatures of the holders of RDP Receipts as mentioned in the previous charges, which was the property of the said Bank; thereby, the appellant/accused committed an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC.2-5.The appellant/accused on 11.06.2001 at Chennai forged certain documents purporting to be valuable security namely cheque bearing No.907081, dated 11.06.2001 for Rs.1.5 lakhs by forging the signature of Smt.R.Vatsala Bhai with intention to defraud the Indian Overseas Bank, Tower Branch, Anna Nagar, Chennai to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-; thereby, the appellant/accused committed the offence punishable under Section 467 IPC.2-6.The appellant/accused on 11.06.2001 at Chennai fraudulently and dishonestly used as genuine certain documents namely cheque bearing No.907081, dated 11.06.2001 for Rs.1.5 lakhs by forging the signature of Smt.3.In order to prove the guilt of the appellant/accused, the Prosecution has examined 12 witnesses and marked 52 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.On the side of the appellant herein/accused, no witness was examined; however, six documents were marked as Ex.D.1 to Ex.When the appellant/accused was examined under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., regarding the incriminating materials and facts which appeared against him, he denied the allegations.4.The Trail Court, after considering both oral and documentary evidence, has convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused as stated supra.Aggrieved over the same, the appellant/accused has filed the present appeal before this Court.5.The learned senior counsel for the appellant would contend that he is not going to touch upon the merits of the case, but only on the sentence.The learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is only a last grade servant and he was working as Clear-cum- Shroff, in Indian Overseas Bank, Tower Branch, Anna Nagar.The case was registered on 21.02.2002 and there was no wrongful loss to the Bank and even before registering the FIR, the petitioner repaid the entire amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, which would be evident from Ex.In fact, P.W.8 Mr.State rep by the Special Police Establishment/Central Bureau of Investigation/Anti-Corruption Brnach, Chennai] and 2007-1 LW (Crl) 123 (S.P.Meiappan & another Vs.State, etc).6.Heard the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the CBI also, who has not raised any serious objection for the request made by the learned Senior counsel for the appellant on the ground that the petitioner is suffering from various ailment.7.Though the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant made a request to convert the rigorous imprisonment into simple imprisonment and to fix a fine amount and also to make a recommendation to the State Government under Section 433(d) of Cr.P.C. to convert the simple imprisonment into that of a fine, this Court is not inclined to fix any amount as fine and to recommend to the State Government under Section 433(d) of Cr.P.C. However, considering the fact that the appellant has paid the entire amount even before filing the case/FIR and also taking into account the fact that the appellant is suffering from various ailments, this Court is inclined to modify the sentence.Accordingly, this Court while confirming the conviction imposed on the appellant for the alleged offences, modifies the sentence of rigorous imprisonment to that of simple imprisonment for the alleged offences.A.No.708 of 200916.09.2016
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
108,489,375 |
With consent heard finally.The applicant has filed this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail, who has been arrested and is in custody since 27-03-2019, in connection with Crime No.70/2019, registered at Police Station Matabasaiya District Morena for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 353, 332, 333, 186, 323, 147, 148 and 149 of the IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant pressed for bail on the ground that the applicant is in confinement since 27-03-2019 and false has been registered against him.Learned counsel for the respondent/State vehemently opposed the prayer on the ground that applicant's brother was an instrumental for illegal transportation of sand and when interrupted by the Sub Inspector of Police along with police constables, then they were beaten badly by the brother of the applicant and applicant himself with stones and after stone pelting, they escaped along with tractor and driver.Offence has wider ramification and the applicant was absconding for two years.At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant seeks to withdraw this application.Prayer accepted.Application is dismissed as withdrawn.
|
['Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
108,490,482 |
Their agricultural lands are adjacent to each other and there was dispute between them on account of boundary of the field.On 21st May, 2009, respondent no.2-Namdeo (complainant) along with his two sons went to the Tehsil Office.BANUMATHI, J.:323 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. the appellants no.1 to 3 have preferred this appeal.(3) Appellant no.1-Shankar @ Shankar Harale and respondent no.2-Namdeo @ Namdeo Satwaji Harale (complainant) are the real brothers.At about 5.00 p.m. the appellants went to the hut ofSignature Not Verified the second respondent (complainant) and there was wordy quarrelDigitally signed byMAHABIR SINGHDate: 2019.03.0616:40:17 ISTReason:between the appellants and Dhondubai (PW-3) and Kanupatra @ Kanopatra (PW-4) who are wife and daughter-in-law of the 2complainant.During the wordy quarrel, appellant no.2-Vivekpelted stones and the same hit on Dhondubai (PW-3).On beingexhorted by appellant no.1-Shankar, appellant no.3-Parvatibaiwife of appellant no. 1 set fire to the house of the secondrespondent-complainant.On the complaint lodged by the secondrespondent-Namdeo law was set in motion.On completion ofinvestigation charge-sheet was filed against the appellantsunder sections 436, 323, 504 and 506 IPC.(4) Based on the evidence of injured witness Dhondubai (PW-3)and Kanupatra (PW-4) and also taking into consideration theevidence of Dr. Dattarao Mirzapure (PW-8) who issued injurycertificate to Dhondubai (PW-3), the Trial Court convicted theappellants under Sections 436 read with section 34 IPC and 323I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced them toundergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and six monthsrespectively.(5) In appeal, the High Court affirmed the conviction of theappellants under Section 436 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C.and the conviction under Section 323 I.P.C. and also maintainedthe sentence of imprisonment on each of the appellants-accused.Being aggrieved, the appellants preferred this appeal.(6) We have heard Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, learned counselappearing for the appellants, Mr. Venkata Krishna Kunduru,learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State and Mr.Shakul R. Ghatole, learned counsel appearing for respondent 3no.2 (complainant) and also perused the impugned judgment andthe evidence/materials on record.(7) Dhondubai (PW-3) and Kanupatra (PW-4) are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence.In her evidence Dhondubai (PW-3)has stated that appellant no.2-Vivek pelted stones towards herwhich hit on her head and that she sustained injuries.Dhondubai (PW-3) further stated that on being exhorted byappellant no.1-Shankar Harale appellant no.3-Parvatibai setfire to her house.The evidence of Dhoundubai (PW-3) iscorroborated by Kanupatra (PW-4), daughter-in-law of the secondrespondent-Namdeo (complainant).(8) By a careful consideration of evidence of Dhondubai (PW-3)and Kanupatra (PW-4), it is seen that appellant no.2-Vivek whois said to have wordy quarrel and pelted stones on Dhondubai(PW-3).The overt act of setting fire to the house is notattributed to him by either of the witnesses.Equally we donot find any evidence to hold that the second appellant-Vivekshared only common intention with appellants no.1 and 3 toinvoke section 34 I.P.C. and to maintain the conviction of thesecond appellant-Vivek under Section 436 I.P.C. read withSection 34 I.P.C. The conviction of the second appellant-Vivekunder Section 436 read with Section 34 I.P.C. is therefore setaside and appeal of second appellant which is allowed to thatextent.(9) However, the conviction of appellant no.1-Shankar Haraleand appellant no.3-Parvatibai under Section 436 read withSection 34 I.P.C. is confirmed.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,078,005 |
It is, therefore, suggested that some effective steps have to be taken by the Government immediately for providing water-seal latrine facility in each cell, so as to enable the convicts kept in the lock-up during night hours to use such latrines instead of collecting excreta in buckets and cleaning the next day.Such an emergent step would eliminate the dehumanizing practice and it would also protect and improve the human environment.However, in future, the prisoners may be allowed to participate in such rituals freely without handcuffs, but with proper escort and security without allowing them to escape.I also seen the O.P.D. Register maintained in the dispensary and it shows that the doctor gives treatment to about 40 to 60 prisoners a day, out of the reported number of 108 convicts and 163 under-trials, totalling to 271 prisoners.The doctor orally submitted before me that needy prisoners are given treatment and everyday he treats 40 to 60 patients, besides referring some prisoners to General Hospital, Pondicherry, for better and higher treatment.d. The Jail Authorities shall allow visits and interviews by relatives and friends of the prisoners in conformity with the provisions of the Pondicherry Prison Rules, in particular Chapter XXIV thereof.e. In the new modern Central Prison, which is being constructed at Kalapet village, all basic amenities including toilets inside the cell and outside within the jail compound should be adequately provided.With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.The Secretary to Government, Home Department, Pondicherry.The Superintendent of Central Prison, Pondicherry.The Jailor, Central Prison, Pondicherry.[PRV/8507](Judgment of the Court, delivered by P.SATHASIVAM, J.) This Writ Petition has its origin in a letter dated 10.02.2005 by one P.Bharathi, a prisoner of Central Prison, Puducherry-1, addressed to one of the Hon'ble Judges of this Court, making grievance about some jail matters.The letter was ordered to be treated as a writ petition and court proceedings followed which are being wound up by delivering this Judgment.Petitioner P.Bharathi, S/o.Panchanathan, was lodged in Central Prison, Puducherry, on 16.11.2000 as he was convicted along with others by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Puduchery, in Sessions Case No.33 of 1999 and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year under Section 148 IPC and imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with 149 IPC.While he was underging imprisonment as life convict, according to him, he had bitter experience with regard to poor hygienic condition and maintenance inside the prison and also restrictions on the visit by relatives of the prisoners.Projecting his grievances, he made the above said letter, which resulted in this Public Interest Litigation.Considering the grievance expressed, this Court, by order dated 24.03.2005, directed the Chief Judge, Pondicherry, to inspect the Central Prison at Puducherry and submit a report on the allegations made and in respect of the amenities being provided to the convicts as well as the prison conditions.Pursuant to the same, the Chief Judge, visited the Central Jail, Puducherry, on 29.03.2005 between 2 PM and 5 PM and recorded the statements of life convict Bharathi and another convict Rajakkannu.In addition to the same, the Chief Judge has also examined Mr.S.Subramanian, Chief Superintendent of Jails, Pondicherry, and recorded his statement.I submit that I personally visited all the cells of the convicts.Each cell measures 4 x 3 x 3 meters.The entrance to each cell is provided with iron grated door and there are two windows, one near the iron door and the other on the rear side wall or on the side wall.My personal inspection of the cells reveals that there is proper ventilation, air and light.The prisoners are locked after 6.00 PM.and the locks will be opened at 6.00 a.m. on the next day.They are continuously locked up for 12 hours.Therefore, the prisoners would find it difficult to have toilet facility during night time.But in each cell, two plastic buckets with lid are provided during night to collect human excreta and the buckets containing human excreta has to be cleaned by the inmates of that cell on turn basis on the next day morning.Though this Act has been enacted uniformly throughout India, by declaring the employment of manual scavengers for removal of human excreta as an offence and thereby ban the further proliferation of dry latrines in the country, the system of collecting human excreta in buckets in each cell in the prison is to be avoided.Similar provision can also be made in each cell for the hygienic use of the convicts.I further submit that when I asked the other convicts in the jail to put forth their grievances, they only insisted upon to relax the restriction made on the visitors to visit them once in a fortnight.Rule 512 of the Pondicherry Prison Rules enables every prisoner to have an interview with his friends or relatives once in a fortnight during the term of his imprisonment, provided that the exercise of this privilege shall be contingent on good conduct.Further, Rule 516 of the said Rules, gives discretion to the Superintendent of Jails, to fix the date, time and place of such interviews with convicts.I further submit that according to Rule 870 of the Pondicherry Prison Rules, the minimum dimension of every cell built in future shall be 12 feet x 8 feet x 13 feet high and shall be ventilated by an iron grated door in front 6 = feet x 2 < feet and by two windows 4 feet x 2 feet, one being placed above the door and the other on a level with it on the back wall and there shall also be a recess for night urinals.However, during emergencies such as sudden influx of prisoners, overcrowding etc. the Superintendent of Jails may temporarily relax the minimum standard of accommodation.I submit that on going through the statement of the convict Bharathi, it is seen that he was asked to perform the last rituals for his father with handcuff on his right hand and the other end of the lead chain was held by the escort police.b. When a prisoner is permitted to attend his family either for marriage or for condolence on the orders of the jail authorities/government/court, he shall not be handcuffed, however, adequate police escort is to be provided till his return to the Prison.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
107,802,122 |
In his evidence, he asserted that on07.12.1998, at about 1.30 p.m., while he was working in the shop of UttamMajhi along with others, suddenly a man of 25-30 years entered into theirshop through their collapsible gate with a pistol.4-5 persons also enteredinto their shop following him.They all were armed with pistols, knivesand curbed knives.They were running here and there and they picked up themanufactured gold ornaments from their workers and kept the same in a jutebag.Some persons also entered into the gold shops of Prosanta andNasiruddin.P.Sathasivam,J.1) This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated09.04.2008 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta inC.R.A. No. 81 of 2006 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal preferredby the appellant herein by confirming his conviction and sentence passed bythe Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Alipore dated 19/20.12.2005 inSessions Trial No. 1(2) of 2000 for the offence punishable under Sections395/397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC’), Section 25 (1a)2) Brief facts:(a) As per the prosecution case, on 07.12.1998, at about 13:15 hours, theaccused persons, viz., Rajendra Sharma, Sk.Muktar @ Dabbu, Sarban Singhand 2/3 others, armed with revolvers, khojali, bombs etc., committeddacoity in gold jewellery workshops at Gopal Bose Lane and looted goldornaments weighing about 1820 grams approx.and fled away in two taxis.(d) The trial Court, by order dated 19/20.12.2005 convicted the appellantalong with other co-accused under Sections 395/397 IPC and directed him tosuffer rigorous imprisonment (RI) for 10 years along with a fine ofRs.5,000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for a period of 2 years.(e) Being aggrieved of the above said order, the appellants thereinpreferred separate appeals before the High Court at Calcutta.(f) The High Court, by impugned judgment dated 09.04.2008, dismissed theappeal of the appellant (A-1) and one Sarban Singh affirming theirconviction and sentence and set aside the order of conviction and sentenceof other co-accused - Ranjit Kumar.(g) Being aggrieved, the appellant (A-1) alone has preferred the aboveappeal by way of special leave before this Court.3) Heard Mr. Pradip Ghosh, learned senior counsel for the appellant-accused and Mr. Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, learned counsel for the respondent-State.4) Mr. Pradip Ghosh, learned senior counsel for the appellant, aftertaking us through the entire materials submitted that in the absence of anyindividual overt act committed by him, particularly, even when theprosecution witnesses identified the appellant as the person who wassitting inside the taxi in which the other dacoits got up after committingdacoity, awarding maximum punishment of 10 years is not warranted.When people assembled in front of their shops and shouted‘dacoits dacoits’, the said persons, on hearing the same, fled away.Healso stated that when he came out while following them, he noticed that theengines of two taxis, viz., yellow and black yellow were on with thedrivers standing outside the taxis.He noted down the registration numbersof the taxis.He identified the appellant as one of the person standingwith the taxi on.7) The next witness examined on the side of the prosecution was Asim Das(PW-4).He also worked as a goldsmith in a jewellery factory of UttamMajhi at 2F Gopal Base Lane, Kolkata.PW-4 also came to the road and shouted ‘dacoitdacoit’ and noted that two hired taxis were standing on the road with startcondition and drivers were standing besides them.He also identified theappellant who, according to him, standing near the taxi in start condition.In the same effect, PW-5 also deposed before the Court.8) Apart from the evidence of PWs 3, 4 and 5, the prosecution has alsoexamined one Kartik Santra as PW-12 who is the owner of a yellow taxi No.He admitted that the appellant Rajendra Sharma (A-1) was thedriver of the said taxi.He identified him in the dock.He also statedthat Rajendra Sharma took the vehicle on 07.12.1998 at about 7.00 a.m. andreturned the same at 3.00 p.m. on that day.On 08.12.1998, the policeinformed him that there was a dacoity in which his taxi was involved.Oninquiry by the police, he took them to his driver’s residence and,thereafter, the police arrested him from his house and the taxi was seizedon the very same day.9) A conjoint reading of the evidence of PWs 3, 4 and 5 and the owner ofthe taxi, namely, PW-12 clearly establish the involvement of the appellantin the commission of the offence.On going through all the aspects, particularly, theentire evidence of the owner of the taxi PW-12, we inclined to accept theclaim of Mr. Ghosh.It is relevant to point out that PW-12, nowhere in hisstatement has described about any illegal activity on the part of theappellant who was his taxi driver.Inasmuch as no adverse statement hasbeen made by him and also of the fact that till date, he had alreadyundergone seven years and six months in jail, while confirming hisconviction, we feel that ends of justice would be met by altering hissentence to the period already undergone.11) In view of our conclusion on the sentence, we direct that theappellant be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.The appeal is disposed of on the above terms.………….…………………………J.(P. SATHASIVAM) ………….…………………………J.
|
['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
107,803,262 |
allowed debajyoti CRM No.119 of 2019 In re : Deepak Das @ Dipak Kumar Das ..... Petitioner.Mr. Dipayan Kundu ..... For the Petitioner.The complaint against the petitioner is that he has taken money, but failed to make supply against the advance payment and has refused to refund the advance.The petitioner claims that at the time of responding to the notice under Section 41A of the Code, about half of the sum of Rs.45,000/- has been repaid by him.The State, however, submits that such allegation of the petitioner is not corroborated by the records.Subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.25,000/- with the trial Court within a fortnight from date, the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail.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 petitioner subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.( Suvra Ghosh, J. ) ( Sanjib Banerjee, J. )
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
107,803,371 |
The sole accused in the Spl.S.C.No.27 of 2006 on the file of the Special Judge under SC/ST (PT) Act/Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore is the appellant.2 The accused has been prosecuted before the said Court for having committed offences under section 3(1) (x), 3(1) (xi) of SC/ST (PA) Act r/w 354 of I.P.C. and Section 323 of I.P.C.3 Ultimately, he was convicted and sentenced as detailed below:(i) P.W.1 Kanniammal belongs to Mangalam Village in Palladam Taluk in Coimbatore District.She belongs to Arundhathiyar community (Scheduled Caste) Ex.P.4 is the community certificate issued to her by P.W.7 Paulraj, Tahsildar, Palladam Taluk.(ii) Appellant is running a petty shop very near to P.W.1's house.He belongs to Nadar community, backward class (Nadar).(Ex.P5 Community certificate has been issued to him by P.W.8 Viswanathan, Dy.Tahsildar, Palladam Taluk.(iii) On 7.10.2015 at about 10.45 a.m. in connection with discharge of waste water from the pipe quarrel arose between P.W.1 and the appellant/accused.The accused called her by her caste intending to defame her.Accused also slapped her.This occurrence has been witnessed by P.W.2, 3 and 9 viz., Muthammal, Chinnakali and Arumugam.P.W.1 lodged Ex.P1 complaint with P.W.10 Gugan, S.I. of Police, Mangalam Police station.He registered this case (Ex.P6 F.I.R.).(iv) P.W.4 Dr.Rajkumar, Medical Officer, Government hospital, Tiruppur treated P.W.1 and issued her Ex.P2 Wound certificate that she had simple injury.(v) P.W.4 Balakrishnan, Dy.Superintendent Police, Tiruppur took up his investigation.He visited the scene place.Prepared Ex.P3 Observation Mahazar in the presence of P.W.6 Murugesan and another.He drew Ex.The convictions are confirmed.(i) 3(1) (x) of SC/ST Act6 months R.I. and fine Rs.1000/- i/d 2 months R.I.(ii)3(1) (xi) of SC/ST Act r/w 354 of I.P.C One year R.I. and fine Rs.1000/- i/d 2 months R.I.(iii) 323 I.P.C.Fine Rs.1000/- i/d 2 months R.I.Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.P7 rough sketch.He examined the witnesses and recorded their statement.Concluding his investigation, he filed the final report against the accused for offences under section 3(1) (x), 3(1) (xi) r/w 354 I.P.C. and Sec.323 I.P.C.4 The learned Special Judge/Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore upon hearing both and on perusal of the case-records framed charges under Sections 3(1)(x), 3(1)(xi) r/w 354 I.P.C. and Sec.323 I.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges.On the incriminating aspects in the prosecution evidence, the accused has been examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the offences.He did not let in any evidence on his side.6 Appreciating the said evidence and considering the arguments of both sides, the learned Special Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as already stated.7 The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that both the appellant and the P.W.1 are neighbours.They have forgotten the bitter past.Now, there is harmony between both sides.She had stated that she and the accused have become friends.Now, no enmity between them.Her statement has been recorded.11 I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the impugned judgment and the entire materials on record.12 The oral and documentary evidence let in which we have already seen had unimpeachably establishes the charges framed against the accused.1.The Special Judge Under SC/ST (PA) Act/Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore2.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.4.The Inspector of Police, Mangalam Police Station, Palladam Taluk, Coimbatore District.P.DEVADASS, J.,vaanCrl.A.No.815 of 2007 08-07-2015
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,078,057 |
ORDER S.S. Jha, J.
|
['Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
107,816,587 |
Chhoti Bai and Pramod rescued the complainant.Applicant also threatened him to kill.Heard finally at motion stage.This criminal revision has been filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 06.06.2018 passed by learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad in Criminal Appeal No.42/2017 arising out of the judgment dated 19/04/2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hoshangabad in Criminal Case No.9661/15, whereby learned trial Court found applicant Sonu Ahirwar guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 324 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year with fine of Rs.1,000/- and the learned Additional Sessions Judge partly allowed the appeal and while maintaining the conviction under Section 324 of the IPC reduced the sentence for three months.Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 05.06.2014 when complainant Ram Bharose was going to his house, on the way at Harijan Mohalla infront of Raju's house applicant came their and abused him and assaulted him by kicks and fists and also bite him on the chest.Thereafter, applicant took one axe from his house and assaulted the complainant on his head, due to which he sustained injury.After the incident, complainant lodged the report at Police Station Babai.On that report, police registered Crime No.255/2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 294, 324 and 506 of the IPC and investigated the matter.After completion of investigation, Police filed charge-sheet before the JMFC, Hoshangabad, upon which Criminal Case No.9661/2015 was registered.Learned JMFC framed charge against the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 324 and 506-B of the IPC and tried the case.Appellant abjured his guilt and took the defence that he has been falsely implicated in the crime.Further the applicant has no criminal post, nor was he involved in any unlawful activities subsequent to this incident.
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
108,217,250 |
Further it is alleged that the pamphlets are distributed at the instigation of petitioners herein and thereby all the accused are violated the election code.vsd CRL.O.P(MD) No.11970 of 2018 and Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.5439 and 5440 of 2018 17.10.2019This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash proceedings in S.T.C.No.2142 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai in Crime No.373 of 2016 on the file of the first respondent police, as against the petitioners.Therefore, he vehemently opposed the quash petition and prayed for dismissal of the same.5.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.The order must be notified or published by beat of drum or in a Gazette or published in a newspaper with a wide circulation.g) No Judicial Magistrate should take cognizance of a Final Report when it reflects an offence under Section 172 to 188 of IPC.An FIR or a Final Report will not become void ab initio insofar as offences other than Section 172 to 188 of IPC and a Final Report can be taken cognizance by the Magistrate insofar as offences not covered under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C.h) The Director General of Police, Chennai and Inspector General of the various Zones are directed to immediately formulate a process by specifically empowering public servants dealing with for an offence under Section 188 of IPC to ensure that there is no delay in filing a written complaint by the public servants concerned under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C.http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P(MD) No.11970 of 2018He is not a competent person to register FIR for the offences under Section 188 of IPC.As such, the First Information Report or final report is liable to be quashed for the offences under Section 188 of IPC.Therefore, the final report cannot be sustained and it is liable to be quashed.11.Accordingly, the proceedings in S.T.C.No.2142 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai, is quashed and the Criminal Original Petition is allowed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P(MD) No.11970 of 2018 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
|
['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
108,219,346 |
The detenu is directed to be released forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.(M.J.,J.) (A.J.,J.) 9.1.2015 M.JAICHANDREN J.,and ARUNA JAGADEESAN J.,lanTo:The State of Tamil Nadu rep by its Secretary to the Government Department of Prohibition and Excise (Home) Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009The Commissioner of Police Chennai City Police Commissioner Office, Egmore Chennai 600 008The Inspector of Police M-5, Ennore Police Station Chennai 15The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Puzhal ChennaiH.C.P.No.2119 of 20149.1.2015This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed by the mother of the detenu, namely, Ramesh @ P.T.Ramesh, aged 28 years, son of Pasupathy, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in BDFGISSV No.797/2014, dated 21.7.2014, passed by the second respondent detaining the detenu, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), read with orders issued by the Government in G.O.(D) No.143, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, dated 18.7.2014, under Sub Section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act, branding him as a Goonda, in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to produce the body of the detenu and set him at liberty forthwith.Though several grounds have been raised in this Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned detention order only on the ground of non-supply of copies of the bail applications filed in similar cases, referred to in the grounds of detention, for arriving at the subjective satisfaction that there is likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail, which has affected the constitutional right of making an effective and purposeful representation to the authorities concerned, thereby vitiating the detention.However, he submitted that the copies of the bail applications were not supplied to the detenu.We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival submissions put forward by the learned counsel on either side and thoroughly scanned through the impugned detention order and the entire materials available on record.It is seen from paragraph 4 of the Grounds of Detention that in a similar case registered at M-5, Ennore Police Station, in Crime No.1017 of 2013, under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392 read with 397 and 506(ii) IPC, bail was granted to the accused Santhosh Kumar by the learned District Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur, in Crl.Further, due to non-supply of such vital documents, the detenu has lost valuable right to make an effective representation to the authorities concerned.In the light of the above said principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court and for the reasons stated above, the impugned order of detention is vitiated and the same is liable to be quashed.In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.
|
['Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
108,229,438 |
The deceased in this case was one Mr.He was also undergoing coaching in the same centre.Later on, the said friendship was developed into a love affair between them.After P.W.54 had gone to Nepal for doing M.B.B.S., course, the love affair continued.The deceased had all the way gone to Nepal; married P.W.54 and in a rented house, he started living with P.W.54 as her husband.His friend one Mr.Ambedkar (P.W.14) was staying with him for some time.Through the seniors of P.W.54, A.1 came to know about the same.3.A.1 is an Advocate by profession.A.1 & A.2 went to Nepal.When they enquired, they came to know about the marriage between P.W.54 and the deceased.However, A.1 & A.2 somehow managed to get the deceased back to Tamil Nadu.P.W.54 continued her studies in Nepal.A.1 & A.2 returned to Madurai.4.P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased.On 16.04.2013, P.W.54 returned to Tamil Nadu and along with the deceased she met P.W.1 and told that they had married the deceased and she further told that they were proceeding to Bangalore.P.W.54 and the deceased told that if only they married, her parents would accept the same without causing any further trouble to them.5.On 18.04.2003, it is alleged that A.1 and the father of the deceased came to Pallavaram at Chennai.But, when A.1 started talking, P.W.54 disconnected the call.Then after having ascertained that the deceased and P.W.54 were not in Chennai, A.1 returned to Madurai.It is further alleged that on 21.04.2003, the mother of the deceased informed P.W.1 over phone that at Coimbatore, before an Advocate and Notary Public, P.W.54 and the deceased registered their marriage.On few occasions, A.1, over phone, intimidated the father of the deceased, objecting to the above conduct of the deceased.This resulted in a complaint with the Police.Thereafter, A.1 came to Chennai and went in search of P.W.1, where he was working, with a view to intimidate him.Because of the above incident, P.W.1 was also sent out of service by his employer.When P.W.1 told the deceased about the same, the deceased took P.W.54 and went to Nepal.In the year 2004, the mother of the deceased had fallen ill.P.W.1 informed the same to the deceased who was then in Nepal.He returned to Chennai.He went in search of a job and finally, he secured a job in a net working company.He was staying with his friends viz., P.W.4 and two others at Camp Road, Tambaram.Every day, he used to go to his work place from the said house.Since, the deceased had secured a job, P.W.1 wanted to have a separate house for him, for the deceased and their mother.6.While so, A.1 along with the other accused who are his associates decided to do away with the deceased.In pursuance of the said conspiracy, it is alleged that on 12.04.2004, A.1 along with A.2, A.3 & A.4 went in a Car to Chennai.A.2 had kept an Aruval ready in the Car.They went to Chennai only with a view to execute the conspiracy so as to kill the deceased.7.On 12.04.2004, around 7.00 pm, on reaching Chennai, A.1 went to the house where the deceased was staying at Camp Road, Tambaram, Chennai.A.2 to A.4 were staying in the Car outside.But, the deceased was not then available in the house.Therefore, he returned to the Car.Around 8.30 pm, A.1 went to another place and brought the deceased to Camp Road.A.1 deceived the deceased as though he was very cordial towards him.A.1 took him to a nearby vacant land comprised in S.No.71 belonging to one Mr.Ramakrishnan at Chennakuppam, where, it is alleged that A.1 & A.3 held the deceased and A.2 cut him indiscriminately.A.4, standing near the Car was watching the movement and assisted them.The deceased died on the spot.They returned to Madurai and went to their respective destinations.The occurrence was not thus, witnessed by anyone.8.On 13.04.2004, around 6.30 pm, P.W.8, a friend of the deceased had sent an email to P.W.1 that since, there was some problem for the deceased in the company where he had just joined service on 12.04.2004, he left the company and had gone to Nepal.P.W.1 developed a doubt as to how within one day of the joining employment, the deceased would have had some problem.With this, he started enquirig the whereabouts of the deceased.He came to know that on 12.04.2004, around 8.30 pm, A.1 took the deceased in his Car.On 14.04.2004, P.W.1 spoke to A.1 over phone and wanted to know about the whereabouts of the deceased.A.1 told him that since, the deceased did not like the job, he had gone to Nepal.This statement of A.1 again made him to raise further suspicion.Till 16.04.2004, P.W.1 was in search of the deceased.The deceased did not turn up.Therefore, on 16.04.2004, P.W.1 made a complaint at Selaiyur Police Station, Tambaram, Chennai about the missing of his brother.According to P.W.1, the Police refused to receive the complaint for want of jurisdiction and wanted P.W.1 to go over to Madurai and to make a complaint.On hearing information about the missing of the deceased, P.W.54, the wife of the deceased returned to Chennai.She went to a Women Organization and informed about the missing of the deceased.P.61 is the F.I.R. He forwarded both the documents to Court.10.Taking up the case for investigation, P.W.49, examined P.Ws.1,2 & 4 and recorded their statements.He prepared an observation mahazar at the place where the deceased was lastly seen.His efforts to locate the deceased turned futile.On 23.04.2004, he sent summons to A.1 directing him to appear before him for interrogation.But the house of A.1 at Madurai was locked and therefore, he could not be reached.Till 15.05.2004, he was not able to get any breakthrough in the investigation.11.While so, P.W.5 Mr.Anandan who was the Panchayat Board President found the dead body of a male lying in the field of one Mr.He rushed to the place of occurrence at 9.30 am on the same day.At his request, a police sniffer dog was brought to the place of occurrence.It turned futile.A finger Print Expert and a Forensic Expert were also brought to the place of occurrence.But they also could not get any incriminating evidence from the place of occurrence.Then, P.W.45 prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch at the place of occurrence, with the help of a Police Photographer.He recovered blood stained earth, sample earth, blood stained shoe, the spectacles, a pen, a comb and other personal belongings of the deceased.Then he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased between 12.30 pm and 1.30 pm on 13.04.2004 and prepared an inquest report (Ex.P.54).P.31 is the post mortem certificate.She gave opinion that the death of the deceased was due to shock and haemorrhage due to the multiple cut injuries more particularly the injury to neck.14.P.W.45, then made a vide publicity of the photograph of the dead body in a local news papers in an attempt to identify the dead body.Then he recovered the blood stained clothes and the silver ring from the body of the deceased.He kept the dead body till 24.04.2004 in the mortuary.Since, the identity of the dead body could not be made out and since, nobody came forward to identify the dead body of the deceased, he made a request to the Commissioner, Chengalpet Municipality to bury the dead body.15.Reverting back to the family of the deceased, P.W.1 and other family members were hectically searching for the deceased.But, they could not succeed.During the last week of April 2004, when the said Habeas Corpus Petition came up for admission, a Division Bench of this Court ordered notice.In the said Habeas Corpus Petition, P.W.1 had alleged that the deceased was abducted by A.1 herein.The said proceedings of the Court was covered mainly in various news papers.P.71 is the Alteration Report.Then even before he could commence the investigation, the Deputy General of Police issued order transferring the investigation to CB-CID.He visited the place where the deceased was staying at Camp Road, Tambaram, chennai and the place from where the deceased was lastly taken by A.1 in his Car.He examined P.Ws.1 & 4 and few more witnesses and also recorded their statements.During the course of investigation, he made formal arrest of A.2, A.6 who were already in judicial custody in connection with some other case.Both the accused gave voluntary confessions.He collected the photographs of the deceased and forwarded the same to Forensic Lab along with the skull which was already preserved for the purpose of superimposition examination, in order to prove the identity of the dead body beyond doubt.19.In pursuance of the confession made by A.2, he took the Police and witnesses to the place of hide out and produced M.O.21 Shirt.A.6 also made a voluntary confession.Then he forwarded these accused to Court for judicial remand.On 10.06.2004, P.W.55 arrested A.3 in the presence of witnesses at Tambaram bus stand.He also made a request to Forensic Lab to conduct DNA examination in order to ascertain the identity of the deceased, on the orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate.A.3 was handed over to police custody for 7 days.While in custody, on 20.06.2004, at 8.30 am, he made a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed that he had hidden the socks at his house and also the Car bearing registration No.In pursuance of the said disclosure statement, he produced these material objects, which were recovered.Then he forwarded him to Court for judicial remand.He took police custody of A.2 on 25.06.2004, on the orders of the Magistrate.While in custody, A.2 made a voluntary confession.In which, he disclosed the place where he had hidden a Car and an Aruval.In pursuance of the same, he took the police and witnesses to his native place and produced an Aruval (M.O.27).P.W.55 recovered the same.While in custody, on 20.02.2005 at 11.00 am, A.1 made a voluntary confession.In which, he disclosed the place where he had hidden the registration certificate of the Car bearing registration No.In pursuance of the same, he took the police and witnesses to his marriage hall and from the locked room, he produced these material objects.P.W.56 recovered the same from the same room.A.1 produced black colour pant (M.O.6); black colour belt (M.O.7); kerchief (M.O.8), and a navy blue shirt (M.O.9) which were kept in a plastic bag.He did not find any finger print at the place of occurrence.P.W.31 the head of the Senior dog squad had stated that on 13.04.2004, he took a sniffer dog to the place where the dead body was found but, it did not yield any positive result.P.W.32 has spoken about the post mortem conducted and her final opinion regarding the cause of death.P.W.33, the Scientific Assistant in the Forensic Lab has stated that he examined the material objects and found that there were blood stains on the material objects recovered from the dead body.P.W.34 is the Expert in serology and he has stated that the grouping of the blood could not be made out.P.W.35 is a scientific Assistant in the Vellore Regional Forensic Lab.He conducted superimposition of the photograph of the deceased with the skull.He found that the skull of the dead body tallied with the photograph of the deceased.Thus, according to him, the skull was that of the deceased.P.W.36 has stated that the Car bearing registration No.TN 59 H 6841 belonged to A.1 as he has spoken so based on the records maintained at his office as he was the Senior Transport Officer of Madurai North during relevant period.P.W.37 has spoken about the DNA examination conducted form the DNA extracted from the dead body and from the father and mother of the deceased.It proved that the father and mother of the deceased were the biological parents of the deceased.P.W.38 was the Sub Inspector of Police at Selayur Police Station.He has stated that he handed over the case records relating to the earlier complaint between A.1 and the family of the deceased.He has also spoken about the motive.P.W.39, the then Sub Inspector of Police Madurai Tallakulam Police Station has stated that one Ms.Selvarasi has changed her name as Ms.P.W.41 has stated that on 27.03.2003, when he was working as the Sub Inspector of Police at Ottanchathiram Police Station, a complaint was received from one Mr.Sampath, the father of the d6eceased that A.1 and his relatives were threatening him.P.W.42 has stated that on 24.05.2003, when he was the Inspector of Police at Natham Police Station, one Mr.Balasubramanian had made a complaint that the father of the deceased was threatening the father of P.W.54 and also demanded money.P.W.43 has stated that when he was working as Sub Inspector of Police at Kolathur Police Station, Chennai, one Ms.Sulu the President of the Women Organization where P.W.54 was staying has made a complaint against A.1 that he threatened her.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.Nagamuthu.J) The State has preferred the present Criminal Appeal against the acquittal of the respondents 1 to 6 herein who are A.1 to A.6 in S.C.No.363/2005 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram District, Chengalpattu.The trial Court framed as many as nine charges against the accused as detailed below:-Charge No.AccusedSection of law1A.1 to A.6120(B) I.P.C.,2A.1364 I.P.C.,3A.1 to A.4302 r/w 34 I.P.C.,4A.5 & A.6201 r/w 302 I.P.C.,5A.5 & A.6203 r/w 302 I.P.C.,6A.1 to A.4109 r/w 201 I.P.C.,7A.1 to A.4109 r/w 203 I.P.C.,8A.2 to A.4109 r/w 120(B) & 364 I.P.C.,9A.4109 r/w 302 I.P.C.,By judgment dated 03.10.2013, the trial Court acquitted all the accused from all the charges.Aggrieved over the same, the State is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal.2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:-The first respondent/A.1 is the father of one Ms.Roselin Selvarasi (P.W.54).P.W.54 was doing M.B.B.S., degree course in Universal College of Medical Science, Nepal.P.W.1 is a resident of Madurai.Before joining medical course, P.W.54 was studying in a coaching centre in Madurai.Believing the words and deeds of A.1, the deceased changed his dress and got into the Car.A.1 took the deceased in the Car along with A.2 to A.4 under the guise of taking him to Madurai, in a cordial manner.Therefore, the deceased also did not raise any alarm.When the Car reached Oragadam Village, as instructed by A.1, A.4 who drove the vehicle stopped the Car by the side of the road.A.1 wanted the deceased to get down which the deceased, without any resistance, did.With the help of the Women Organization, she took P.W.1 to Selayur Police Station, Tambaram, Chennai and made a complaint on 19.04.2004 at 1.30 pm.9.P.W.49, the then Sub Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No.206/2004 for offence under Section 363 I.P.C. Ex.P.1 is the complaint and Ex.Ramakrishnan (P.W.6) near Vellakulam Village.In this regard, he made a complaint to Manimangalam Police Station on 13.04.2004 at 8.30 am.One Mr.Elumalai, the then Sub Inspector of Police of Manimangalam Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.121/2004 for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. At that time, the identity of the dead body was not known.12.P.W.45, the then Inspector of Police of Manimangalam Police Station took up the case for investigation.He forwarded the dead body for post mortem.13.P.W.32 - Dr.Parasakthi conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 16.04.2004, she found the following injuries:-1.Horizontal cut injury seen on the middle of front of neck measuring 11 cm x 4cm x cervical bone deep involving the muscles, vessels, nerv trachea and oesophagus, margins found clear cut with acute ends.2.Horizontal cut injury seen on upper part of back of neck measuring 13cm x 5cm x bone deep with clear cut margins and acute ends.3.1cm below injury No.2 horizontal cut injury seen measuring 4cmx3cm muscle deep with clear margins and acute ends 4.1cm below injury no.3 horizontal cut injury seen measuring 8cmx3cmx bone deep with clear cut injury seen measuring 8cmx3cmxbone deep with clear cut margins and acute ends.5.A vertical cut injury seen on left palmar region measuring 4cm x 2cm x bone deep with clear margins and acute ends.Ex.They were also not satisfied with the investigation done by the Sub Inspector of Police, Selayur Police station.Therefore, P.W.1 filed a Habeas Corpus Petition before this Court.On intimation, P.W.1 and the other family members came to Manimangalam Police station and on seeing the photographs and the personal belongings of the deceased, they identified the dead body as that of the deceased.Therefore, P.W.45, sent a report to the Inspector of Police, Selayur Police Station.17.Both the cases were clubbed together for investigation.P.W.50, the then Inspector of Police, Selayur Police Station, took up the case for investigation and altered the case in Crime No.206/2004 from Section 363 I.P.C., into one under Sections 363 & 302 I.P.C. Ex.During Test Identification Parade, Mr.David (P.W.12); Mr.Sivanpandi (P.W.13) and Mr.Kumar @ Sudarshanam, participated.He collected the records relating to the marriage between the deceased and P.W.54 and the complaint made.20.On 16.02.2005, near Tambaram Bus stand, P.W.56 arrested A.1 at 10.30 am.P.W.56 recovered the same.On returning to the Police Station, he handed over A.1 to Court for judicial remand and also handed over the material objects to Court.21.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed the charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment against the accused.The accused denied the same.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 56 witnesses were examined and 106 documents were exhibited, besides 28 Material Objects were marked.22.Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1, the brother of the deceased has stated about the marriage between P.W.54 and the deceased.He has further stated that they were living together in Nepal.He has also stated about the fact that the deceased was not found from 13.04.2004 onwards.He has identified the dead body from out of the photographs.He has also spoken about the complaint made by him.23.P.W.2 is a friend of the deceased.He is the one who was staying along with the deceased in a Camp Road in a rented building.According to him, on 12.04.2004, the deceased returned to their room around 6.00 pm.Then he left the room along with his friends.Around 8.00 pm, somebody had come to meet the deceased.The deceased returned some time thereafter.P.W.2 asked the deceased, whether there was any problem.He told that there was no problem for him.Then immediately, he went out of the room.Thereafter, he did not return.He has further stated that on the same day, when he was in the Sakthi Murugan hotel, one person was in his company.When he enquired the deceased, he told that he was his uncle.He has identified A.1 as the one who was in the company of the deceased.24.P.W.3 is yet another friend of the deceased who was staying with the deceased in a rented room at Camp Road, Tambaram, Chennai.He has not stated anything incriminating against the accused.He has only stated that on 12.04.2004, he came to know that the deceased had gone out with his uncle.P.W.4 is another friend of the deceased who was also staying along with the deceased.He has stated that around 8.10 pm, on the same day, the deceased told him that he was going with his uncle but, this witness has further stated that he did not see the uncle of the deceased to whom he had gone.Thus, he has not spoken anything incriminating against the accused.25.P.W.5 is a resident of Chennakuppam village.According to him, he found the dead body of the deceased near Vellakulam, Oragadam on 13.04.2004 and he made a complaint to the Police.He has identified the material objects found on the body of the deceased.He has spoken about the same.P.W.7 has spoken about the preparation of observation mahazar and the rough sketch prepared at the place where the dead body was lying.He has spoken about the recovery of material objects recovered from the dead body, by the Inspector of Police, Manimangalam Police Station.P.W.8 has spoken about the photographs taken by him at the place where the dead body was found lying.P.W.9 is a Constable attached to Manimangalam Police Station.He has stated that he took the dead body and handed over the same to the Doctor for post mortem.He has further stated that he collected the clothes found on the body of the deceased and handed over the same to the Inspector of Police.P.W.10 is the mother of the deceased.She has stated about the marriage between P.W.54 and the deceased and the fact that the deceased was living with P.W.54 in Nepal and the subsequent events.He has also spoken about the motive and the other related facts.But he turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.Thus, his evidence is of no use for the prosecution.P.W.13 was working as a Tea Master in Vasanth Tea Stall at Camp Road, Tambaram.He also turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.He has also spoken about the relationship between P.W.54 and the deceased and the marriage and the other events indicating the motive.P.W.17 has spoken about the alleged confession made by A.3 and the consequential recoveries made by him.P.W.18 has spoken about the confession said to have been made by A.4 on 18.03.2005 and the consequential recoveries of material objects.P.W.19 has spoken about the alleged disclosure statement made by A.2 and the consequential recoveries of material objects.P.W.20 is a photographer.He has stated that during the year 2003, he took photographs of the marriage between the deceased and P.W.54 however, he has not identified either the deceased or P.W.54 as a person whose marriage the photographs were taken.P.W.21 is the State President of Women Organization in Chennai.She has stated that on 17.02.2004, P.W.54 appeared before her and complained that the Selayur Police Station refused to receive the complaint in respect of missing of her husband.Then on their persuasion on 19.04.2004, a complaint was received from P.W.1 and a case was registered.On the same day, P.W.54, gave a detailed written statement in English about the missing of the deceased and the events which proceeded the same.P.W.22 has stated that P.W.54 was staying in Women Protection Home for some time from 17.04.2004 onwards.P.W.23, is an Advocate by profession.He is also the notary public and he has stated that he notarised the marriage between P.W.54 and the deceased.He told that they married on 16.04.2003 at St.Velankanni Church, Besant Nagar, Chennai.P.W.24 is a marriage counselor.She has stated that on 17.04.2004, one Ms.Selvarasi came to their organization along with P.W.1 and complained that A.1, her father had abducted the deceased.She has further stated that she took steps through Police to secure her husband.P.W.25 was running a grocery shop in front of the Women Protection Centre at Chennai.He has stated that on 02.05.2004, one Mr.Radhakrishnan along with two women came to the said place and scolded the president of the said organization, for having allowed P.W.54 to stay in the home.P.W.26 a politician of Otanchathiram has stated that at the request of A.1, he persuaded P.W.54 to continue her education.He has also stated about the motive.P.W.28 has stated that in the year 2000, the deceased studied in his computer center and obtained a certificate.She has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.27.P.W.30 is a Finger Print Expert.P.W.44, an employee of the Women Organization has stated that on 02.05.2004, A.1 along with two other women came to the organization and scolded the President for having allowed P.W.54 to reside in the home.P.W.45 the then Inspector of Police has spoken about the registration of the case on the complaint of P.W.6 in Crime No.121/2004 for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. He has further spoken about the investigation done by him.P.W.46, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Ulundurpet has stated that he recorded the statements of W.Rajadurai, Karthikeyan (P.W.4), Rajaram & Ambedkar (P.W.14) under Section 164 Cr.P.C.According him, all the witnesses identified A.2 & A.3 correctly.P.W.48, the Inspector of Police of Umachikulam Police Station has stated about the complaint made by A.1 on 23.04.2003 about the abduction of P.W.54 by the deceased.He has further stated that the investigation was done into the same.P.W.49 has stated that on 19.04.2004, P.W.1 made a complaint at Selayur Police Station and he registered the present case in Crime No.206 of 2004 for offence under Section 363 I.P.C. P.W.50 was the then Inspector of Police, Selayur Police Station.He has stated that he took up the case in Crime No.206 of 2004 for offence under Section 363 I.P.C., and the Manimangalam Police Station Crime No.121 of 2004 for offence under Section 302 I.P.C., for investigation.He altered the case in Crime No.206 of 2004 for offence under Sections 363 & 302 I.P.C., then he handed over the case diary to the Deputy CB-CID as per the orders of the Deputy General of Police.A.5 & A.6 were produced on 06.07.2004 however, they have stated that they did not make any such confession.He has stated that he was studying M.B.B.S., course at Nepal in the College where P.W.54 was also studying.He has further stated that in Nepal, the deceased was staying with P.W.54 as her husband.P.W.53, the Constable has stated that he produced the parents of the deceased for the purpose of DNA examination.P.W.54, the wife of the deceased has turned hostile and she has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.P.Ws.55 & 56 have spoken about the investigation done and the final report filed.29.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the same as false.However, they did not choose to examine any witness on their side.However, a copy of the telegram dated 19.02.2005 was marked as Ex.The said telegram was sent to the Hon'ble Chief Minister Cell, the Home Secretary and the Director General of Police, by the wife of A.1 alleging that her husband namely A.1 was took away by the CB-CID on 14.02.2005 at 6.00 am and he was detained in the illegal custody.In short, their defence was a total denial.30.Having considered all the above materials, the trial Court acquitted all the accused from all the charges.31.We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the respondents we have also perused the records carefully.32.This is a case based on circumstantial evidence.It is needless to point out that, in a case of this nature, the prosecution has to prove the circumstances projected by it, beyond reasonable doubts and all such proved circumstances, should form a complete chain, without any break, so as to unerringly point to the guilt of the accused and there should not be any other hypothesis which is inconsistent with the guilt of the accused.Keeping this broad principle in mind, let us go into the circumstances projected by the prosecution in the present case.There is no denial of the fact that the deceased had married P.W.54 against the wishes of A.1 and his family members.There were a number of complaints and counter complaints between the two family members.The father of the deceased had made a complaint against A.1 that he had criminally intimidated him, the deceased and his family members.Even P.W.54 preferred a complaint against her own father and she also approached a Division Bench of this Court by way of filing a Habeas Corpus Petition to produce her husband before this Court and to set him at liberty.The above stated complaints would go to prove that there was no love last between A.1 and the deceased.The marriage between the deceased and P.W.54 was celebrated in a Church in Besant Nagar, Chennai and the same was notorised by an Advocate Notary, Coimbatore.From these evidences, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that A.1 had grudges against the deceased.34.The next circumstance projected by the prosecution is that on 12.04.2004, the deceased had joined a private company in Chennai for work and he was staying with his friends in a room at Camp Road, Tambaram, Chennai.He was lastly seen alive on 12.04.2004 by P.W.2 around 8.00 pm.Thereafter, he was not seen alive by anyone.35.The next circumstance is that the dead body of the deceased was found by P.Ws.5 & 6 on 13.04.2004 between 7.00 to 8.00 am in the field belonging to P.W.6 near Vellakulam village at Oragadam.There were a number of injuries found on the body of the deceased.From the superimposition examination and from the DNA examination conducted, it has been established that the said dead body was that of the deceased.P.W.1 and the other family members had also identified the dead body from out of the photograph of the dead body.Thus, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that the deceased was found lying dead on 13.04.2004 at 7.00 am.Prasakthi - P.W.32, who conducted autopsy had found a number of cut injuries, on the body of the deceased.According to her, the said injuries would have been caused by an Aruval.37.Now, the question is Who are the perpetrators of the crime? In order to prove this fact, the prosecution attempted to prove that lastly the deceased was taken from a hotel in Tambaram by A.1 along with A.2 to A.4 in a Car.But, all those witnesses who were examined to speak about the said fact have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution.Thus, absolutely, there is no evidence that the deceased was found alive in the company of any of these accused lastly.38.The prosecution next relies on the recoveries of M.O.6 black colour pant; M.O.7 belt and M.O.9 - shirt belonging to the deceased.According to the prosecution, on the arrest of A.1, these material objects were recovered from out of the disclosure statement made by A.1 from a locked room in a Kalyana Mandapam belonging to him in Madurai.According to the case of the prosecution, the arrest of A.1 was made on 16.02.2005 and the confession was made by him on 20.02.2005 out of which, these material objects were recovered.But P.W.7 during cross examination, has stated that M.O.6 - black colour pant; M.O.7 black colour and M.O.9 - black colour shirt, were all found on the dead body of the deceased and they were recovered on 13.04.2004 itself.P.W.6, the President of the village has stated during cross examination that these material objects were recovered from the dead body on 13.04.2004 itself.This has been spoken even in the chief examination also.39.As against the other accused, the prosecution again relies on the recovery of certain material objects.None of the material objects belonged to the deceased.No connection between the crime and the recovered material objects on the disclosure statement made by A.2 to A.6 also has been established.It is settled law that it is not the discovery of every fact that makes the disclosure statement admissible, but, it is only the discovery of a relevant fact that makes the statement admissible in evidence.Here, in this case, the connection between the material objects and the crime has not been established at all.Thus, absolutely, there is no evidence against the other accused also.40.The attempt of the prosecution to collect finger prints from the place of occurrence turned futile.There was no other scientific evidence to connect the accused with the crime.The prosecution has examined a number of witnesses to speak only about the motive both prior to the occurrence and after the occurrence.Some witnesses have been examined by the prosecution unnecessarily.For example, the prosecution has examined P.W.25 to speak about the alleged shouting of A.1 along with two other women on 02.05.2005 at the President of a women organization in Chennai.We are unable to understand as to how an occurrence that would have taken place long after the commission of the crime would be relevant to the case.Similarly, a number of witnesses examined by the prosecution are unnecessary witnesses.41.By examining as many as 56 witnesses, the prosecution has made an attempt to create an impression that the case against the accused is so strong.Unfortunately, except proving the motive and the fact that the deceased was lastly seen alive on 12.04.2004, the prosecution has not proved any other circumstance against the accused, to prove the alleged guilt of the accused.It is unfortunate that even P.W.54, the wife of the deceased who is supposed to speak about the entire occurrence which may prove certain circumstances and to prove the guilt of the accused has also turned hostile.42.In the result, the Criminal Appeal fails and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
108,229,738 |
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.No.14 of 2019, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Kadaladi, Ramanathapuram District.The second respondent gave a complaint to the first respondent Police and the First Information Report came to be registered in Crime No.67 of 2015, for the offences under Sections 294 (b) and 506 (i) of the Indian Penal Code.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and the second respondent belong to different political parties and the entire complaint was given with mala fides and to settle scores.The learned counsel further submitted that even if the allegations made in the final report are 2/5http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P.(MD).No.6758 of 2017 taken as it is, no offences under Sections 294(b) and 506 (i) of the Indian Penal Code have been made out.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent Police submitted that the petitioner had abused the second respondent in filthy language and also threatened him with dire consequences and the same has been spoken by the second respondent in the 161 (3) Cr.P.C statement recorded by the first respondent Police.Apart from the second respondent, the other witnesses have also spoken about the incident.Therefore, a prima facie case has been made out and there is no ground to interfere with the final report.The relevant portion in the 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of the second respondent is extracted hereunder:-“mg;NghJ nghl;ly;gr;Nrup fpuhkj;ijr; Nrh;e;j ntz;luR kfd; GtNde;jpud; vd;id Nehf;fp te;J eP ahUlh vdnfjpuhf NghyP]; ];Nlrd; tUfpwha; vd;Nky; gy tof;F cs;sJ. cd;idAk; eLNuhl;by; itj;J Xl Xl tpul;b ntl;btpLNtd; ,e;j GtNde;jpuid gw;wp ahUf;Fk; njupahJlh Rd;dp jNahop Njtbah kfNd vd;W mrpq;fkhd thu;j;ijfis $wp ,d;Dk; xU thuj;jpy; cd;fijia Kbj;JtpLNtd; vd;W ifia fhl;b nfhiy kpul;ly; tpLj;jhd;.clNd ehd; me;j ,lj;ij tpl;L efu;e;J Ngha; rpf;fy; fhty; epiyak; te;J Gfhh; kD nfhLj;Njd;.” 3/5http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P.(MD).No.6758 of 2017It is seen that there was some political rivalry between the parties and there was a wordy quarrel between both of them.Apart from the oral threat, there is no other positive act attributed on the part of the petitioner, which will constitute the offence of criminal intimidation under Section 503 of the Indian Penal Code.The so called incident and the offences involved are very pettu in nature and no purpose will be served in pursuing with these proceedings at this length of time.The complaint itself is attended with mala fides due to political rivalry.In view of the above, the proceedings in S.T.C.No.14 of 2019, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Kadaladi, Ramanathapuram District, is hereby quashed and accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.Kadaladi, Ramanathapuram District.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.Order made in CRL.O.P.(MD).No.6758 of 2017 Dated:
|
['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.
|
1,082,368 |
ORDER S.P. Talukdar, J.The opposite party No. 2 I herein, Sutapa Pal, submitted a written complaint dated 9-10-2000 before the Inspector-in-Charge, Barasat Police Station, District-24-Parganas (North).she started living with her husband and his parents at her matrimonial home.During her stay, much was said about the insufficiency of the dowry given at the time of the said marriage.There had been consistent demands in this regard.Times without number, she was subjected to humiliation and mental and physical torture during such stay.Being unable to bear with such consistent torture by her husband and his parents, she had to take shelter at her parents place.On 22-3-1999, she was escorted to her husband's place by her parents, but was not received well.She was again subjected to severe torture by her husband and his parents on 18-4-1999, when her parents visited their place with gifts on the occasion of marriage anniversary.On 21st May, 1999 being assured of her safety and security by local relatives, well-wishers and a panchayat member, she again went back to her husband's place.But there had been no change in functional behaviour.The petitioner No. 1 filed a matrimonial suit before the learned Court of District Judge, Barasat, 24-Parganas (North) on false and baseless allegations.During her stay at her husband's place, her Stridhan properties including gold ornaments and valuable articles were left with her mother-in-law, who, however, refused to return the same.Such consistent misbehaviour both physical and mental torture, thereafter put the complainant under painful compulsion to seek redress before a Court of law.The wife of the petitioner No. 1, being the O. P. No. 2 herein, had, in fact, no functional relationship with petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, not even access through telephone.As a son, petitioner No. 1 being accompanied by his wife went to his parents place at Duttapukur with the idea to take care.But it could not be possible for consistent misbehaviour of the wife of such petitioner No. 1, who was, thus, compelled to come back to his residential accommodation.Such written complaint was treated as FIR and the matter was taken up for investigation.After completion of investigation, the police authority submitted charge sheet against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 498A/406 of I.P.C.The petitioners being the husband of O. P. No. 2 and his parents filed this application under Section 482 of Cr.Grievances of the petitioners, as ventilated in the said application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. may briefly be stated as follows:From the very date of marriage, O.P. No. 2 was cruel in behaviour towards her husband.This made it difficult for the petitioner No. 1 to even discharge his official work as Assistant Engineer properly.He was compelled to lodge general diary on 28-3-2000 and again on 26-5-2000 at the local Hastings Police Station.On 18-7-2000, the petitioner No. 1 filed a Matrimonial Suit being No. 881 of 2000 before the learned Court of District Judge, Barasat, 24-Parganas (North).The written complaint.The petitioners sought for anticipatory bail and were finally favoured with an order of bail.This antagonized the O.P. No. 2 further, who then filed an application under Section 36 on 22-1-2001 praying for pendente lite alimony as well as an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance.During investigation, there was no witness in support of the false and frivolous allegation made by the O.P. No. 2 in the written complaint and no such statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. was recorded.Exercising undue influence, the said O.P. No. 2 and her family could succeed to get the investigation authority shifted.Police seized the alleged "Stridhan properties" in an unusual fashion from the quarter and the house of the petitioners.All such articles, as claimed by the complainant/wife, were returned.The entire investigation was held in a indicative manner and this finally resulted in submission of charge sheet under Sections 498A/406 of I.P.C. against the present petitioners.It is claimed that such charge sheet on the basis of investigation, which was conducted in a suspicious and vindictive manner, is liable to be quashed.Mr. Sudipto Moitra, as learned Counsel for the petitioners, claimed that there could be no reason to suspect commission of any offence, as there are no tangible facts to constitute any suspicion.Mr. Moitra submitted that the criminal case was started in a way of counterblast to the matrimonial suit, which was filed by the petitioner No. 1 praying for a decree of divorce.The said matrimonial suit was dismissed by the learned Trial Court.Certain observations made by the learned Trial Judge in connection with the disposal of the said matrimonial suit go a long way to brush aside the allegations made in the written complaint.It was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that O.P. No. 2 had hardly any scope to stay at her in-laws at Duttapukur.It was then submitted that the allegations made in the written complaint suggest that the cause of action, if any, took place within Hastings P.S. and it was also claimed that a complaint was lodged in Hastings P.S. on 14-5-2000 by the father of the O.P. No. 2, but no case was registered on its basis.According to Mr. Moitra, there could be no scope for filing a fresh complaint and that too, at Barasat P.S.It has also mentioned that shifting of the venue from Hastings place to Barasat P.S. was also a calculated ploy.According to learned Counsel for the petitioners, the criminal proceeding was started with the sole intention to harass and humiliate the petitioners.O.P. No. 2 filed an application before the "Jana-Abhijog Cell" headed by the District Magistrate, 24-Parganas (North) for settlement of the matrimonial dispute and till then, she did not lodge any FIR indicating thereby that the subsequent complaint is just an afterthought.Certain letters have been referred to in this context.The present application being C.R.R. 2591 of 2003 is, thus, disposed of with the following directions:The same stands quashed against the petitioner No. 1 and the petitioner No. 2 so far the offence under Section 406 of I.P.C. is concerned.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
108,237,614 |
Shri Abhay Gupta, Advocate for the appellant Shri A.P. Singh, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/StateJUDMENT (27/11/2018) For the reasons assigned in the judgment passed today by us in Criminal Ref.No.11/2018, this appeal stands allowed in part and the finding of conviction is maintained for the charges under Sections 364, 376(2)(m), 302 and 201 of IPC but the capital punishment for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C stands set aside instead the accused is sentenced for the remainder life subject to remission with fine of Rs.15,000/-Date: 2018.11.29 18:28:26 +05'30'
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) 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.
|
108,241,796 |
Allegations in the FIR are grave.Learned lawyer for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the petitioners were members of an unlawful assembly who had unleashed violence at the police station causing extensive damage to public property as well as injuring police personnel while they were discharging duties and had arrested an accused in connection with another case.We have considered materials on record.It is alleged that a group of persons particularly one Paltu and Subham Jana came in the police station and threatened police personnel in connection with the arrest of an 2 accused.Thereafter a large number of persons assembled and threw brickbats at police vehicles, damaged property and injured police personnel.Police officers had arrested the members of the unlawful assembly.Petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer and hand over their passports, if any, within a fortnight from date.In the event they do not have passport, they shall personally appear before the investigating officer and furnish affidavit to that effect within the time frame mentioned hereinabove.The application being CRM 1460 of 2020 is disposed of.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) 3
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
108,245,541 |
As per the prosecution case, there was an enmity between deceased Chhailbihari Singh on one hand and petitioner Dilip Singh and Kishore Singh on the other.On account of aforesaid enmity, there was an altercation on 11.03.2017 between the parties on account of irrigating fields; whereon, Kishore Singh, Dilip Singh and their family members had abused and threatened the deceased; therefore, at about 6:00 p.m. on 12.03.2017 deceased Chhailbihari Singh accompanied by his wife Rajkumari Singh, was going to lodge the report in the police station.Near Saliaya Talab, main accused Pappu Singh intercepted the deceased and his wife on a motor-cycle.Co-accused persons Kishore, Kallu @ Amar Singh, Lallu Singh @ Shanker, Hauka @ Brajesh, Khulli Singh and petitioner Dilip, came from behind.Pappu was armed with a country-made pistol and other accused persons were armed with sticks.Petitioner Dilip Singh exhorted Pappu to shoot Chhailbihari Singh.Chhailbihari Singh started to run away; however, Pappu caught up with Chhailbihari Singh and fired a shot upon his chest from point blank range.Victim Chhailbihari fell down and died on the spot.The other accused persons threatened that if anyone gave evidence they would kill him; thereafter, they ran away.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the role that has been ascribed to the petitioner Dilip Singh is that he accompanied the main accused Pappu Singh armed with a stick and exhorted him to kill Chhailbihari Singh whereon Pappu Singh had fired his country made pistol resulting in death of Chhailbihari Singh but there is no allegation that Dilip Singh assaulted the deceased with the stick he was carrying.No lacerated wound was found on the dead body of the deceased.Though, a stick has been seized from his possession, there are no blood stains upon them.The petitioner has been in custody since 14.03.2017 and the charge-sheet in the matter has been filed; therefore, it has been prayed that the petitioner be released on bail.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand, has opposed the application for bail mainly on the ground that this is a heinous offence and it was actually Kishore and Dilip Singh, who had enmity with the deceased and he had gone along with the main accused Pappu Singh with a stick and actually exhorted main accused Pappu Singh to kill Chhailbihari Singh; therefore, common intention was evident.Consequently, this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the petitioner Dilip Singh is allowed.It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 80,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified copy as per rules.(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE sh
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,090,522 |
The facts giving rise to the complaint are as under :---That on 20-12-1991 respondent No. 2 Lallubhai Sukhabhai Solanki was apprehended at Sahar Airport by the Air Customs Officers, he was found to be carrying foreign currency US and Hongkong Dollar worth about Rs. 13 lacs and he was also found in possession of Indian currency of Rs. 20,450/-.On interrogation respondent No. 2 is alleged to have told the customs officer that it was the petitioner who handed over to him the aforesaid currency with instructions to hand over the same to one Mr. Kenny @ Kanhivalal Sukhwani of Hongkong.ORDER D.G. Deshpande, J.This petition is filed by the original accused No. 2 for quashing the order of issue of process which was issued by the C.M.M., Esplanade, Mumbai, in C.C. No. 108/CW/93 and for dismissing the complaint as against the petitioner which was filed by the respondent under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and under the I.P.C.Pursuant to the said statement, the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 were arrested and ultimately a complaint came to be filed along with the documents, namely retracted statement of the respondent, retracted inculpatory statement of the petitioner, panchanamas of the seizure of foreign currency from the respondent No. 2, panchnama of the search of the petitioner's premises and statement of one Naresh @ Rajesh Sukhwani.The Magistrate thereafter issued process against the petitioner which is challenged in this petition.He has further stated that foreign currency and travellers cheques did not belong to him and they were given to him by one Mr. Subhash Dudhani i.e. the petitioner with instructions to carry the amount to Hong Kong and deliver it to the contact man of Subhash Dudhani i.e. to Mr. Keni.He has also stated that Subhash Dudhani i.e. the petitioner gave him air ticket and promised to pay Rs. 2,000/- on return.The statement of the petitioner is recorded on the same day and he has stated that he was told by the customs officers about the seizure of the foreign currency from the respondent No. 2 on his departure to Hongkong.He has further stated that the respondent No. 2 is known to him and his family last seven years and that he the petitioner has handed over the aforesaid foreign currency at the petitioner's residence.D'souza, one Jogi Mangal and one Haribai Tandel were found in the said room and on a preliminary inquiry, it was revealed that they had come to Delhi from Bombay in the morning of 9th April 1982, by the Indian Airlines flight.Further, on personal search of the said Tandel, some articles, such as a telephone Index diary, some loose documents and one Indian Airlines ticket for Bombay - Delhi - Bombay were recovered from his possession."On the 19th of March, 1985 the original accused Nos. 2 and 3 were apprehended at the Sahar Airport by the Customs Intelligence Officer when they were found to be carrying foreign exchange.On their statements being recorded by the Customs Intelligence Officer, the original accused No. 1 who is the husband of the petitioner was apprehended at the domestic airport and his statement was recorded separately.Thereafter departmental show cause notices were issued and adjudication proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and others.After the departmental investigation was complete, the present complaint came to be filed in the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Bombay on the 22nd of January, 1986."The allegations against the petitioner in that case were that as under:An amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- was placed in two V.I.P. suit-cases and the accused No. 1 and the petitioner told them that Indian currency given to them was to be utilised by them in Bombay for the purpose of acquiring U.S. Dollars.The accused Nos. 5 and 6 were given Indian Airlines tickets for their travel from Ahmedabad to Bombay on the 25th of February, 1985 in false names.Investigations further revealed that the accused No. 3 who was to carry the foreign exchange to Hongkong was supplied his air-ticket by the petitioner through M/s. Marcopia Travels Pvt. Ltd., Bombay.She, however, denied that she had any connection with the acquisition and attempt to have foreign exchange.
|
['Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
109,054,852 |
By an order dated 15.11.2010, he was sentenced to undergo RI for ten years with fine `5,000/-.Briefly stated, the prosecution case as stated in the charge-sheet was that on 03.06.2009 at about 05.00 p.m. at House No.C279, Gali No.5, Panchal Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi, the appellant committed rape upon the prosecutrix 'X' (changed name) aged 4 years.The occurrence was reported to the police promptly and Daily Diary (DD) No.21A (Ex.PW-11/B) came Crl.A.1363/2010 Page 1 of 14 into existence at PS Karawal Nagar at 06.45 p.m. The Investigating Officer after recording statement of victim's mother - Pinki (Ex.PW-2/A) lodged First Information Report under Section 354 IPC. 'X' was medically examined; she recorded her 164 Cr.P.C. statement.Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded.Admitted position is that the victim lived along with her parents in a rented accommodation at C-271, Gali No.5, Panchal Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi.The appellant and his family lived in their neighbourhood.The occurrence took place on 03.06.2009 at around 05.00 p.m. and the incident was reported to the police without any delay resulting in recording of DD No.21A (Ex.PW-11/B) at 06.45 p.m. There is specific mention in this document that a 'small' child was sexually assaulted.The investigation was assigned to ASI Habib Ahmed who after recording victim's mother's statement lodged First Information Report.In her statement (Ex.PW-2/A), Pinki gave detailed account as to how and in what manner the appellant had sexually molested her daughter aged around 4 years in his room.Since the FIR was lodged promptly and the appellant was named to be the perpetrator of the crime, there was least possibility of the complainant to have concocted a false story in such a short period.From the very inception complainant's case was that the victim was ravished by the appellant and she insisted for her medical examination.However, the Investigating Officer apparently in an attempt to dilute the commission of the offence abdicated his responsibility and lodged FIR under Section 354 IPC.He even did not bother to get the prosecutrix medically examined.On 04.06.2009 when pressure was exerted upon the Investigating Agency by the victim's family, 'X' was medically examined vide MLC (Ex.PW-6/A) at around 12.00 noon.Present appeal is directed to challenge the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 09.11.2010 of learned Addl.Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.114/09 arising out of FIR No.130/09 PS Karawal Nagar whereby the appellant - Rajinder Kumar was held guilty for committing offence punishable under Section 376 IPC.The accused was arrested and medically examined.Exhibits collected during investigation were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination.Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for committing offence under Section 376 IPC read with Section 511 IPC.The Trial Court, however, proceeded against the appellant for commission of offence under Section 376 IPC.The prosecution examined eleven witnesses to prove its case.In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the appellant denied involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication.DW-1 (Sushila), DW-2 (Harish Chand) and DW-3 (Ramesh Kumar) were examined in his defence.The trial resulted in his conviction as mentioned previously.Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the instant appeal has been preferred.A.1363/2010 Page 1 of 14Subsequently, improvements were made and allegations of rape were made against the appellant for ulterior reasons.Counsel further urged that no external visible injuries were found on the victim's body including private parts; hymen was found intact.No independent witness from the locality was examined and the conviction based upon the sole testimony of the victim's mother was Crl.A.1363/2010 Page 2 of 14 unsustainable.The alleged history recorded therein states that the child was sexually assaulted on 03.06.2009 at 05.00 pm.The victim recorded her 164 Cr.P.C. statement (Ex.A.1363/2010 Page 3 of 14Learned Presiding Officer had put various questions before recording her statement to ascertain if she was capable to understand the questions and answer them properly.After recording the satisfaction about the witness's competence to make statement, her statement was recorded without oath. 'X' gave vivid description of the incident and implicated the appellant for committing rape upon her.Before examining her, the learned Presiding Officer conducted preliminary enquiry to ascertain her competence to understand the questions.The Presiding Officer was satisfied that the child witness was able to understand the questions properly. 'X' deposed that when she was playing in the street, the accused took her to his residence situated just in front of their house.Assigning specific role to the accused identified by her in the Court, she revealed that he made her to lay on a bed; put off her underwear; opened the zip of his pant and put his penis inside the place meant for urination.Thereafter, he laid over her and committed wrong act.She further deposed that she had wept and the accused had asked her to maintain silence on the allurement to provide eatables.The accused had put the TV on high volume.Her mother arrived at the spot and took her to the house.She further revealed that the accused had applied some liquid on the place of her urination.Her underwear got stained with liquid.In the cross-examination, the victim disclosed that she was called by the accused in the room when she was playing with her friends in the street.She did not know the appellant's name but identified him by face.She fairly admitted that the accused did not beat her in the room.She elaborated that there was no door in the room but a curtain had been put on the gate.She further revealed that none else was present inside the room;A.1363/2010 Page 4 of 14appellant's wife was upstairs.She further elaborated that the accused had taken the tube kept behind T.V. She denied that the statement was tutored to her by her parents.On scanning the testimony of the child witness in entirety, it reveals that despite lengthy and searching cross-examination, no material infirmity could be extracted to disbelieve the version given by her.No ulterior motive was assigned to the child to falsely implicate the appellant in the heinous offence.In the absence of any prior animosity or ill-will, victim's parents were not expected to level serious allegations of sexual assault upon a neighbour to bring their tiny girl in disrepute.Nothing has come on record to show if there was any previous history of hostile relations between the two neighbourers prompting them to make false allegations.Moreover, for trivial issues, if any, the victim's parents were not imagined to use their kid to settle score.In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the appellant admitted that the prosecutrix was with him in the room at the relevant time.He, however, denied if she was sexually assaulted by him that time.It lends- credence to the victim's statement that at the relevant time, she was in the appellant's room.She reasoned that the accused had called her inside the room when she was playing in the street.Had the victim gone to the appellant's room on her own as claimed, there was no occasion for her family members to implicate the appellant for sexual assault.The witness has given detailed account of the occurrence in the cross-examination and was aware as to from where the accused had picked the tube kept behind television to apply on her private parts.No sound reasons exist to disbelieve the natural version given by the witness which is consistent throughout including 164 Cr.P.C. statement.A.1363/2010 Page 5 of 148. PW-2 (Pinki), victim's mother, has corroborated her version on material facts.She deposed that her daughter 'X' was playing in the street.After some time when she came out of her house, she did not find her.On hearing her cries, she went towards the appellant's house and found her in the room.He saw that the appellant had already taken off her underwear and it was smeared with semen.She enquired from the accused as to what he had done with her daughter.To which, the appellant stated that nothing was done by him.She enquired as to why her underwear was smeared with semen when none else was present inside the house, nothing was explained by the appellant.He was even thrashed and abused by the victim's mother and neighbours.She further deposed that initially the victim was not medically examined by the police despite their repeated requests.On 04.06.2009 when they impressed upon the police officials, they took 'X' for her medical examination to GTB hospital.She further explained that on her entering the appellant's room, she saw that her daughter was lying on the bed and the accused had put pillow beneath her.The front chain of the pant of the accused was open.Her daughter informed her that the accused had applied cream on her vaginal parts and had done wrong act with her.She denied that the accused was falsely implicated at the behest of one Om Prakash and other neighbours due to previous quarrel between her and accused's wife.The witness affirmatively disclosed that even at the time of her examination before the Court semen stains were there on X's underwear.She admitted that there was no injury on X's body except some reddishness on the thigh.In response to the question that the accused did not commit any wrong act with her daughter, she replied, "koshish to Rajender ne poori Crl.A.1363/2010 Page 6 of 14 ki thi, agar wo kamyaab ho jaata, to meri ladki jo chaar saal ki thi, to mar hi jaati.Meri ladki ke sare kapde kharab to kar he diye the".A.1363/2010 Page 6 of 14Again no material discrepancies could be elicited in the cross- examination of this witness to discredit her testimony.The victim's mother had no prior ill-will against the accused to involve him for rape upon the kid.The incident was reported to the police without any delay.When the prosecutrix was medically examined next day vide MLC (Ex.PW- 6/A), the examining doctor did not find any injury; the hymen was intact.Learned defence counsel urged that since the victim did not sustain any injury whatsoever on her body including private parts, the prosecution was unable to establish beyond doubt that the victim was ravished.The young girl became victim of lust of the accused and yielded to sexual intercourse to a man who was like her grandfather.A.1363/2010 Page 7 of 14A copy of the order be sent to the Superintendent Jail for information.(S.P.GARG) JUDGE MAY 24, 2016 / tr Crl.
|
['Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
109,062,298 |
P.W.1 is the father and P.W.3 is the mother of the victim girl.They were residing at Bangalore and the victim girl was studying third year B.A course.The accused, who was also travelling in the same train in the same coach, have been allotted in berth No.47, which is a reservation against cancellation ticket.At about 1.00 p.m., the accused came to the berth No.17, in which P.W.2 was sleeping and fell on her.Immediately, she pushed him down and raised alarm and on hearing the alarm, P.Ws.1 and 3 and other passengers woke up and caught hold of the accused, the same was informed to the Traveling Ticket Examiner, P.W.4, and at about 3.00 a.m., when the train reached Salem junction, P.W.1, the father of the victim has lodged a complaint before the respondent police.The Petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.39 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem.He stood charged for the offences under Section 354 IPC and Section 4 (1)(J) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. The Trial Court convicted the petitioner under Section 354 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and acquitted him from/for the charge under Section 4 (1)(J) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. Challenge the above said conviction and sentence, the petitioner had filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.6 of 2012 on the file of the II Additional District & Sessions Court, Salem.The lower appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal.3. P.W.7, Sub-Inspector of Police, attached to the respondent police station, based on the complaint, registered a case in Crime No.499 of 2010 for the offences under Sections 354 IPC and 4(1)(j) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and he arrested the accused, sent him for medical examination.P.W.6, Doctor, working in the Government Hospital, Salem, examined him and given a certificate (Ex.P.2) stating that the petitioner was under the influence of alcohol.Thereafter, P.W.7 recorded the statement of the witnesses and after completion of investigation, he filed a final report.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges for the offences under Sections 354 IPC and 4(1)(J) of Tamilnadu Prohibition Act and the accused denied the same.In order to prove its case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 7 witnesses were examined and 3 documents were exhibited.Out of the witnesses examined, P.W.1 is the father of the victim girl.They were allotted with the berth Nos.17,18, 20 and 21 in coach No.12 , where the victim and her sister were sleeping in lower berths and P.Ws.1 and 3 were sleeping in the middle berth.At about 1.00 p.m., they heard the noise of P.W.2 and found that the accused was lying between 2 berths, when they enquired P.W.2 told them that the accused had fall on her while she was sleeping.Then, he informed the same to the T.T.E and lodged a complaint at Salem Railway Police.P.W.2 is the victim girl.According to her, she was sleeping in lower berth No.17 and at about 1.00 p.m., she found that somebody had fallen on her.Immediately, she woke up and pushed the man down and raised alarm, and when her father questioned the same, the accused told him that mistakenly he had fallen on P.W.2 and he had also apologized for that.Thereafter, her father had given a complaint before the respondent police.P.W.3 is the mother of the victim girl.She has also spoken about the occurrence.P.W.4 is the Travelling Ticket Examiner in Coach No.12 in Island express.He has spoken about the berths allotted to P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and the accused.According to him P.Ws,1,2, and 3 and yet another sister of P.W.2 were alloted with berth Nos.17,18, 20 and 21 and the accused was allotted with berth No.47, which is Reservant Against Cancellation Seat(RAC).P.W.5 is the another Travelling Ticket Examiner.P.W.6 is the doctor, who examined the accused, and given a certificate Ex.P.2, says that the accused was under the influence of alcohol.P.W.7 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered the case, conducted investigation and after completion of investigation, he filed a final report.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false.However, he did not examine any witness nor marked any documents on his side.Having considered all the above materials, the trial Court convicted the petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 354 IPC as mentioned in paragraph one of the judgment and acquitted the petitioner for the offence under Section 4(1)(j) of the Tamilnadu Prohibition Act. Aggrieved against the same, he filed an appeal in C.A.No.6 of 2012 before the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Salem and the lower appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal.Now challenging the same the present revision has been filed.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that from the evidence of P.W.2, the occurrence has been taken place inadvertently in the midnight and absolutely there is no intention on the part of the petitioner to outrage the modesty of the victim.Even as per the evidence of P.W.2, the petitioner fell down on her.Immediately, she pushed him down and thereafter, he realized the mistake and the petitioner apologized to the victim girl and told her that he has mistakenly came to her berth and fall on her.Apart from that there is no materials available on record to show that the petitioner had any intention to outrage her modesty or he has knowledge that the act is likely to outrage her modesty.It is only an accident and the Court below without considering the above materials convicted the appellant, even after acquitting him for the offence under Section 4(1)(j) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act holding that the prosecution has failed to prove that the petitioner was under influence of alcohol.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that the evidence of victim, P.W.2, is that she was sleeping in the berth No.17 and the petitioner was allotted with the berth No.47, which is RAC and there is no occasion for him to come to berth NO.17 and mistakenly fall on her.P.Ws.4 and 5 has also confirmed that he was allotted with berth No.47, and the petitioner has deliberately indulged in the act of outraging the modesty of the victim and the both the Courts below considering the entire materials convicted the petitioner and there is no reason to the concurrent finding of the courts below.I have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record carefully.11. P.W.2 is the victim girl in this case.Perusal of her evidence, it could be seen that she was sleeping in berth No.17 in coach No.P.W.4 the TTE also confirmed the same.It is the evidence of P.W.2 that, at about 1.00 p.m., in midnight, she felt that somebody was sitting in her berth and thereafter she found some weight fall on her.Hence, he woke up and pushed the man down, and shouted, then her father got down from the middle berth, at that time, the petitioner/accused told his father that he mistakenly came to her berth and fall on her.On the cross examination, she has clearly admitted that the petitioner did not do anything other than he fell on her and he did not do any harm on her and immediately, he also apologized to her that he has mistakenly came to her berth.P.Ws.1 and 3 father and mother, who were also travelling along with the victim also did not say that the petitioner has acted with any intention to outrage the modesty or used any criminal force.To bring home the offence under Section 354 IPC, the prosecution should prove that the accused should assault or use any criminal force intending to outrage the modesty or knowing it to be likely to thereby outrage her modesty.But, in the instant case, absolutely, there is no evidence to show that the petitioner has any intention to assault or used any criminal force with an intention to outrage her modesty.From the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, it is only the petitioner inadvertently came to the berth of P.W.2 and he tried to sleep over there.Apart from that it is also not proved by the prosecution that the petitioner was in an intoxicated mood and the trial court acquitted the petitioner for the offence under Section 4(1)(j) of the Tamilnadu Prohibition Act. Hence, I am of the considered view that the prosecution failed to prove the offence under Section 354 IPC beyond any reasonable doubt.Hence, the petitioner is entitled for acquittal.The courts below without considering the evidence on proper perspective erroneously convicted the petitioner, which is liable to be set aside.In the result, the Criminal Revision is allowed and the conviction and sentenced imposed on the petitioner under Sectiion 354 IPC is set aside and the petitioner is acquitted from the charge.
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
109,063,576 |
giving rise to the present revision, briefly stated, are that on 2.1.2012 nearabout 8.00 PM at village Kodan, when victim Mulayan was taking dinner at his house, at that time accused Jahar Yadav came to his house and started talking about partition of property.Accused Jahar abused the victim with filthy language and assaulted him with lathi.When mother of the victim screamed, then his elder brother Laxman rescued him.At that time, accused Jahar also assaulted Laxman due to which he sustained injuries.Accused Khachori and Parmu Yadav also came and assaulted Mulayam and Laxman with kicks and fists.Then the accused persons flee away from the spot after threatening them to kill.Information of the incident was given at Police Station Bada Malahra on which FIR was registered vide Crime No.1/2012 for the offence under sections 294, 323, 452 and 506 Part II I.P.C. After investigation charge-sheet was filed before JMFC concerned.The applicants abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried.The trial court tried the applicants and convicted and sentenced them, as mentioned above.On appeal, the judgment of the trial court was affirmed by the lower appellate court.No.3499/2019 the case exercising discretionary powers the Court may pass appropriate orders and the sentence may be reduced proportionately.Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the judgment and order passed by the Courts below and also on perusal of the record, in view of this Court, the findings of the two courts below with regard to conviction of the applicants for the offence under the aforesaid sections is hereby affirmed as it is based on legal evidence.IPC u/s 325/34 R.I. for 3 months Rs.5000 2 months R.I. IPC Khachori u/s 323/34 R.I. for 3 months Rs.5000 2 months R.I.IPC u/s 325/34 R.I. for 3 months Rs.5000 2 months R.I. IPC Parmu u/s 323/34 R.I. for 3 months Rs.5000 2 months R.I.IPC u/s 325/34 R.I. for 3 months Rs.5000 2 months R.I. IPC All the sentences to run concurrently.On deposit of the aforesaid enhanced fine amount before the trial Court, Rs.25,000/- be paid to victim Mulayam, PW1, as compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.No.3499/2019 The applicants be released on completion of remaining jail sentence, if not required in any other offence.The victim PW1 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 HEMAN Digitally signed by HEMANT SARAF DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA T HS PRADESH JABALPUR, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=f8fa0b4f4478c6238823256688e7 3f3f8f39554afa15525b099da0b0d40060cc, 2.5.4.45=032100B4D4EFC45F55BC994B85 2B06B9D10F087FD53DFA89484840E33CA B2954C72B5C, SARAF serialNumber=44b85edb5491f85db4fba3 4b88536982559dd7a93eb6a14394e7df0d 8412c4a8, cn=HEMANT SARAF Date: 2019.09.17 18:18:29 +05'30'
|
['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
109,069,691 |
Heard on I.A. No.8871/2016, repeat application for suspension of jail sentence of appellant - Hussain Khan.Earlier applications for suspension of jail sentence of appellants have been dismissed on merit vide orders dated 18/09/2015 and 17/03/2016 which reads as under :-18.09.2015 Heard on I.A. No.5928/2015, which is second application filed by the sole appellant - Hussain Khan S/o Baldar Khan.The appellant suffered conviction and sentence as under:-The main contention of counsel for the appellant is that in his statement, PW-1 Beni Prasad said that the deceased Jeevan Singh sustained gunshot injury which was fired by Iqbal Ahmad and not by the present appellant.Though, in the FIR, it was stated that the gunshot injury was fired by the present appellant from the roof top of house of Iqbal Ahmad.As per the prosecution story, present appellant fired several gunshots from inside of his house due to which many persons sustained injuries.It is not clear who fired gunshot injury which hit the deceased Jeevan Singh and due to which he died.It is apparent that in the incident, many persons were involved though, other accused persons were acquitted by the lower court but presence of many persons is established by the prosecution evidence.Even if it is assumed that present appellant did not fire gunshot, due to which the deceased Jeevan Singh died, he is still liable under section 302 read with section 149 of IPC.In this view of the matter, at this stage, no case is made out for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the present appellant.The application is accordingly, dismissed.C.c as per rules.17.03.2016 Heard on I.A.No.680/2016 which is third repeat application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail of appellant-Hussain Khan.Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to order dated 18.09.2015 and submitted that this Court considering the fact that he was present at the place of occurrence and was involved in the crime and therefore held him liable to be convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC and rejected the application for suspension of sentence.He has drawn our attention to paragraphs 127 and 128 of the impugned judgment and submitted that conviction of the appellant is under Sections 302, 307 (four counts), 323(two counts) of IPC and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act. It is also pointed out that all the injured eye witnesses in their statement had not made any allegations against the present appellant that he caused any gun shot injury to the deceased Jeevan Singh nor any material causing injury is proved and submitted that these facts were not taken into consideration while deciding the second application and prays for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.Learned Government Advocate opposes the prayer for suspension of sentence and grant of bail and prays for its rejection.He has drawn our attention to paragraph 85 and 86 of the impugned judgment and submitted that as per Ex.P-75 and Ex.P-78, FSL report, one country made pistol of single barrel was seized from the possession of the present appellant and the cartridge which was recovered from the body of the deceased and injured were of the same pistol.At the time of incident, 3-4 rounds of firing was made from the house of the present appellant and at the time of firing, the present appellant was present and country made pistol was seized from his possession, the learned trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302, 307 of IPC.On due consideration of the aforesaid material and statement of the material prosecution witnesses, no case of suspension of sentence and grant of bail is made out.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
109,072,194 |
He could not found Geeta in the house.Therefore, he had gone to the field.There he saw Ram Gulam with the petitioner No.3 Kauthhari Bai @ Rajkali.The petitioner No.2 - Ramprasad is the husband of Kauthuhari Bai.This revision under section 397 read with section 401 of Cr.P.C. has been directed against the order dated 24.05.2016, passed by learned ASJ, Beohari, District-Shahdol in S.T. No. 82/2016, whereby charge has been framed against the petitioners for offence under section 306/34 of the I.P.C.Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts requisite to be stated for disposal of this revision are that Ram Gulam was found hanging in pipal tree at outskirt of the village on 20.12.2015 at about 3:30 p.m. Two months prior to the incident allegedly Ram Gulam had a quarrel with his wife Geeta Patel and he had beaten her.Vijay kumar brother of Geeta Patel was intimated about the incident.Vijay Kumar had gone to the village to pacify the quarrel.The petitioner No.1- Amar Bahadur is the son of the petitioner No.2 Ram Prasad and petitioner No.3 - Kauthuhari Bai.On seeing Vijay Kumar (brother-in-law of the deceased), Ram Gulam hidden himself.Vijay Kumar had gone to the field.After some time, again he found Ram Gulam with Kauthuhari Bai.Vijay Kumar persuaded Ram Gulam to take care of his family and not to indulge in such extra-marital relation.He was taken to the house.According to Vijay Kumar, Kauthuhari Bai had promised not to indulge in such activity in future.After some time Ram Gulam was also taken for Jhar Phoonk (treatment by quack).Perused the police diary and heard learned counsel for the parties.At this juncture, it would be appropriate to understand the provision of Section 306 IPC, which reads as follows:Abetment of suicide.- If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term, which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."Moreover, the deceased could have lodged a report against accused, who had allegedly tortured him and threatened him to kill.May be, as it sometimes happens, the police officials might have declined to record the report.In that case, he could have moved higher officials.
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
20,746,580 |
Ne FAO No.60/2011 Page 6 of 6FAO No.60/2011 Page 6 of 6
|
['Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
207,485 |
It is alleged that taking advantage of the friendly relationship, the Accused Debaprosad had enticed the youngest daughter of Banerjee.It is stated that on 10th September 1947, the daughter had left the house on the plea of going to school but instead of going there, went to Deshapriya Park nearby in accordance with previous arrangements with the accused.From there she was taken to the Lakes and then to Kalighat and some form of marriage ceremony was alleged to have been gone through.Later on she was taken by the accused to Jogbani in the district of Pa men to the house of one Dr. Dhar, a brother-in-law of the accused.The accused and the girl were arrested by the police at Jogbani on 14th September 1947 and were brought down to Calcutta.After investigation Debaprosad was committed to the Court of Session, charged with offence Under Section 366, Penal Code, The accused pleaded not guilty but the defence as may be ascertained from the trend of the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses was that the girl was above 16 years at the time of the occurrence and that further she had not been enticed away by the accused but she had voluntarily left her father's house and had married him.JUDGMENT R.P. Mookerjee, J.This is an appeal by Debaprosad Bose who had been found by a majority of jury guilty Under Section 366, Penal Code, and accepting the said majority verdict, the Additional Sessions Judge, 24 Parganas, convicted him and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment.The prosecution case is that a certain family of Banerjees lived in the Park Circus area and subsequently shifted to Hazra Road, to a house belonging to a relation.The owner of the house occupied the second floor and the ground floor was occupied partly by Banerjee and another portion of the same floor by the accused Debaprosad Bose and his family.The two families occupying the ground floor were on friendly terms.The appellant will be dig-charged from his bail bond.Das Gupta J.
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
20,749,192 |
Therefore, she does not want to pursue the case further against them.M.C. No.4898/2015 Page 1 of 7Respondent No.2 is personally present in the Court.For her identification she has produced her Voter Identity Card being no. GRF1774371, issued by Election Commission of India.Original seen and returned.Respondent no. 2 does not dispute whatever stated by the Counsel for the petitioners and submits that she has resolved all her disputes and started living with petitioner no.1 as husband and wife.By way of the present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioners seek directions thereby quashing of FIR No.73/2013 registered at Police Station Kalyan Puri for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC against them.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the aforesaid case was registered on the complaint of respondent No.2, namely, Smt. Rani.Thereafter, good sense prevailed and both the parties entered into an agreement dated 04.08.2015 before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, whereby petitioner no.1 and respondent no. 2 decided to live together as husband and wife.Since then, respondent no.2 started living with petitioner no.1 as husband and wife.She has no complaint whatsoever against the petitioner no.1 and his family members.Since the subject matter of this FIR is essentially matrimonial, which now stands mutually and amicably settled between the parties and the complainant is no longer interested in supporting the prosecution because of which, its chances of success in the matter are now greatly diminished.Therefore, in view of the law discussed above, in the facts and circumstances as noted above, 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.73/2013 registered at Police Station Kalyan Puri for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed against the petitioners.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 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']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
20,753,960 |
Matter is taken up forfinality with the consent of learned counsel for parties.The applicants preferred present application under Section 482 of theCode of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C.") seeking relief to quash and set aside theFirst Information Report ("FIR") bearing Crime No.77/2019 registered atAhmedpur Police Station, District Latur, for the offence punishable underSections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian PenalCode ("IPC").It has been alleged on behalf of prosecution that the first informant -complainant - Shilpa approached to the Police of Ahmedpur Police Station, on09/03/2019 and ventilated the grievance that her marriage was solemnized on08/05/2017 with one Rameshwar Mare.The applicants are the sisters-in-laws of complainant.But, any how she escaped from their clutches.Since then,she started residing at her parental home.It has been alleged that on27/1/2019 too, the in-laws came to her parent's house and hurled abuses aswell as assaulted her parents.They again made demand of Rs. 10 Lakhs, andgave threat that if the demand is not fulfilled she will not be allowed to cohabitwith husband.Advocate for the Applicants : Shri.G.J. Pahilwan & D. P. MahalingeAPP for the Respondent No. 1 : Shri.ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER K.K. SONAWANE,J] ::: Uploaded on - 15/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 05:17:28 ::: {2} crapln 1204.19.odt::: Uploaded on - 15/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 05:17:28 :::1. Heard.It has been alleged that after marriage the complainantwent to Yengewadi, Taluka Chakur, Dist.Latur for cohabitation.She wastreated properly by the in-laws for a period of one year.But, thereafter, theystarted to harass her on the ground that she should bring Rs. 10 Lakhs from herparents for supporting the husband in business.Thereafter on 24.12.2018 herrelative from parental side came and gave understanding to the in-laws.But,even thereafter, there was no change in their behaviour.The ill-treatment andharassment to the complainant was continued.It has been alleged that on 7 thJanuary, 2019, the complainant cooked food and after having meals, the in-laws kept the complainant unfed and at about 10.30 p.m. in the night, the ::: Uploaded on - 15/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 05:17:28 ::: {3} crapln 1204.19.odtmother in law and others, beaten-up her with kick and fist blows.They gavethreats to kill her.Eventually, the complainant approached to the Ahmedpur PoliceStation and lodged the FIR.::: Uploaded on - 15/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 05:17:28 :::Pursuant to FIR, Police of Ahmedpur Police Station, Latur.registeredthe crime and set the penal law in motion.Pending the investigation,applicants moved present application by invoking remedy under Section 482 ofthe Cr.P.C. for relief to quash and set aside the penal proceeding initiatedagainst them.There were no specific allegations about maltreatment and torturemeted out to the complainant - Shilpa The allegations in the FIR are vagueand baseless.There was no direct and indirect involvement of applicants.TheLearned counsel for applicants relied upon the legal guidelines delineated bythe Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs.::: Uploaded on - 15/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 05:17:28 :::::: Uploaded on - 15/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 05:17:28 :::{4} crapln 1204.19.odt The learned counsel further submits that the present applicantsare sisters-in-law of complainant.They are residing separately with husband attheir matrimonial home.They have no reason to cause interference in maritallife of complainant nor they are beneficiaries from marital discord.The learned APP as well as learned counsel for respondent No. 2-firstinformant vociferously opposed the contentions put-forth on behalf ofapplicants and submit that the allegations of ill treatment nurtured on behalf ofcomplainant in the FIR discloses commission of crime punishable underSections 498-A, 323, and 504 etc. of the IPC.The complainant categoricallydescribed the episode of her maltreatment and torture at the hands ofapplicants.There was cheating and misappropriation of money by thehusband.In regard to allegations nurtured against applicants, we find thatthe allegations cast on behalf of complainant - Shilpa against the applicants arevague and general in nature.There are no specific allegations attributing overt-act of all these applicants to maltreat and harass the complainant - Priya.There were no detail particulars given in the FIR about the participation ofthese applicants for their act of humiliation or insult to the complainant onaccount of demand of money.The allegations about cruelty by these applicantsare found stray and sweeping in nature.Moreover, the applicants are thesisters-in-law of complainant.They are residing separately.They have noreason to cause interference in marital life of complainant nor they arebeneficiaries from marital discord.::: Uploaded on - 15/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 05:17:28 :::::: Uploaded on - 15/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 05:17:28 :::It was observed that theexaggerated versions of the incidents are also reflected in a very large number ofcomplaints.::: Uploaded on - 15/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 05:17:28 :::::: Uploaded on - 15/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 05:17:28 :::{6} crapln 1204.19.odtBhajan Lal and others reported in MANU/SC/0115/1992 : ::: Uploaded on - 15/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 05:17:28 :::::: Uploaded on - 15/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 05:17:28 :::{7} crapln 1204.19.odt1991(1) RCR(Cri), 383 (SC) held that "where the proceedings is instituted withan ulterior motive or were the allegations made in the complaint are absurd andimprobable, the Court would be within its power to quash the complaint/FIR".Moreover, if the allegations in the FIR against the applicants are taken at theirface value and accepted the same in its entirety would not constitute anyoffence or make out case against applicants, in such circumstances, there wouldnot be any propriety to allow the prosecution to proceed further into thematter.Hence, penalproceeding initiated against these applicants deserves to be quashed and setaside.Therefore, we proceed to pass following order :ORDER1] The criminal application stands allowed.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
20,758,979 |
This is First bail application filed under section 439 Cr.P.C. Applicant Manoj Parmar was arrested on 15.11.2019 in Crime No.RC0082017A0013/2017 registered at CBI, ACB, Bhopal for the offence punishable under Section 467, 420, 468, 471 r/w 120-B of the IPC and Section 13 (1)(d) r/w 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.As per prosecution case, on 22/11/2017 Mulji Bhai Nanji Bhai Parmar, Circle Head, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Bhopal (MP) lodged a written complaint at CBI, ACB, Bhopal averring that during the period between March 2016 to July 2016 co-accused M.P. Karari, (Sr.Manager Scale-III) Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Ashta Branch, District-Sehore, M.P. by abusing his official position, entered into a criminal conspiracy with applicant Manoj Parmar, Prop. of M/s Parmar Machinery & Krishi Seva Kendra, Ashta and other unknown persons and in pursuance thereof, dishonestly & fraudulently sanctioned and disbursed 03 loans on the basis of forged documents and thereby caused loss to the bank to the tune of Rs.1,66,58,020/-.It is further alleged that applicant Manoj Parmar, Prop. of M/s.Besides other documents, the TIN registration paper and the registration paper of shops and Establishment were used by the applicant Manoj Parmar for opening the said account.The business activity of the shop as per the registration of the Shops and Establishment is the sale Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL Date: 04/03/2020 10:48:34 2 MCRC-53538-2019 of agricultural commodities, insecticides and seeds.Co-accused Mark Pius Karari sanctioned loan amounting to Rs.25 lakhs in the name of Manohar Pawar.Applicant Manoj Parmar submitted a fake bill in the name of M/s. Parmar Machinery & Krishi Sewa Kendra for the purported supply of machinery for steel furniture manufacture to Manohar Parmar citing the TIN 23419088078 which was already cancelled in 2013 itself.It is further alleged that on the basis of said forged bill, a total Rs.23 lakhs was transferred from the above-mentioned Term Loan account & CC Account of Manohar Parmar to the current A/c No.3879002100006415 of M/s. Parmar Machinery & Krishi Sewa Kendra while no steel furniture manufacturing unit was established at the given site.It is further alleged that on June 2016 co-accused Mark Pius Karari also sanctioned loan amounting to Rs.70 lakhs in the name of M/s. Sushma Parmar, a resident of Shanti Nagar, Ashta, District Sehore out of which Rs.50 lakhs as a CC loan and Rs.20 lakhs as Term loan.Applicant Manoj Parmar submitted a fake quotation in the name of M/s. Parmar Machinery & Krishi Sewa Kendra for the purported supply of machinery for two-wheeler service centre and the total amount of Rs.49.50 Lakhs was transferred from the above-mentioned term loan account & CC loan account of M/s. Sushma Parmar to current account No.3879002100006415 of M/s. Parmar machinery & Krishi Sewa Kendra.Whereas no two-wheeler service centre was established at the given site.Likewise, co-accused Mark Pius Karari also sanctioned loan amounting to Rs.70 lakhs in the name of Dharam Singh out of which Rs.50 lakhs was CC loan and Rs.20 lakhs was Term loan.In this case also, applicant Manoj Parmar submitted a fake quotation in the name of M/s. Parmar Machinery & Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL Date: 04/03/2020 10:48:34 3 MCRC-53538-2019 Krishi Sewa Kendra for the purported supply of machinery for steel furniture manufacture, and the total amount of Rs.49.50 Lakh - was transferred from the above-mentioned term loan A/c & CC loan account of Dharam Singh to current account No.3879002100006415 of M/s. Parmar machinery & Krishi Sewa Kendra while no steel furniture manufacturing unit was established at the given site.In the enquiry Manohar Parmar, M/s Sushma Parmar and Dharam Singh informed that they did not apply for the loan and did not take any loan from the Bank.Applicant in connivance with co-accused M.P. Karari and other co-accused persons on the basis of forged bill/voucher and other documents took said loan in the name of Manohar Pawar, Sushma Parmar and Dharam Singh and embezzled that amount and caused loss to the bank to the tune of Rs.1,66,58,020/-.So CBI registered Crime No.RC0082017A0013 at CBI, ACB, Bhopal for the offence punishable under Section 467, 420, 468, 471 r/w 120-B of the IPC and investigated the matter and after investigation filed charge sheet against the applicant and co-accused M.P. Karari.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the offence.In this regard, CBI did not Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL Date: 04/03/2020 10:48:34 4 MCRC-53538-2019 record the case diary statements of Manohar Pawar, Sushma Parmar and Dharam Singh.There is also no evidence on record to show that applicant took loan in the name of Manohar Pawar, Sushma Parmar and Dharam Singh on the basis of forged documents and prepared forged Bill/Voucher and the basis of that forged documents and took amount from the bank on the basis of forged Bill/Voucher and other documents without supplying the material to them.The applicant has been in custody since 15.11.2019 and the conclusion of trial will take time, hence prayed for release of the applicant on bail.Applicant Manoj Parmar in connivance with co-accused M.P. Karari got the loan sanctioned in the name of Manohar Pawar, Sushma Parmar and Dharam Singh and thereafter out of said loan amount Rs 1,22,0000/- was transferred in the account of M/s. Parmar Machinery & Krishi Sewa Kendra, owned by the applicant without supplying the material to them on the basis of forged bill/vouchers and thus applicant embezzled amount to the tune of Rs.1,66,58,020/- in-connivance with other co-accused.So, he should not be released on bail.(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE (ra) Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL Date: 04/03/2020 10:48:34 5 MCRC-53538-2019 Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL Date: 04/03/2020 10:48:34
|
['Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
207,735 |
P.W.1-Neethirajan is the resident of Pallakulam, Vilathikulam.P.Ws.1, 4,5 and 7 are the children of the deceased Udayar.P.W.8-Parvathi is the firstwife of the deceased Udayar.P.W.9-Mariammal is the wife of the deceasedKattamariappan.P.W.10-Chinnathai is the wife of the deceased Mariappan.The deceased Udayaris the leader of the community.The first accused used to do rowdism and he waspulled up by P.W.1's father.In the year 1996, a complaint was lodged againstthe first accused regarding damage of a political party office.In that way thefirst accused was not happy with P.W.1's father.Further there was an enmitybetween Nedungulam Village and Pallakulam Village and the same was ended in acompromise.On 19.04.1997, a political meeting was held in Vilathikulam andP.W.1's father headed that meeting.On 20.04.1997, there was a bullock-cartrace.After finishing the function, at 11.00 a.m. on that day, the deceasedUdayar, Kattamariappan, Deivendran, Muniasamy @ Sathiyaraj, Selvaraj, Mariappan,Ayyanar and Sakthivel were travelling to their village in an Ambassador Carbearing Registration No.When they were reaching near Keelvilathikulam Andi Reddiar Bridge atabout 11.30 a.m., the first accused-Velmurugan along with other accused camefrom under the bridge and he directed all the accused to throw bombs on the car.All the 12 accused threw bombs on the car and as a result, P.W.1 who was drivingthe car, lost his balance and drove the car into the garden of one SubbiahReddiar.Thereafter, the accused Essakkimuthu and Essakkithurai threw bombs intothe car due to which the face of Mariappan was crushed.Then both the accusedEssakkimuthu and Essakkithurai cut the deceased Mariappan with aruval.P.W.1'sfather came out of the car and ran from the place of occurrence, but he waschased by the first and second accused and was attacked with an aruval.The saidKattamariappan was also chased and attacked by the accused Peer Mohamed andRobin when he was running.The other persons in the car ran away in fear.The injured were taken to the Government Hospital, Vilathikulam andthey were treated by P.W.21-Dr.P35 is the passport issued to the said Chelliah for handing over thecomplaint and FIR to the Judicial Magistrate's Court.The preliminaryinvestigation was done by one Rakkan, who was the Inspector-Incharge of theVilathikulam Police Station.On 20.04.1997 the said Rakkan took up the case forinvestigation.He visited the scene of occurrence at 2.45 p.m. and preparedEx.P2-Observation Mahazar in the presence of Village Administrative Officer.Healso prepared Ex.P39-Rough Sketch.Thereafter he conducted inquest over the bodyof the deceased Udayar from 3.00 p.m. to 4.00 p.m. Ex.P40 is the Inquest Reportpertaining to the deceased Udayar.From 4.00 p.m. to 4.45 p.m., he conductedinquest over the body of the deceased Kattamariappan in the presence ofPanchayatars and prepared Ex.P41-Inquest Report of Kattamariappan.From 4.45p.m.to 5.45 p.m., he conducted inquest over the body of the deceased Mariappanin the presence of Panchayatars and prepared Ex.P42-Inquest Report.Then he sentthe three bodies for conducting post mortem.At 5.00 p.m., he recovered M.O.2-blood-stained earth and M.O.3-ordinary earth from the place where the body ofthe deceased Udayar was lying, under Ex.At 05.45 p.m., he recoveredM.O.4-blood-stained earth and M.O.5-ordinary earth from the place where the bodyof the deceased Kattamariappan was lying, under Ex.At 6.00 p.m., herecovered M.O.6-blood-stained car seat cover and M.O.7-ordinary car seat coverunder Ex.At 06.15 p.m., he recovered the unexploded country bombsunder Ex.At 6.45 p.m., he recovered the cloth pieces and nailsexploded from the bombs, under Ex.P6-Athatchi, in the presence of witnesses.M.O.8 series are the pieces of materials exploded from the bombs.M.O.9 seriesare the nails exploded from the bombs.On 21.04.1997, the Inspector Rakkan,recorded the statements of witnesses.He also examined the photographerMurugesan Pillai and received the photographs taken in the place of occurrence.Thereafter the body of the deceased Udayar was handed over to theVilathikulam Government hospital by P.W.18-Natarajan.P12 is the passportissued to P.W.18 to handover the body to the hospital and after post mortem, tohandover the body to the relatives.The body of the deceased Kattamariappan washanded over to the hospital by P.W.19-Alagappan.P14 is the passport issuedto P.W.19 to handover the body to the hospital and after post mortem, tohandover the body to the relatives.The body of the deceased Mariappan washanded over the hospital by P.W.20-Ravindran.P16 is the passport issued toP.W.20 to handover the body to the hospital and after post mortem, to handoverthe body to the relatives.Post mortem of the bodies of Udayar and Mariappanwere carried out by P.W.21-Dr.Rajmohan and post mortem of the body ofKattamariappan was carried out by P.W.22-Dr.Rosalin Thayammal.P24, Ex.P25and Ex.P26 are the post-mortem certificates of the deceased Udayar, Mariappanand Kattamariappan, respectively.In all the post mortem reports, the Doctoropined that all the deceased died due to loss of blood on account of theinjuries sustained and also due to the shock.On 28.04.1997 at about 5.00 p.m., he arrested the accusedMuniasamy in the presence of witnesses Muthusamy and Athiappan.Thereafter hesent the accused Muniasamy to judicial custody.On 30.04.1997 he received aninformation that the first accused-Velmurugan surrendered before the JudicialMagistrate Court, Srivaikundam.On 05.05.1997 at 8.00 a.m., he arrested theaccused Pandi @ Vijayapandi in the Venkatachapuram Bus Stop at Kulathoor and hewas sent to judicial custody.On 06.05.1997, P.W.29 went on medical leave.P27 is the letter from the Court to send thematerial objects for chemical examination.P32 and P33 are the ChemicalExamination Report and Serological Report, respectively.P.W.23-Karpagamexamined the explosives and prepared Ex.P45 is the admissible portion of the confessionstatement of the accused Dhamodharan.On the basis of that confession statement,a vettaruval measuring 59 cms was recovered under Ex.On29.06.1997 the Inspector Jayabalan took up the case for further investigationand now he retired and he was not able to walk.Therefore, P.W.29 spoke onbehalf of the Inspector Jayabalan.On 11.08.1997, the Inspector Jayabalan sentthe file pertaining to this case to the District Collector for sanction.He alsoarrested the accused Peer Mohamed who was the accused in some other case.On07.09.1997, he sent the accused Sudalai to judicial custody.On 11.09.1997, theaccused Varadarajan was arrested at 9.00 a.m. and he was sent to judicialcustody.P37 is the letter from theCourt for conducting identification parade.Thereafter, the identificationparade was conducted by Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kovilpatti.P38 is theIdentification Parade Report.The deceased Udayar is the leaderof the community.Though the first accused and the deceased Udayar belonged tothe same community, the relationship between them was not cordial.The firstaccused used to do rowdism and he was pulled up by P.W.1's father.(Cr.No.115 of 1997) the appeals Appeals filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated10.04.2008 made in S.C. No.170 of 2001 on the file of the Additional SessionsCourt-cum-Fast Track Court No.1, Tuticorin.These appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction andsentences imposed on the accused by judgment dated 10.04.2008 made in S.C.No.170 of 2001 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-cum-Fast Track CourtNo.1, Tuticorin.The appellants are the accused 1 to 4 and the respondent is thecomplainant.The case of the prosecution is as under:-P.W.21 examined P.W.1 and found the followinginjuries:-1) A deep crush injury of size 1 x 1 cm skin depth on the left forehead.2) A crush injury of size 1 x 1 cm skin depth on the left ear on the back sideof the head.3) On the left side of the chest and left side of the face - 10 Nos. abrasioninjury.4) Abrasions from the upper part of left thigh on the front side up to the leg.The Doctor examined P.W.3-Selvaraj and found the following injuries:-1) Abrasions in the whole right hand with presence of ceramic particles and acrush injury of size 1 x 1 cm.2) A crush injury of size 3x1x1 cm on the right front hand on the outside area.3) A crush injury of size 3x1x1 cm adjacent to 2 cms from the second wound andit looked like a fracture.4) Abrasions from the upper part of right thigh up to the leg with presence ofglass particles.The injury was of the size 1 x 1 cm.5) An abrasion of size 1 x 1 cm over the right chest.6) An abrasion of size 1 x 1 cm near the middle finger of the left hand.7) An abrasion of size 1 x 1 cm on the left hand.8) An abrasion on the forehead of size 1/2 x 1/2 cm with presence of glassparticles.9) An abrasion of size 1 x 1 cm over the right hand.10) An abrasion on the second finger of the right hand of size 1 x 1 cm.The Doctor examined P.W.4-Muniasamy @ Sathiyaraj and found thefollowing injuries:-1) 2 abrasions of size 10 x 1 cm extending from left front hand till outsidearea and similarly 4 Nos. abrasions of size 1 x 1 cm nearer to it.2) A crush injury of size 3 x 1 cm on the left front hand 10 cms from the wristarea.3) An abrasion of size 4 x 1 cm on the outside portion of the left wrist.4) Abrasions over the left area of the stomach.5) A cut injury of size 3 x 1 cm skin deep on the outside portion of upper leftthigh.6) Abrasions over left middle thigh on the outside portion of size 10 x 1 cm.7) 10 Nos. abrasions of size 1 x 1 cm on the upper portion of right thigh on theoutside area.At 3.20 p.m. on that day, the Doctor examined P.W.5-Deivendran andfound the following injuries:-1) Many abrasions found of size 1/2 x 1/2 cm from the upper portion of left handtill outside portion of the knee.2) 10 Nos. abrasions over the left front hand till outside portion of size 1/2 x1/2 cm.3) A contusion of size 2 x 2 cm above the fourth finger and an abrasion of size1/2 x 1/2 cm.4) An abrasion on the left back side of the head of size 1 x 1 cm.5) An abrasion of size 1/2 x 1/2 cm on the extreme left upper portion of thehead.At 3.40 p.m., the Doctor examined P.W.6-Ayyanar and found the followinginjuries:-1) 20 Nos. abrasions of size 1 x 1 cm on the entire back portion till hip bonewith blood.2) An abrasion of size 1 x 1 cm on the left cheek.3) Presence of a sound in the ear.At 3.50 p.m., the Doctor examined P.W.2-Sakthivel and found thefollowing injuries:-1) 10 Nos. abrasions of size 1 x 1/2 cm x skin deep on the outside area of theleft front hand.2) An abrasion of size 3 x 1 cm on the outside portion of right thigh.P.W.27-Rajamani was the Sub-Inspector of Police Incharge of theVilathikulam Police Station.At 2.30 p.m. on the same day, he registered the complaintunder Sections 147, 148, 341, 326, 307 and 302 IPC in Crime No.115 of 1997.Thereafter he prepared Ex.P34-printed First Information Report and despatchedthe complaint and the FIR through one Chelliah, First Grade Constable-1119.Ex.A requisition was given by the Inspector to send thematerial objects for chemical examination under Ex.P.W.25-Perumal was theHead Clerk in the Judicial Magistrate Court, Vilathikulam at that time.Hereceived the request Ex.P29 to send the material objects for chemicalexamination from the Inspector.P28-Chemical Examination Report.P.W.25-Perumal examined the bombs on receipt of Ex.On 08.06.1997, at 6.00 p.m., the accused Dhamodharan was arrested.Then a requisition was given by the Inspector for conductingidentification parade of the accused under Ex.Before the Trial Court, P.Ws.1 to 29 and D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined andExs.P1 to P46 and D1 to D9 and M.Os.1 to 23 were marked.On consideration ofthe evidence adduced on record, the Trial Court convicted the accused 1 to 4under Section 148 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo R.I. for one year;convicted the accused 1 to 4 under Section 427 IPC and sentenced each of them toundergo R.I. for one year; convicted the accused 1 to 4 under Section 324 IPC (6counts) and sentenced each of them to undergo R.I. for one year for each count;convicted the accused 1 to 4 under Section 302 IPC and sentenced each of them toundergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each in default toundergo 6 months R.I. each; convicted the accused 1 to 4 under Section 302 r/w149 IPC (2 counts) and sentenced each of them to undergo life imprisonment foreach count and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each in default to undergo 6 monthsR.I. each.All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.Challenging the conviction and sentences imposed by the Trial Court,the present appeals have been filed by the appellants / accused.During the pendency of the trial, the accused Peer Mohamed,Essakkidurai and Ponraj died.The present appeals are filed by the accused 1 toThe first accused-Velmurugan filed Crl.The second-accusedDhamodharan filed Crl.The third accused-Robin @ Robinsonfiled Crl.The fourth accused-Essakkimuthu filed Crl.Since all these appeals arise out of a common judgment, they aretaken up together and being disposed of by a common judgment.Learned counsel for the appellant / first accused in Crl.He has also made anendorsement to that effect.Now we have to deal with the appeals pertaining to A2, A3 and A4.P.Ws.1, 4, 5 and 7 are the children of the deceased Udayar.In the year1996, a complaint was lodged against the first accused regarding damage of apolitical party office.In that way the first accused was not happy with P.W.1'sfather.At this juncture,the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second accused argued that A1 onlyhad enmity towards P.W.1's father.The other accused cannot have any grudge overP.W.1's father.P.Ws.1to 6 were injured in the occurrence and they were treated by P.W.21-Dr.P.W.21examined P.W.1 and found the following injuries:-1) A deep crush injury of size 1 x 1 cm skin depth on the left forehead.2) A crush injury of size 1 x 1 cm skin depth on the left ear on the back sideof the head.3) On the left side of the chest and left side of the face - 10 Nos. abrasioninjury.4) Abrasions from the upper part of left thigh on the front side up to the leg.The Doctor examined P.W.3-Selvaraj and found the following injuries:-1) Abrasions in the whole right hand with presence of ceramic particles and acrush injury of size 1 x 1 cm.2) A crush injury of size 3x1x1 cm on the right front hand on the outside area.3) A crush injury of size 3x1x1 cm adjacent to 2 cms from the second wound andit looked like a fracture.4) Abrasions from the upper part of right thigh up to the leg with presence ofglass particles.The injury was of the size 1 x 1 cm.5) An abrasion of size 1 x 1 cm over the right chest.6) An abrasion of size 1 x 1 cm near the middle finger of the left hand.7) An abrasion of size 1 x 1 cm on the left hand.8) An abrasion on the forehead of size 1/2 x 1/2 cm with presence of glassparticles.9) An abrasion of size 1 x 1 cm over the right hand.10) An abrasion on the second finger of the right hand of size 1 x 1 cm.The Doctor examined P.W.4-Sathiyaraj and found the followinginjuries:-1) 2 abrasions of size 10 x 1 cm extending from left front hand till outsidearea and similarly 4 Nos. abrasions of size 1 x 1 cm nearer to it.2) A crush injury of size 3 x 1 cm on the left front hand 10 cms from the wristarea.3) An abrasion of size 4 x 1 cm on the outside portion of the left wrist.4) Abrasions over the left area of the stomach.5) A cut injury of size 3 x 1 cm skin deep on the outside portion of upper leftthigh.6) Abrasions over left middle thigh on the outside portion of size 10 x 1 cm.7) 10 Nos. abrasions of size 1 x 1 cm on the upper portion of right thigh on theoutside area.At 3.20 p.m. on that day, the Doctor examined P.W.5-Deivendran andfound the following injuries:-1) Many abrasions found of size 1/2 x 1/2 cm from the upper portion of left handtill outside portion of the knee.2) 10 Nos. abrasions over the left front hand till outside portion of size 1/2 x1/2 cm.3) A contusion of size 2 x 2 cm above the fourth finger and an abrasion of size1/2 x 1/2 cm.4) An abrasion on the left back side of the head of size 1 x 1 cm.5) An abrasion of size 1/2 x 1/2 cm on the extreme left upper portion of thehead.At 3.40 p.m., the Doctor examined P.W.6-Ayyanar and found thefollowing injuries:-1) 20 Nos. abrasions of size 1 x 1 cm on the entire back portion till hip bonewith blood.2) An abrasion of size 1 x 1 cm on the left cheek.3) Presence of a sound in the ear.At 3.50 p.m., the Doctor examined P.W.2-Sakthivel and found thefollowing injuries:-1) 10 Nos. abrasions of size 1 x 1/2 cm x skin deep on the outside area of theleft front hand.2) An abrasion of size 3 x 1 cm on the outside portion of right thigh.All of them reached the hospital within short time after theoccurrence and they clearly spoke about the assault of P.W.1's father in theirevidence.From the evidence it is clear that there was motive also on the partof the other accused.Therefore the plea that there was no motive for the otheraccused to attack P.W.1's father is not of much weight.At this juncture, it is alleged on behalf of the defence that there isdiscrepancy with regard to the weapon used in the occurrence.Learned counselfor the fourth accused vehemently argued that in the FIR it is stated that theaccused Mariappan was stabbed, but it is the case of the prosecution that theaccused Mariappan was cut.The post mortem certificate would show that he wasstabbed and cut.The Court can analyse the occurrence on the basis of theevidence on record.The car was stopped by throwing bombs and they wereexploded in the scene of occurrence.Unexploded bombs were also recovered fromthe scene of occurrence.Also, the material objects were examined by theForensic Laboratory and the same was spoken to by the witnesses.The recovery ofthe particles present in the exploded bombs and the unexploded bombs would showthe gravity of the offence in the scene of occurrence.When the bombs explode,certainly there would be panic and therefore, the injured witnesses ran away.Insuch a condition, we cannot expect that they will give accurate and correctparticulars regarding the overt act of the accused.The post mortem certificatesalso would show that he was stabbed as well as cut, by the accused.So, thissmall discrepancy between the FIR and the witnesses, will not go to the root ofthe case.Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that P.W.1 deposedbefore the Doctor that he was attacked by throwing bombs and also pistol, but itis the case of the prosecution that the victims were assaulted by knife andaruval and so, the prosecution's version is liable to be rejected.For this thelearned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that there was a huge noisein the scene of occurrence and also there was panic on everybody and in such apanic condition, one cannot explain whether it is the sound of a rifle or abomb.They are all villagers and they cannot be expected to say accurately insuch a panic situation.This small discrepancy is not a ground to reject thecase of the prosecution.The next ground raised by the learned counsel for the appellants /accused is that all the witnesses spoke differently about the time of reachingthe hospital.It is true that all the witnesses gave slight variations regardingthe time of reaching the hospital.As rightly pointed out bythe learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there bound to be some variations inthe witnesses due to lapse of memory.The evidence are clear, cogent andacceptable.A careful perusal of the evidence would show that they are speakingtruth.Therefore, these slight variations will not shake the case of theprosecution.The next ground raised by the learned counsel for the appellants isthat P.Ws.2 to 5 spoke that there was no fence in the scene of occurrence, buton the other hand, Ex.P39-Sketch would show that there is a fence in the Reddiarfield.P.W.1 admittedthat due to the accident he lost his control over the vehicle and therefore hedrove the vehicle into the land of Reddiar.As already pointed out, due to lapseof memory, they are bound to commit some errors in their evidence.The sketchwould show that the vehicle went into the land of another person and thephotographs would reveal that the vehicle was damaged.Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second accused vehementlyargued that there are no burn injuries due to the accident, and therefore thecase of the prosecution is bound to fail.The injuries sustained by thewitnesses have been clearly spoken to by P.W.21-Dr.The Doctor was ofthe opinion that it is possible to sustain injuries in such an accident.The next ground raised on the side of the defence is that P.W.6 spokeonly about two accused and not the other accused.P.W.6 was examined on27.07.2007 for chief examination and he was examined on 16.11.2007 for crossexamination.In the chief examination, he asserted the presence of A1 and A2,but he claimed that other witnesses have also participated, but later on, heturned hostile.He is not a relative to the deceased Udayar.Though he turnedhostile, his evidence need not be brushed aside.His evidence would disclose theovert act of A1 and A2 and the other accused who had involved in the offence.So, it is clear that all the accused had involved in the occurrence and theirpresence had been established clearly.So, the claim on the side of the defencein this respect, is not correct.Evidence of P.W.1 would show that there were 6 named witnessesand 15 unnamed witnesses.A thorough scanning of the evidence of P.W.1 wouldshow that he gave different numbers due to tension.It is the case that his ownfather was murdered in front of his eyes.It is also clear from his evidencethat he gave 6 names of the accused.So, the slight variations in the number ofaccused persons, is not at all a ground to reject the case of the prosecution.Further, it is the stand of the prosecution that P.W.1 was not havingdriving license to drive the vehicle, but he was driving the vehicle on the dateof occurrence.Non-possession of driving license is not a ground to reject thecase of the prosecution.A person who is not having license can drive betterthan a person having license.The non-possession of driving license will attractonly the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore the non-possession of driving license isnot at all a ground to reject the case of the prosecution.Learned counsel appearing for the appellants have argued that the nameof the third accused is Churchil Anantha Rabilper and not Robin and relied onthe evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2 and also Ex.Thangamani wasworking in the AVM Hospital, Thoothukudi.He spoke about the treatment given bythe hospital to the third accused.D1 is the certificate showing that oneSamuvel John studied courses in Ayurvedic, Siddha and Allopathy.D2 is theTransfer Certificate issued to one Churchil Anantha Rabilper, S/o Samuvel John.D3 is the pass book issued by Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank in thename of Churchil Anantha Rabilper.D4 is the pass book issued by Canara Bankin the name of Churchil Anantha Rabilper.D5 is the Date of Birth Certificategiven by Corporation of Chennai to one C.Allen James, S/o Churchil AnanthaRabilper.D6 is the copy of Admission Register of the hospital.In thatdocument, the name was given as Robin.So, the third accused gave the name asRobin and the same is admitted by D.W.2-the Doctor.The evidence of D.W.2coupled with Ex.D6 would go to show that the third accused was called also asRobin.So, the plea that the name of the third accused is different, is notcorrect.Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second accused stated thatthe second accused was roped in the case purposely and that on 20.01.1997, hewas participating in a marriage function and he produced Ex.D8-MarriageInvitation to that effect.Admittedly, the marriage invitation was given by hisbrother-in-law, but his brother-in-law was not asked to depose.The occurrence took place on20.04.1997 at about 11.30 a.m. The F.I.R. reached the Court on the next day 10'Oclock.The learned Trial Judge relied on the 161 statement to hold that there isno delay, which is not correct.It is a holiday.The Investigating Officer spokethat Chelliah, First Grade Constable-1119, had given explanation for the delay.The evidence of the Investigating Officer would show that the said Chelliah gavesatisfactory explanation for the delay in reaching the FIR to the Court.We areof the considered view that the explanation given by the Investigating Officeris correct.Moreover, in this case, all the victims went to the hospitalimmediately after the occurrence and P.W.21-Doctor has also made entries withregard to the timings of giving treatment.There is no reason for P.W.21 to makefalse entries.The delay of the FIR reaching the Court is properly explained bythe Investigating Officer.So, the ground relied on by the learned counsel forthe appellants that the FIR reached the Court belatedly, falls to the ground.In view of all the reasons stated supra and a careful scanning of theevidence on record, this Court is of the considered view that the case of triplemurder has been properly established by the prosecution in the manner known tolaw and it has been amply supported by the evidence on record.The Trial Courthas analysed the evidence on record carefully and arrived at the correctconclusion in convicting the appellants / accused 2 to 4 and we find no reasonto differ with the findings of the Trial Court.Therefore, the conviction andsentences imposed on the appellants / accused 2 to 4 are liable to be confirmedand accordingly they are confirmed and the Criminal Appeal(MD)Nos.224, 313 and398 of 2008 are dismissed.1.The Additional Sessions Judge-cum-
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
207,747 |
(a) P.W.1 is a native of Melameenakshipuram within the jurisdiction of therespondent police.She was living with her sons Poomurugan, Periamurugan andher daughter Poomari.The said Poomari was given in marriage to one PachhaiPerumal of the said village.The said Poomari had one daughter, namelySakhundala, aged ten years, and one son, namely Sathish Raja, aged six years.The said Poomari was working at the Noon Meal Scheme of Melameenakshipuram.P.W.1's son Murugan and Muthulakshmi A.4 herein, the daughter of onePetchimuthu, had love affair and when it came to the knowledge of the village,the marriage was solemnised on the advice of the villagers on 05.02.1999 andthere was a strained relationship then and there.Muthulakshmi came back to herparental home and she was living there.Both the said Muthulakshmi A.4 and her husband were calledand enquired into the matter and advised to live together and they livedtogether for sometime and then, she came back to her parental home.(b) On 03.08.1999, all the accused went to the respondent police inrespect of the previous petition No.39 of 1999, Ex.At that time, theInspector of Police was not available and P.W.15, the Head Constable asked themto come on the next day.Sometime later, P.W.1 along with her daughter wentthere and they were also informed the same.At that time, A.1 to A.3 informedthe second deceased Poomari that she was responsible for the disturbance in thematrimony of their sister Muthulakshmi and that they would do away her and herbrother also.On 04.08.1999 i.e., on the date of occurrence, P.W.1 and P.W.2proceeded to Keelameenakshipuram to purchase idli from a hotel.At that time,A.3 armed with an aruval and A.2 armed with a knife and A.1 accompanied them,came over there and attacked the first deceased Murugan indiscriminately.Thiswas witnessed by P.W.1 and P.W.2 and immediately after the occurrence, theaccused fled away from the place of occurrence.P.W.1 immediately rushed to herhouse and asked her mother about Poomari and she was informed that Poomari wentover to nearby well and she proceeded towards the well at about 09.00 a.m., andshe found A.1 to A.4 there.A.3 armed with an aruval and A.2 armed with a knife,attacked the second deceased Poomari and A.3 handed over the aruval to A.4 andasked her to attack Poomari and A.3 got it back and further attacked Poomari.A.2 stabbed Poomari with the knife.A.1 instigated them to do so.P.W.21, the Inspector of Police took up theinvestigation and proceeded to both the scene of occurrences and preparedobservation mahazars, Exs.(The judgment of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) This appeal has arisen from the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court No.I, Tuticorin made in S.C.No.242 of 2000 whereby theappellants/accused Nos.1 to 4 stood charged, tried and found guilty as follows: Charges:A-2 and A-3 - S.302 IPC.A-1 - S.302 r/w S.34 IPC A-2 to A-4 - S.302 IPC A-1 - S.302 r/w S.34 IPCA.2 and A.3 were found guilty under Section 302 I.P.C (2 counts) and awardedlife imprisonment for each counts along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and a defaultsentence of six months imprisonment.A.1 was found guilty under Section 302I.P.C read with Section 34 I.P.C and awarded life imprisonment with a fine ofRs.500/- and a default sentence of six months imprisonment.A.4 was foundguilty under Section 302 I.P.C and awarded life imprisonment with a fine ofRs.500/- and a default sentence of six months imprisonment and the sentences inrespect of A-2 and A-3 were ordered to run concurrently.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be statedthus:The wholeoccurrence was witnessed by P.W.3, a child aged 10 years, who was also standingnearby and that immediately, after the second occurrence, all the accused fledaway from the place of occurrence.(c) P.W.1 along with P.W.2 proceeded to Ottapidaram Police Station andgave a complaint, Ex.P.1, on the strength of which, a case came to be registeredin Cr.No.72 of 1999 and the F.I.R which was marked as Ex.P.2 and P.3 in the presence of witnesses and throughP.W.15, photographs were also taken.Further, he conducted inquest on the deadbodies in the presence of witnesses and Panchayatars and prepared Ex.P.28, theinquest report of the first deceased Murugan, and Ex.P.31, the inquest report ofthe second deceased Poomari.Further, both the dead bodies were sent with therespective requisitions for post-mortem to the Government Hospital and P.W.12,the Doctor attached to the Hospital, conducted autopsy on the dead body of thefirst deceased Murugan and gave post-mortem certificate Ex.P.14, where theDoctor opined that the death would appear to have caused due to shock andhaemorrhage due to the injuries sustained and also conducted the post-mortem onthe dead body of the second deceased and gave post-mortem certificate Ex.P.16,where the Doctor opined that the death would appear to have caused due to shockand haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained.Pursuant to the confessional statement, he produced the weapon ofcrimes, which were recovered in the presence of the witnesses under a cover ofmahazar.The material objects recovered from the place of occurrence from thethe dead bodies as well as the material objects recovered from the accused,including the weapons of the crime, were sent for chemical analysis by theInvestigating Officer through the Court concerned to the Forensic ScienceDepartment with the respective requisitions, which resulted in the Chemicalanalysis report Ex.P.19 as well as the Serologist report Ex.P.20 respectively.On completion of investigation, final report was filed by the InvestigatingOfficer before the committal court.The case was committed to Court of Session and necessary charges wereframed.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, theprosecution has examined 21 witnesses and relied on 31 exhibits along with 27M.Os.After the evidence on the side of prosecution was over, the Courtquestioned the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminatingcircumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.The accuseddenied them as false.On the side of the defence, only one witness as D.W.1 wasexamined and through D.W.1, Ex.D.1 was marked.After completion of trial, the trial court heard the arguments of bothsides, perused the materials available, found the accused guilty as per thecharges and awarded punishment as referred to above.Advancing his arguments on behalf of the appellants, the learnedcounsel would submit that in the instant case, according to the prosecution,there were two occurrences.First of all, the prosecution had no immediatemotive for the occurrence at all and actually, A.4 was given in marriage to thefirst deceased and there were disturbances in the matrimony and there was aconciliation and they lived together for some time.Apart from that, either atthe time of the occurrence or on the previous day, there was no immediate motivefor double murder.Insofar as the first occurrence is concerned, P.W.1 andP.W.2 were the eyewitnesses.According to the prosecution, the occurrence tookplace at about 08.30 a.m., that too in a public place near a hotel.If to beso, number of independent witnesses could have been examined as witnesses, butno one of the independent witnesses was examined.This would indicate thatP.W.1 and P.W.2, who were not only the close relatives of both the deceased, butalso interested, have come forward to give evidence against the accused, whichwould indicate that the prosecution has planted these witnesses to speak aboutthe occurrences, which they have not seen at all.Thus, the non-examination ofthe independent witnesses would be fatal to the prosecution case.Added furtherthe learned counsel that in both the occurrences so far as A.1 was concerned,neither he was shown as armed nor he has participated in the crime and no overtact was attributed against him and hence, his participation in the offence wasthoroughly nil.The first part of the occurrence is highly doubtful whetherEx.P.1, the complaint could have come into existence as put forth by theprosecution.According to P.W.1, on the date of occurrence, she was notconscious and she did not know whether the accused were armed with aruval andknife, etc., and thus, she could not have been the Author of the F.I.R. Apartfrom that, in the instant case, according to P.W.20, the Sub Inspector ofPolice, the F.I.R was actually written and recorded by the Head Constable.But,from the F.I.R, it could be seen that it was actually recorded by the SubInspector of Police and hence, it casts a doubt as to who has prepared the same.Though P.Ws.1 and 2 have claimed thatthey have witnessed the occurrence, P.W.21, the Inspector of Police hascategorically deposed that both these P.W.1 and P.W.2 at the time ofinvestigation have not spoken about the fact that they have witnessed theoccurrence and it is quite clear that P.W.1 and P.W.2 would not have seen theoccurrence.If to be so, the only witness for prosecution was P.W.3, a 10 yearold child.The date of occurrence, namely 04.08.1999, was a working day for theschool where P.W.3 was studying.According to D.W.1, she was attending theschool and the attendance register, Ex.D.1, would indicate her presence in theschool at 09.00 a.m., and thus, she would have started to School earlier andhence, she could not have seen the occurrence at all.Insofar as the second part of the occurrence was concerned in which thesaid Poomari was killed, there was absolutely no evidence at all and theprosecution had no evidence in that regard.Added further the learned Counselthat in the instant case, the case of the prosecution that A.4 participated inthe second crime was highly artificial.According to the prosecution, it wasA.3, who wielded aruval on the deceased Poomari and after that, he handed overthe same to A.4, his sister and asked her to attack the second deceased Poomariand after she gave cut, again A.3 got it back and inflicted cuts on the seconddeceased.Thus, it would be quite clear that A.4 could not have participated inthe crime at all.In order to strengthen or to make it believe affair, A.4 hasbeen implicated in the instant case.In the absence of the evidence of P.W.3,there is no evidence at all and under such circumstances, the prosecution hasnot proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts.All the facts now brought tothe notice of the court and all these aspects of the matter were not taken intoaccount by the lower court and they have escaped from the vision of the lowercourt and hence, the accused/appellants are entitled for acquittal in the handsof this court.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the abovecontentions.All the accused Nos.1 to 3 are the brothers of A.4 and A.4 wasgiven in marriage to the first deceased.There was a disturbance in thematrimony and there was also a conciliation.In the instant case, P.Ws.1 and 2 were theeyewitnesses to the first occurrence.According to them, they proceeded to thehotel, situated at Keelameenakshipuram to purchase idli, where they witnessedthe first occurrence, in which A.1 to A.3 came over there and A.2 armed withknife and A.3 armed with aruval, attacked the first deceased indiscriminatelyand caused his death.Hence the comment made by thelearned counsel for the appellants that no independent witness was examinedcannot be warranted.It is a case where independent witnesses have beenexamined, but they have turned hostile.P.Ws.1 and 2, though relatives of thedeceased, they have given a graphic narration of the entire incident and theirevidence has been marshalled, considered and accepted by the trial court andrightly too.Insofar as the first occurrence is concerned, the Court is able tosee that the second accused armed with knife and the third accused armed witharuval, attacked the first deceased indiscriminately and caused instantaneousdeath of the first deceased.This part of the prosecution case through theocular testimony was also fully corroborated by the medical evidence.Insofar as the second occurrence was concerned, the second deceasedPoomari was killed at about 09.00 a.m. on the same day, in which, according tothe prosecution, A.1 to A.4 have participated.Even in that occurrence also,A.1 was neither armed nor attributed any overt act and it was A.2 to A.4 whohave attacked the deceased Poomari.She, withsufficient maturity, has given evidence before the court.She has clearlynarrated the entire episode by stating that all these accused came over thereand A.2 was armed with knife and A.3 was armed with aruval and A.4 was alsopresent there.They attacked the deceased Poomari and it was A.3, who handedover the aruval to his sister A.4 and asked her to attack the deceased Poomariand A.4 attacked with that aruval and A.3 got it back and further attacked thedeceased Poomari.Thus, P.W.3 has given a clear narration about the occurrence,in which A.4 has also participated.The contention of the learned Counsel forthe appellants that the role of A.4, as projected by the prosecution, was notnatural, cannot be accepted for the simple reason that she was an aggrievedparty and she could not live with her husband and she thought that Poomari wasresponsible for the same.The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellantsthat the evidence of P.W.3 cannot be accepted, has got to be stated only for thepurpose of rejection.It is true that D.W.1 has been examined and Ex.D.1 attendanceregister, was marked to the effect that P.W.3 attended the school on 04.08.1999,the date of occurrence, and the school also commenced functioning by 09.00 a.m.,which was the time of the second occurrence in which Poomari was murdered.While the witness, namely P.W.3, before the court hascategorically spoken about her presence and has also given a graphic narrationof the entire incident, the Court without any hesitation has to believe such anevidence, since it has inspired the confidence of the Court.Thus, theprosecution has proved that A.2 to A.4 have participated in the crime.Insofaras in the first occurrence was concerned, A.2 and A.3 have acted and sharedcommon intention and murdered the first deceased, while in the secondoccurrence, A.2 to A.4 have shared common intention and caused the death of thesecond deceased.But, in both the occurrences, A.1 was a passive spectator andthere is nothing to indicate that he shared the common intention of causingmurder of either the first deceased or the second deceased.Under suchcircumstances, in the absence of any overt act, A.1 cannot be found guilty asput forth by the prosecution and he is entitled for acquittal of the chargeslevelled against him.The conviction and sentence imposed on the accused No.1 by the trial courtare set aside and the first accused alone is acquitted of the charges levelledagainst him.A.1 is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presenceis required in connection with any other case.The fine amount, if any paid byA.1, is ordered to be refunded to him.17.The criminal appeal is dismissed in respect of A.2 to A.4 and theconvictions and sentences imposed by the trial court as against A.2 to A.4 areconfirmed.C.Ramachandran, Advocate, who was appointed as Amicus Curiaecounsel to argue the appeal on behalf of the appellants, is entitled to getremuneration from the Legal Aid, Madurai.1.The Additional Sessions Judge / Fast Track Court No.I, Tuticorin.2.The Inspector of Police, Ottapidaram Police Station, Tuticorin District.3.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
20,775,643 |
No.1/ State.Although four weeks' time is granted to respondents No.2 and 3 to submit reply to the petition.Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in other petitions preferred by the similarly situated employees, interim relief has been granted.Therefore, the prayer for interim relief is rejected.(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE Prachi Digitally signed by PRACHI PANDEY Date: 2020.02.25 17:04:21 +05'30'
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
20,778,831 |
It is alleged against the co-accused Sudeen that he gave a kick on the abdomen of a pregnant woman causing her abortion.The applicants were not aware that the co-accused would assault in such a manner.Under such circumstances, applicants pray for bail of anticipatory nature.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K. GUPTA)
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
20,779,417 |
The cheque that was issued by A1 was also dishonored with an 2/7http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.4557 of 2017 endorsement “stop payment”.This petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1125 of 2015 pending on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.A1 had failed to keep up his promise to repay back the amount subsequently.That by itself will not give raise to a presumption that there was a culpable intention at the very inception.11.In the considered view of this Court, the defacto complainant has given a criminal colour to a pure and simple civil dispute and therefore the proceedings itself is an abuse of process of Court.5/7http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.4557 of 201712.In the result, the proceedings in C.C.No.1125 of 2015, on the file of the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, is hereby quashed in so far as the petitioner is concerned.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
20,784,982 |
Leave granted.This criminal appeal is filed by State of Bihar against the final judgmentand order dated 14.02.2017 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 53391 of2016, by the High Court of Judicature at Patna, wherein the High Court haspassed following order:“Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, especiallythe period of custody already undergone by the petitioner, let thepetitioner, above named, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) with two local sureties of the like amount eachto the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, vigilance, 1st,Patna/successor court in connection with Special case No. 32 of 2016arising out of Patna Kotwali Police Station Case No. 270 of 2016 afterframing of the charge in the case which must be framed within a month,failing which the petitioner would be released on bail on furnishing bailbond with condition that the petitioner shall fully co-operate with thetrial of the case and shall not indulge in any educational activity tillthe conclusion of the trial or any criminal activities.On report ofsubsequent criminal activity of the petitioner, the court below shall be atliberty to cancel his bail bond in this case also”.Aggrieved by the above order of the High Court, granting conditional bailto the respondent, State of Bihar is in appeal before usBrief factual matrix in the present matter is that the students of oneVishnu Rai College, Kiratpur Raja Ram Bhagwanpur, Vaishali, were successfulin occupying first ten places in the merit list of Intermediate Examinationconducted by Bihar Intermediate Education Council.Subsequently there was areport in the electronic media about the poor intellectual capacity ofthose who have topped the Intermediate Examination in the State of Bihar.In light of scathing media reports, students whose names were part of themerit list were called for an interview before the Bihar Schools ComplexCommittee.Subsequently a written complaint was lodged by the Director ofSecondary Education.Consequently an FIR bearing P.S. Case No. 270/2016dated 06.06.2016 was registered before the Kotwali Police Station Patnaunder Section 420, 465, 468, 471, 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860.Thereafter, investigation was conducted which revealed fraudulent practicesprevailing in Bihar Intermediate Examination involving students andmanagement of the said Vishnu Rai College resulting in the arrest of therespondent herein.Assailing the impugned order of the High Court, which granted conditionalbail to the respondent, learned senior counsel Mr. Siddharth Luthraappearing on behalf of the State of Bihar contended that, the High Courterred in not taking into consideration the gravity of the offence.Hefurther contended that the respondent herein, Principal of Vishnu RaiCollege, is the king pin of what is publically known as ‘Bihar ToppersScam’ and thereby countered the argument of parity.Relying on the excerptsof the case diary and seizure memo, which were not considered by the HighCourt, he pointed out that a prima facie case is made out against therespondent and consequently prayed for of setting aside the impugned orderwhich granted conditional bail for the respondent.Heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the documents availableon record.A bare reading of the order impugned discloses that the High Court has notgiven any reasoning while granting bail.During the investigation when a searchteam raided his place various documents relating to property and land tothe tune of Rs. 2.57 Cr.were recovered besides Rs.20 lakhs in cash.Inaddition to this, allegedly a large number of written answer sheets ofvarious students, letter heads and rubber stamps of several authorities,admit cards, illegal fire arm etc. were found which establishes a primafacie case against the respondent.The allegations against the respondentare very serious in nature, which are reflected from the excerpts of thecase dairy.The appeal stands allowed.
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
207,859 |
It is not in dispute that the matrimonial life of accused and deceased Savita had entered troubled water about one year prior to the alleged incident, although they were married in 1997 and were also gifted with a son and a daughter.Prosecution believes that appellant - accused, in an attempt to eliminate the wife has deliberately driven his tempo MH-16/Q-1063 in a high speed.We may only say that this conduct attributed to accused by prosecution does not match 'mens rea".So far as evidence of Ashok and his claim of being eye witness, according to narration of Ashok, he and his uncle Uttam were travelling on a bicycle, presumably double seat.While they were at a location at Autewadi, PW 7 Prakash Kothambire carrying sister Savita on the pillion seat overtook them by motorcycle and proceeded towards Hirdewadi.JUDGMENT N.V. Dabholkar, J.Appellant is held guilty and convicted for the offences punishable Under Sections 302, 307 of Indian Penal Code.He is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life, fine Rs. 500/- in default, simple imprisonment for one month on the first count, and rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, fine Rs. 500/- in default simple imprisonment for one month on the second, although both substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently.at about 5-15 p.m. while victim savita (wife of present appellant) was returning home to Hirdewadi from township Shrigonda after casting her vote in the Municipal elections.She was riding on the pillion of motorcycle No. MH-16/5-7319 driven by PW 6 Raju Prakash Kothambire, a family friend of Hirde family (parents of deceased Savita).Accused was charged for murder of wife Savita and for an attempt to commit murder of motorcycle driver i.e. Prakash.Following the motorcycle and knocked out the motorcycle by bumping its backside.Apart from total denial, appellant - accused has also suggested that it was a road accident due to loss of control on the motorcycle by PW 5 prakash and taking advantage of the situation, he is falsely implicated by the relatives of his deceased wife.He does not dispute that he had reached the location within 10 minutes of the accident, but according to him this was because he received a telephonic message from one Balu Lolge on his mobile telephone while he was at the place of one Nana Sonawane for enquiring about availability of sorap material for transport, that his vehicle had suffered an accident.Taking chance of his presence, relatives of the deceased thrashed him on the spot and handed him over to police.It appears that he has registered a complaint on the next day i.e. 12.1.2005 about this beating to him Apart from present appellant, one Subhash Kundlik Londhe was tried together, although Subhash and appellant were charged only for the offence punishable Under Section 201 r/w 34 of IPC i.e. causing disappearance of the evidence.This is because the tempo was found deserted / unattended at Ahrnednagar city, after 4/5 days since the incident.So far as this acquittal is concerted, the State has not come up in appeal and there is no reason for us to consider that aspect for taking any different view.Prosecution had examined as many as 9 witnesses.We must say that PW 6 Raju Ramesh Kothambire is the star witness.He is victim so far as offence u/S 307 of IPC is concerned.He is a witness, who claims to have heard deceased savita informing that the tempo was being driven by present appellant, and it was heading in.a very high speed towards them.PW 4 Ashok is brother of the deceased and he has claimed himself to be an eye witness of the incident while he was mobile on bicycle with his uncle Uttam, for the purpose of election work.PW 7 Anjana is mother of the victim.She has lodged complaint (£xh.52) on the same night at 21-05 hours.However, she is not an eye witness.She knows the incident on the basis of information furnished by her son Ashok.By contradicting the of Ashok, she admits that appellant - accused had the spot within 10 minutes and the relatives of the deceased had thrashed him.Ashok did not have guts to admit this latter part of the suggestion.All remaining 6 witnesses can be said to be technical and the manner in which we are going to deal with the, appeal and the discussion of reasons, which we are going to rely upon for the conclusion, do not call much in-depth examination of evidence of these remaining 6 witnesses.Spot panchanama (Exh.37) was drawn in presence of PW 1 Gorakh.Eventually, Gorakh is maternal uncle of the deceased PW 2 Kishor attended the inquest.PW 5 Sajid Rajekha was Motor Vehicle Inspector.After test driving, he has certified that tempo in question i.e. MH-16/A-1063 had no mechanical fault, which could have resulted into accident.Dr. Shaila Mahendra (PW 3) had performed post mortem on the dead body of Savita and she has certified that death was due to haemorrhegic shock on account of injuries to vital organs.PW 8 Nivruti, Police Head Constable, had registered the FIR and API Rajendra (PW 9) had carried out investigation.It must be said that fate of the case depends upon reliability of evidence of PW 6 Raju Prakash Kothambire, who is the victim of the incident and PW 4 Ashok, who claims to be an eye witness.Learned trial Judge has believed both of them.Their evidence in our view falls short to identify the appellant as the driver of the tempo at the time of alleged incident, if at all an impart between the motorcycle and tempo as alleged, has occurred.It is the prosecution story and accused has not disputed it that accused reached the location within 10 minutes after the incident, it is allegation of the prosecution that because of ill feelings about the wife, who was litigating with the husband by staying at the parents' place, accused could have been in a frame of mind to eliminate her.Adopting the theory of what is called as converse proof in geometry, if we presume for the sake of argument that accused has committed murder of his wife, by chasing a motorcycle on which she was riding, by knocking out the motorcycle with a fatal dash / bump in the backside of the motorcycle with his tempo, we are unable to appreciate, much less accept, that he would come back to the location within 10 minutes with different vehicle, different companion.We are on the point of probability and hence we ought to be slow.Every criminal may have a tendency to visit the spot Of the crime some time again, but we are unable to digest that such time could have been so soon.According to prosecution, the offending vehicle was recovered at Ahmednagar city in deserted / unattended condition.The culprit immediately after the crime, would desire to go as away as possible the location and temptation to visit the spot would be after lapse of time and re-gathering of composure, may be for the purpose of ascertaining as to what is the reaction and how much material against him is taken a note by others.According to chief examination of Ashok, by the time he was returning to the location with his mother on a motorcycle, accused was seen approaching the spot of incident by Kacha road through a tank.Accused followed in a parrot green tempo within 2/3 minutes.(As admitted in cross examination para 5 - in fact two consecutive paras are numbered para 5 and the admission is in second para numbered as 5).This version of Ashok contradicts the deposition of PW 6 Prakash.According to narration of Prakash, initially the tempo overtook him while has was at a location near Tirupati Gas Agency.However, the tempo entered Kukdi Colony and that is how the motorcycle could have proceeded ahead and tempo could have been again the vehicle following the motorcycle.According to Praksh, after the tempo entered Kukdi Wasahat, they met Ashok Hirde, who was proceeding on a bicycle.Thus, according to Prakash, who was carrying deceased Savita on a motorcycle, the tempo overtook him first while he was at Tirupati Gas Agency and then motorcycle overtook Ashok while he was at Autewadi and, therefore, he had seen PW 4 Ashok.It is not in dispute that from Shrigonda to Hirdewadi, it is a road from west to east initially and then after a 90 degree left turn, south to north.Trupati Gas Agency is the first destination from Shrigonda at a distance of 1 km, then Autewadi another % kms.and then Kukdi Colony further a kilometre.Learned Counsel Shri Gatne was justified in saying that these two narrations as to the manner and time of travelling of tempo and motorcycle in relation to bicycle journey by Ashok falsify the probability that Ashok was so travelling and, therefore, he could have been an eye witness.Otherwise also, we are unable to accept the version of Ashok that although he was peddling double seat, he could have been quick enough to follow the auto-motives and eye witness the incident, which is alleged to have occurred after both automobiles took 90% left turn.Once we eliminate Ashok from the category of eye witness by disbelieving his eye witness account to be not possible, fate of the prosecution hinges on the credibility of evidence of Prakash Kothambire.We were not inclined to accept the submission of Advocate Shri Gatne that Prakash Kothambire could have given a telephonic message to police Station, if he could give a message to family members by borrowing a mobile of a passer-by.But we are convinced with his submission that Manisha, sister of Prakash was an important witness, Prakash had given account of the incident how he perceived it to Manisha on the mobile phone and this account was of vital importance.Non examination of Manisha as a witness is nothing short than suppression on the part of prosecution.This aspect assumes greater importance when we find that although Prakash was taken to local rural hospital by (admission by PW 9 para 2) people from his lane at Shrigonda, subsequently he was shifted to hospital at Daund, said to be Patel Hospital, where he was attended by Dr. Sameer Kulkarni.According to narration of Anjana, after accused Ramesh was thrashed by people, he was also taken to Shrigonda.As per evidence of investigating officer Shri Rajendra Padawal, accused was admitted at Rural Hospital, Shrigonda, after the incident and then was taken to Civil Hospital, Ahmednagar.It is admitted position that police had reached the spot.According to admission by Ashok (who is an active political worker), Rural Hospital, Shrigonda and police station, Shrigonda, are situated adjacent to each other.Although police had reached the spot and Prakash Kothambire was available, police were with this party because atleast they had travelled with the dead body to the Rural Hospital and accused Ramesh as well as PW 6 Prakash were also initially admitted at Rural Hospital, Shrigonda we are unable to find any reason or justifiable explanation on record as to why statement of Prakash Kothambire was not recorded by police.In fact, statement of Prakash Kothambire was recorded on 15.1.2004 only after his discharge from Patel Hospital.If Prakash Kothambire had heard the narration, as claimed by him during his testimony: from Savita, his statement ought to have been recorded at Shrigonda Rural Hospital.If Prakash was convinced by narration of Savita that accused was driving the tempo, that tempo was driven at a very high speed and that the dash or bump in the backside of motorcycle was deliberate, Prakash already knew that there had been an attempt on his life as well as an attempt to kill Savita.Yet his statement is recorded neither at the location nor at Shrigonda Police Station nor police had of their own tried to pursue him at Daund hospital and record his statement at the earliest possible, and before he could be tutored or his after thinking should adulterate his perception about the alleged incident.Last but not the least, at Exhibit 67 is injury certificate issued to Prakash by Dr. Sameer Kulkarni, Orthopaedic Surgeon, who attended him at Patel Hospital.This injury certificate eventually incorporates the history of incident.This history recorded by the surgeon, to our mind, provides a fatal blow to the prosecution story.It is recorded as "cause, road traffic accident".It does not contain anything to suggest that Praskash had perceived the same as deliberate knock, it dose not contain any details that offending vehicle was a tempo, much less, it contains any details that appellant was driver of the tempo and thus, culprit of the incident.For the lapse on the part of Prakash to complain or police to record his complaint immediately after the incident and in the light of history given by Prakash when admitted at Orthopaedic Hospital, Daund, we are unable to believe version of Prakash as narrated before the court that Savlta had told him of accused following them in the tempo, the tempo being driven by accused himself and the knack being deliberate, intended to kill or cause such injury, which in the ordinary course of nature would result into death.these probabilities are totally lost sight of by the trial court while believing eye witness account of the incident given by PW 4 Ashok and PW 6 Prakash.In the light of above details, we feel that prosecution has not been able to prove beyond all reasonable doubts the identity of appellant - accused as the tempo driver at the material time, much less they have been able to establish intention or knowledge requisite for bringing the action within the purview of Section 302 / 307 of IPC.The appeal, therefore, must succeed.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
2,078,799 |
Certified copy on payment of usual charges.(S.K. SETH) JUDGE mn
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 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.
|
20,793,428 |
However, adverse observation, if any made against the accused shall not be looked into except in the context which is relevant for the purpose of this case.With these observations, Criminal Revision No.1682/2014 and Criminal Revision 1912/2014 stand disposed of.
|
['Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
22,341,363 |
There is seizure of some cashbutitcouldnotbeidentifiedastherobbed property.It be listed under same head in the week commencing from 27/10/2014 with a direction thatcasediarybecalledandbeplacedbeforethis Courtonthenextdateofhearingpositively.(N.K.Gupta) Judge AKM Cr.07/10/2014 Shri Dharmendra Soni, counsel for the applicant.None for the respondents.Learned counsel for applicant prays some time to move an application to convert the present criminal revision into a leave application under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C.Prayer is allowed, application be moved within a week.(N.K.Gupta) Judge AKM M.Cr.It appears that the applicant did not comply the previous orders of this court and no amendment has been made in memo of bail application, however, as prayed by counsel for the applicant seven working days time is granted to make amendment in the application.If such modification is not made within given period, the present application filed by the applicant shall be deemed dismissed in want of prosecution without referring to the Court.(N.K.Gupta) Judge AKM M.Cr.07/10/2014 None for the applicant.Shri G.S. Thakur, P.L. for the respondent-State.It appears that none has appeared for the applicant on 05/05/2014 and on 18/07/2014, it appears that learned counsel for applicant does not want to prosecute the present application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., filed by the applicant Sameem @ Arju Khan, is hereby dismissed in want of prosecution.(N.K.Gupta) Judge AKM M.Cr.07/10/2014 None for the applicant.Shri G.S. Thakur, P.L. for the respondent-State.Heard on I.A. No. 18001/2014 an application for amendment in the memo of bail application.Application is allowed.Proposed amendment be incorporated within seven working days also the other defaults pointed out by the office shall be cured within that stipulated period.If the compliance is not made within given period, application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., filed by the applicant shall be deemed dismissed in want of prosecution without referring to the Court.(N.K.Gupta) Judge AKM M.Cr.07/10/2014 None for the applicant.Shri G.S. Thakur, P.L. for the respondent-State.None appeared for the applicant on 25/09/2014 and none appeared for the applicant on today.It appears that learned counsel for applicant does not want to prosecute this application.Consequently, the present application for restoration of previous application is hereby dismissed in want of prosecution.(N.K.Gupta) Judge AKM M.Cr.07/10/2014 None for the applicant.Shri G.S. Thakur, P.L. for the respondent-State.Though the counsel for the applicant is not present a week's time is granted to remove the default and if the default is not removed within a week application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., filed by the applicant shall be deemed dismissed in want of prosecution without referring to the Court.(N.K.Gupta) Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 14588/2014 07/10/2014 Shri S.S. Tiwari, Advocate for the applicant.At this stage, as prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant Budhha @ Shiv Prasad , is hereby dismissed beingwithdrawn.(N.K.Gupta) Judge AKM M.Cr.Heard on the question of maintainability of the present petition.If the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is dismissed then no application for recalling of the order is maintainable.Consequently, the present application for recalling the order dated 14/02/2014 is hereby dismissed being not maintainable.(N.K.Gupta) Judge AKM M.Cr.07/10/2014 Shri Ajay Mishra, counsel for the applicant.Shri Ajay Tamrakar, P.L. for the respondent-State.Learned counsel for the applicant prays some time to remove the default.It appears that on 02/05/2014 it was directed that the default be removed within a week and if it is not removed within a week then the present petition shall be deemed dismissed in want of prosecution, without referring to the Court.The applicant is directed to add the complainant as respondent no. 2 by moving an application.In the absence of the counsel for the applicant,caseisadjourned.07/10/2014 None for the applicant even in the second round.C. No. 6332/2014 07/10/2014 Shri S.P. Mishra Advocate for the applicant.Shri S.K. Kashyap, Government Advocate for the respondent No. 1-State.Nonefortherespondentno.2thoughnotice ofthisapplicationisserveduponhim.It be listed under same head in the week commencing from 27/10/2014 with a direction thatcasediarybecalledandbeplacedbeforethis Courtonthenextdateofhearingpositively.(N.K.Gupta) Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 7323/2014 07/10/2014 Shri M.S. Jain, Advocate for the applicant.Learned counsel for applicant prays to withdrawthisapplicationundersection439ofthe Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant Ajay Prakash, becausethetrialisover.07/10/2014 Shri Rahul Sharma, counsel for the applicant.Shri G.S. Thakur, P.L. for the respondent-State.Shri Sanklap Kochar, counsel for the objector.Videorderdated12/09/2014itwasdirected thatFSLreportrelatingtoarticlesseizedfromthe applicantbealsoproducedandtherefore,learned PanelLawyerisdirectedtocallfortheFSLreport andbeplacedbeforethiscourtonthenextdateof hearing.It be listed under same head in the week commencing from 27/10/2014 with a direction thatcasediarybecalledandbeplacedbeforethis Courtonthenextdateofhearingpositively.At this stage, as prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant Ashish Singh, is hereby dismissed being withdrawn.(N.K.Gupta) Judge AKM M.Cr.07/10/2014 Shri D.N. Shukla, counsel for the applicant.Shri G.S. Thakur, P.L. for the respondent-State.Learned Panel Lawyer prays for some time to get the FSL report of the articles seized from the applicant.Prayer is allowed.On the next date of hearing FSL report be placed before this court otherwise it will be presumed that the prosecution does not want to show FSL report in the case.Copyofthisorderbeprovidedtothelearned PanelLawyerforcompliance.(N.K.Gupta) Judge AKM M.Cr.07/10/2014 None for the applicant.Shri G.S. Thakur, P.L. for the respondent-State.It be listed under same head in the week commencing from 27/10/2014 with a direction thatcasediarybecalledandbeplacedbeforethis Courtonthenextdateofhearingpositively.(N.K.Gupta) Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 7884/2014 09/06/2014 Shri Brijendra Mishra, Advocate for the applicant.Shri R.N. Yadav, P.L. for the respondent-State.Case diary is not available.It be listed under same head in the week commencing from 23/06/2014 with a direction thatcasediarybecalledandbeplacedbeforethis Courtonthenextdateofhearingpositively.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 7894/2014 09/06/2014 None for the applicant.Shri R.N. Yadav, P.L. for the respondent-State.It be listed under same head in the week commencing from 23/06/2014 with a direction thatcasediarybecalledandbeplacedbeforethis Courtonthenextdateofhearingpositively.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 7896/2014 09/06/2014 Shri S.P. Pandey, Advocate for the applicant.Shri R.N. Yadav, P.L. for the respondent-State.Case diary is not available.It be listed under same head in the week commencing from 23/06/2014 with a direction thatcasediarybecalledandbeplacedbeforethis Courtonthenextdateofhearingpositively.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 7900/2014 09/06/2014 None for the applicant.Shri R.N. Yadav, P.L. for the respondent-State.It be listed under same head in the week commencing from 23/06/2014 with a direction thatcasediarybecalledandbeplacedbeforethis Courtonthenextdateofhearingpositively.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.7904/2014 09/06/2014 Shri P.K. Verma, Advocate for the applicant.Shri R.N. Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent- State.Case diary is not available.Learned counsel for applicant submits that he has copy of the charge-sheet with the help of such papers case may be considered.Heard learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 17.5.2014 relating to Crime No. 323/2014 registered at Police Station Rampur Naikin, District Sidhi for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC and 7/8 of Protection of Children from Sexual OffendersLearned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a youth of 21 years of age, who has no criminal past as alleged against him.Sufficient time will be required for its disposal.The applicant cannot be kept in the jail for an unlimited period.Under such circumstances counsel for applicant prays for bail.Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of offence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant viz. Mukesh Kol may be accepted.It is directed that present applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a bond in sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand) with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the committal Court Rampur Naikin, to appear before the committal court and trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Courts.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules. .(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.7909/2014 09/06/2014 Shri Ashish Tiwari, Advocate for the applicant.Shri R.N. Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent- State.Learned counsel for applicant submits that looking to the nature of the case, it may be considered with the help of copy of the impugned order.Heard learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 5.5.2014 relating to Crime No. 98/2014 registered at Police Station Orchha, District Tikamgarh for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant is a youth of 25 years of age, who has no criminal past as alleged against him.Sufficient time will be required for its disposal.The presence of the applicant is no more required in the investigation.The applicant cannot be kept in the jail for an unlimited period.Under such circumstances he prays for bail.Learned Government Advocate informs that 65 bulk liters liquor was seized from the applicant and opposes the application.It is directed that present applicants be released on bail on their furnishing a bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, to appear before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 7913/2014 09/06/2014 Shri Pradeep Narvariya, Advocate for the applicant.It be listed under same head in the week commencing from 23/06/2014 with a direction thatcasediarybecalledandbeplacedbeforethis Courtonthenextdateofhearingpositively.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 7916/2014 09/06/2014 None for the applicant.Shri R.N. Yadav, P.L. for the respondent-State.It be listed under same head in the week commencing from 23/06/2014 with a direction thatcasediarybecalledandbeplacedbeforethis Courtonthenextdateofhearingpositively.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 7919/2014 09/06/2014 Shri Anand Nayak, Advocate for the applicant.Shri R.N. Yadav, P.L. for the respondent-State.It be listed under same head in the week commencing from 23/06/2014 with a direction thatcasediarybecalledandbeplacedbeforethis Courtonthenextdateofhearingpositively.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 7925/2014 09/06/2014 Shri M.K. Tiwari, Advocate for the applicant.Shri R.N. Yadav, P.L. for the respondent-State.It be listed under same head in the week commencing from 23/06/2014 with a direction thatcasediarybecalledandbeplacedbeforethis Courtonthenextdateofhearingpositively.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.7928/2014 09/06/2014 Shri R.B. Singh, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent- State.Case diary is not available.Learned counsel for applicant submits that looking to the nature of the case, it may be considered with the help of copy of the impugned order.Heard learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 15.5.2014 relating to Crime No. 343/2014 registered at Police Station Sarni, District Betul for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant is a youth of 28 years of age, who has no criminal past as alleged against him.Sufficient time will be required for its disposal.The presence of the applicant is no more required in the investigation.The applicant cannot be kept in the jail for an unlimited period.Under such circumstances he prays for bail.Learned Government Advocate informs that 60 bulk liters liquor was seized from the applicant and opposes the application.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of offence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant Sandeep @ Manoj may be accepted.Consequently it is hereby allowed.It is directed that present applicants be released on bail on their furnishing a bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, to appear before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.7733/2014 09/06/2014 Shri Jafar Khan, Advocate for the applicant.Shri S.D. Khan, Government Advocate for the respondent-State.Heard learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 1.4.2014 relating to Crime No.39/2014 registered at Police Station Kesli, District Sagar for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506, 450 & 376(Gh) of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a youth of 26 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against him.Prosecutrix is shown to be 40 years old married woman.No external and internal injuries are found on the person of the prosecutrix.FIR was lodged with the delay of 2 days.Under such circumstances, it would be apparent that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter, no alleged offence is made out against the applicant.He is in custody without any substantial reasons.Consequently, he prays for bail.Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of offence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant viz. Bihari may be accepted.Consequently it is hereby allowed.It is directed that present applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a bond in sum of Rs.40,000/-(Rupees Forty thousand thousand only) with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the CJM, Sagar to appear before the committal court and trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Courts.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules. .(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.7728/2014 09/06/2014 Shri Sandesh Dixit, Advocate for the applicant.Shri S.D. Khan, Government Advocate for the respondent-State.Heard learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 13.5.2014 relating to Crime No. 138/2014 registered at Police Station Gwarighat, District Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant is reputed citizen of the locality, who has no criminal past alleged against him.The case is triable by the Court of JMFC but it is no so grave and sufficient time will be required for its disposal.The presence of the applicant is not required for investigation.The applicant cannot be kept in the jail for an unlimited period.Under such circumstances he prays for bail.Learned Government Advocate informs that 63 bulk liters liquor was seized from the applicant and opposes the application.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of offence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant Lalji Choudhary may be accepted.Consequently it is hereby allowed.It is directed that present applicants be released on bail on their furnishing a bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, to appear before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.7717/2014 09/06/2014 Shri Arvind Sharma, Advocate for the applicant.Shri S.D. Khan, Government Advocate for the respondent-State.Heard learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 12.05.2014 relating to Crime No.362/2014 registered at Police Station Govindpura, District Bhopal for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 307, 506, 34 of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a youth of 21 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against him.Initially, it is alleged against the applicant that he quarreled with the victim Shekhar Bhadoriya and assaulted him by a rod and the co-accused assaulted the intervenor Somnath with the help of sharp cutting weapon on his chest and abdomen.One fatal injury was found which was caused by the co-accused.The applicant was not aware that the co-accused would assault the intervenor in such a manner, and therefore, no offence under Section 307 of IPC is made out against the applicant either directly or with he help of Section 34 of IPC whereas remaining offences are bailable.He is in custody without any substantial reasons.Consequently, he prays for bail.Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of offence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant viz. Utkarsh Bhargav, may be accepted.It is directed that present applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a bond in sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty five thousand) with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the CJM, Bhopal to appear before the committal court and trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Courts.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.7715/2014 09/06/2014 Shri Manish Datt, Senior Advocate along with Shri Pawan Gurgar, Advocate for the applicant.Shri S.D. Khan, Government Advocate for the respondent-State.At this stage, as prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant Sunil Kumar Rahangdale, is hereby dismissed beingwithdrawn.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.09.06.2014 Shri H.S. Rajput, counsel for the applicants.Shri S.D. Khan, Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Case diary is not available.Learned counsel for applicants submits that looking to the nature of case it may be decided with the help of copy of impugned order.Heard learned counsel for the parties.The applicants have an apprehension of their arrest in Crime No.1/2014 registered at Police Station, Mahila Police Station Civil Line, Sagar District Sagar for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A of IPC & 3/ 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicants are reputed citizen of the locality and they do not have any criminal past.The applicant no.1 is an old person of 64 years of age.Brother of the complainant had uploaded obscene photographs of sister of the applicant no. 2 and therefore, quarrel started.Before Parivar Paramarsh the complainant was summoned and she was directed to reside with the applicant no. 2 thereafter, the complainant lodged a false FIR against the applicants to harass them.The offence is triable by JMFC but it is not so grave.The co-accused Smt. Manjula Jain wife of applicant no. 1 and Ku.Bharti Jain @ Lali daughter of applicant no. 1 were released on bail vide order dated 22/05/2014 in M.Cr.Under such circumstances applicants pray for bail of anticipatory nature on the ground of parity.Learned Government Advocate for the State opposes the application.Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that this is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants.Consequently, the application under Section 438 Cr.It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicants namely Devendra Kumar Jain & Deepam Jain be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of `25,000/- (Rupees Thirty five thousand only) each with a solvent surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority.The applicant shall further abide by the conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.This order shall remain in force for a period of 60 days and in the meanwhile, if the applicants so desire, may move an application for regular bail before the competent Court.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.GUPTA) V.JUDGE AKM M.Cr.C. No. 7897/2014 09/06/2014 Ku.Gayatri Ladhiya, Advocate for the applicants.Shri S.D. Khan, Government Advocate for the respondent-State.Learned Government Advocate informs that application of the applicants under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed on 16/04/2014 and therefore, it is for the applicant to mention particulars of the previous application in this case.Learnedcounsel forapplicantisdirectedto mentiontheparticularsofthepreviousapplication inthememoofpresentapplicationwithinaweek.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.09.06.2014 Shri N. Ashar, counsel for the applicants.Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Heard learned counsel for the parties.The applicants have an apprehension of their arrest in Crime No.188/2014 registered at Police Station, Cantt., District Sagar for the offence punishable under Sections 306/34 of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicants are old persons of 65, 60 and 62 years of age and they do not have any criminal past.The deceased was daughter-in-law of the applicants who died after 12 years of her marriage.No presumption under Section 113(A) of the Evidence Act is applicable in the present case.The allegations made against the applicants do not fall within the purview of Section 107 or 109 of IPC and therefore, no offence under Sections 306 of IPC is made out against the applicants either directly or with he help of Section 34 of IPC.The police is unnecessarily harassing the applicants.Under these circumstances, they pray for anticipatory bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the application.Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that this is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants.Consequently, the application under Section 438 Cr.It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicants namely Khemchand Patel, Smt. Asharani and Smt. Chandra Prabha be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of `35,000/- (Rupees Thirty five thousand only) each with a solvent surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority.The applicant shall further abide by the conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.This order shall remain in force for a period of 60 days and in the meanwhile, if the applicants so desire, may move an application for regular bail before the competent Court.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.GUPTA) V.JUDGE AKM M.Cr.C. No. 7946/2014 09/06/2014 Shri Vikram Singh, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Ajay Tamrakar, P.L. for the respondent-State.Learned Panel Lawyer prays for sometime to get the disputed sale deed in the case diary.Itbelistedundersameheadin the week commencing from 23/06/2014 with a directionthatcompletecasediarybeplacedbefore thisCourtonthenextdateofhearingpositively.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 7984/2014 09/06/2014 None for the applicant.Shri Ajay Tamrakar, P.L. for the respondent-State.It be listed under same head in the week commencing from 23/06/2014 with a direction thatcasediarybecalledandbeplacedbeforethis Courtonthenextdateofhearingpositively.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 8099/2014 09/06/2014 Shri Ashish Tiwari, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Ajay Tamrakar, P.L. for the respondent-State.It be listed under same head in the week commencing from 23/06/2014 with a direction thatcasediarybecalledandbeplacedbeforethis Courtonthenextdateofhearingpositively.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No. 5661/2014 09/06/2014 Shri S.D. Gupta, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Ajay Tamrakar, P.L. for the respondent-State.Case diary is not available.It be listed under same head in the week commencing from 23/06/2014 with a direction thatcasediarybecalledandbeplacedbeforethis Courtonthenextdateofhearingpositively.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.6144/2014 09/06/2014 Shri Pushpendra Dubey Advocate for the applicant.Shri S.D. Khan, Government Advocate for the respondent-State.At this stage, as prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant Om Prakash Vishwakarma, is hereby dismissed beingwithdrawnwithalibertythatitmaybefiled afterthreemonths.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.6190/2014 09/06/2014 Shri P.K. Saxena, Advocate for the applicant.Shri S.D. Khan, Government Advocate for the respondent-State.Case diary is not available.It be listed under same head in the week commencing from 23/06/2014 with a direction thatcasediarybecalledandbeplacedbeforethis Courtonthenextdateofhearingpositively.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.6223/2014 09/06/2014 Shri Madan Singh, Advocate for the applicant.Shri S.D. Khan, Government Advocate for the respondent-State.Heard learned counsel for the parties.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a youth of 19 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against him.Prosecutrix is shown to be 17 to 19 years of age in the Ossification Test and therefore she is above 18 years of age.As per allegations she remained with the applicant for 3 days without any resistance.No external and internal injuries are found on the person of the prosecutrix.Under such circumstances, it would be apparent that either the prosecutrix was a consenting parity or the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter, no alleged offence is made out against the applicant.He is in custody without any substantial reasons.Consequently, he prays for bail.Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of offence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant viz. Kuldeep Singh Chouhan may be accepted.It is directed that present applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a bond in sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty five thousand) with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, to appear before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules. .(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.6375/2014 09/06/2014 Shri Ashok Chakraverty, Advocate for the applicant.Shri S.D. Khan, Government Advocate for the respondent-State.At this stage, as prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant Dinesh Prajapati, is hereby dismissed being withdrawn.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.6479/2014 09/06/2014 Shri A.K. Tiwari, Advocate for the applicants.Shri S.D. Khan, Government Advocate for the respondent-State.At this stage, as prayed by the learned counsel for the applicants, application under section439oftheCr.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.6626/2014 09/06/2014 Shri Prahlad Choudhary, Advocate for the applicants.Shri S.D. Khan, Government Advocate for the respondent-State.Heard learned counsel for the parties.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are reputed citizens, who have no criminal past alleged against them.The case is triable by the Court of JMFC but sufficient time will be required for its disposal.The applicants cannot be kept in the jail for an unlimited period.Under such circumstances counsel for applicants prays for bail.It is directed that present applicants be released on bail on their furnishing a bond in sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand) each with one surety bond of the same amount each to the satisfaction of the trial Court, to appear before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules. .(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.6652/2014 09/06/2014 None for the applicant.Shri S.D. Khan, Government Advocate for the respondent-State.It be listed under same head in the week commencing from 23/06/2014 with a direction thatcasediarybecalledandbeplacedbeforethis Courtonthenextdateofhearingpositively.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.6766/2014 09/06/2014 Shri Ghanshyam Sharma, Advocate for the applicant.Shri R.N. Yadav, P.L. for the respondent-State.At this stage, as prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant RajkumarChoudhary, isherebydismissedbeing withdrawn.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.7029/2014 09/06/2014 Shri H.S. Dubey, Advocate for the applicants.Shri R.N. Yadav, P.L. for the respondent-State.At this stage, as prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, application under section439oftheCr.P.C.filedbytheapplicants Raja Jatav & Raju Katiya, is hereby dismissed beingwithdrawn.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.7126/2014 09/06/2014 Shri S.N. Saraf, Advocate for the applicant.Shri R.N. Yadav, P.L. for the respondent-State.It be listed under same head in the week commencing from 23/06/2014 with a direction thatcasediarybecalledandbeplacedbeforethis Courtonthenextdateofhearingpositively.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.7238/2014 09/06/2014 Shri Amit Jain, Advocate for the applicant.Shri R.N. Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent- State.Heard learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 5.4.2014 relating to Crime No.47/2014 registered at Police Station Bhangarh District Sagar for the offence punishable under Sections 136 of Electricity Act.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a youth of 26 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against him.Sufficient time will be required for its disposal.The applicant cannot be kept in the jail for an unlimited period.Under such circumstances counsel for applicant prays for bail.Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.It is directed that present applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a bond in sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty five thousand) with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, to appear before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules. .(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.7259/2014 09/06/2014 Shri Y.K. Gupta, Advocate for the applicant.Shri R.N. Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.Counselforapplicantpraysfortimetoargue thematter.It be listed under same head in the week commencingfrom30/06/2014withthedirection thatcasediarybereturned anditmaybemade available beforethreedayspriortothenextdate ofhearingpositively.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.5913/2014 19/5/2014 Shri B. M. Prasad, Advocate for the applicant.It be listed under same head after a week withthedirectionthatcasediarybecalledandbe placed before this Court on the next date of hearingpositively.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge Mrs.Mishra M.Cr.C. No.4370/2014 19/5/2014 Shri Vishal Dhagat, Advocate for the applicant.Shri P.C. Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.Case diary is available.As prayed for by learned counsel for the parties,thecaseisadjourned It be listed under same head in the next week.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge Mrs.Mishra M.Cr.C. No.3421/2014 19/5/2014 Shri Aditya Ahiwasi, Advocate for the applicant.Shri P. C. Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.It be listed under same head after a week withthedirectionthatcasediarybecalledandbe placed before this Court on the next date of hearingpositively.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge Mrs.Mishra M.Cr.C. No.5728/2014 19/5/2014 Shri Devesh Khatri, Advocate for the applicant.Shri S. D. Khan, Govt. Adv.for the respondent- State.At this stage, as prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant Mueen @ Muveen Sodagar is hereby dismissed beingwithdrawn.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge Mrs.Mishra M.Cr.C. No.6394/2014 19/5/2014 Shri Vinay Sharma, Advocate for the applicant.Shri S. D. Khan, Govt. Adv.Heard on admission.The applicant has moved an application under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail granted to respondents No.1, 2 and 3 vide order dated 29.3.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur.The facts of the case in short are that the prosecutrix alleged against one Qasim Khan her brother-in-law that he committed rape on her.Thereafter a typed report was lodged before the Superintendent of Police that respondents No.1, 2 and 3 gave their consent so that the main accused may have relation with the prosecutrix.Under such circumstances, no case is made out so that the order dated 29.3.2014 may be set aside and the application under Section 439(2) filed by the applicant Gosiya Khan may be allowed.Consequently, application under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant Gosiya Khan is hereby dismissed at motion stage.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge Mrs.Mishra M.Cr.C. No.5339/2014 19/5/2014 Shri Ashish Kurmi, Advocate for the applicant.Shri S.D. Khan, Govt. Adv.for the respondent- State.Case diary is not available.It be listed under same head after a week withthedirectionthatcasediarybecalledandbe placed before this Court on the next date of hearingpositively.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge Mrs.Mishra M.Cr.C. No.5406/2014 19/5/2014 Shri Manish Datt, Sr.Advocate with Shri S. Datt for the applicant.Shri P. C. Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.Heard learned counsel for the parties.294, 323, 506-II/34 and 302 of IPC is perused.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a youth of 20 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against him.He is a student of BBA Course and if he is not released his studies would be spoiled.There is allegation against 8 accused persons.They assaulted the victim by stick and rod.The deceased Vivesh Singh @ Seetu died due to head injury.It is no where alleged against the applicant that he assaulted the victim on his head by any weapon and therefore, no offence under Section 302 of IPC is made out against the applicant either directly or with the help of Section 34 of IPC.Remaining offences are not so grave.The applicant is in custody since 27.3.2014 without any substantial reason.Under such circumstances, he prays for bail.Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of offence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant viz. Akhilesh Singh may be accepted.It is directed that present applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a bond in sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, to appear before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules. .(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge Mrs.Mishra M.Cr.C. No.5270/2014 19/5/2014 Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, Advocate for the applicant.Shri P. C. Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.Learned counsel for the State informs that the case diary is not available.On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has the copy of charge sheet, and therefore the matter may be considered on the basis of such papers.Heard learned counsel for the parties.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a youth of 20 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against him.Prosecutrix is shown to be 17 to 19 years of age in the Ossification Test.At present she is examined before the Trial Court and she had shown about her consent and she lived with the applicant for four months.Under such circumstances no offences is made out.Consequently, he prays for bail.Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of offence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant viz. Bani Singh @ Jaiprakash may be accepted.It is directed that present applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a bond in sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty five thousand) with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, to appear before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules. .(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge Mrs.Mishra M.Cr.C. No.5210/2014 19/5/2014 Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, Advocate for the applicant.Shri P. C. Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge Mrs.Mishra M.Cr.Shri P. C. Gupta, Learned Panel Lawyer for theState/respondent.Theapplicantisincustodysince31.12.2013 relatingtocrimeNo.408/2013registeredatPolice Station Moondi, District Khandwa for offence punishableunderSections392ofIPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that theapplicantisayouthof21yearsofage, who has no criminal past alleged against him.Itis allegedagainsttheapplicantthathewasidentified in the test identification parade but it was arranged with delay.Iftheapplicantisnotenlargedonbail, hisfuturewillbespoiledinthecompanyofharden criminals inside the jail.P.C. filedby theapplicantviz.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
22,346,911 |
This is the first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., filed before this Court for grant of bail.The applicant is in custody since 21.8.2014 in connection with Crime No.467/2014, registered at Police Station, Janakganj District Gwalior for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376/34 of IPC.As per allegations the applicant has instigated and abducted the prosecutrix Mamta aged 14 years and committed sexual intercourse with her.On behalf of the applicant it is submitted that the applicant is innocent person.There is an affidavit filed behalf of both, applicant and the prosecutrix, that they have married with each other.Certain photographs exchanging garlands also filed.X-ray report of Kapoorchand Memorial Digital X-ray Clinic is also filed, in which the prosecutrix is shown to be 18 years.Application is opposed by the learned Panel 2 M.Cr.C No. 8519/2014 Lawyer.2 M.Cr.C No. 8519/2014Accordingly, application is dismissed.(S.K. Palo) JUDGE dcs
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
22,348,478 |
APPEAL 361/2000 + JUDGMENT ORAL JUDGMENT :4] The prosecution case, in short is as under:-That PW1 - Somnath Pandhare complainant residing at Paranda had agreed to purchase 19 kg of gold from Ashok Vitthal Chavan (identified as accused no.2 - Jalindar during investigation), as he represented that the said gold is found as the treasure trove while digging a house.Present appellant - Balu was working as a driver with one Prabhakar Bargole i.e. brother-in-law of the complainant.Both the present appellants were always representing about finding of the gold and were asking the complainant to purchase the same.This pestering continued for about one year.Accused no.2 told that the gold can be purchased for Rs.15,00,000/-and the same is in the custody of Sushilabai Pardhin of village Padhegaon.APPEAL 361/2000 + JUDGMENT Deepak went to Pandharpur Urban Bank at Barshi.The complainant collected an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- from the said urban Bank.The complainant alongwith brother-in-law Prabhakar came by a jeep to Kolhar, Tq.Shrirampur, District - Ahmednagar.They went to the house of PW2 - Gopi.Accused no.1 - Balu also met them there.Thereafter, alongwith accused no.1 - Balu, PW2- Gopi and PW3 jeep driver - Deepak went to village Soygaon.Thereat, accused no.1 - Balu brought accused no.2 after about one hour.All of them thereafter proceeded to Kopargaon.They reached there at about 7:30 pm.Accused no.2 asked them to wait at one square.He represented that the gold was hidden far away from the road and, therefore, he had asked one Sushilabai Pardhin to bring the gold by the side of the road.Accordingly, he went by rickshaw and returned by 10.00 pm in the night.Thereafter, he escorted all of them by the side of one canal.DATE : 10/02/2016 ::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 04:38:52 ::: (2) CR.::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 04:38:52 :::Heard both sides.They were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.7000/- each.They alongwith other accused nos.3 to 5 were acquitted of the offences punishable under section 420, 109 r/w.120-B of the Indian Penal Code.The other accused were also acquitted of the offences punishable under section 395 r/w. 397 of the Indian Penal Code.Aggrieved by the conviction and sentences, these two separate appeals are preferred by the present appellants.3] Appellant - Balu in Criminal Appeal No. 361 of 2000 was arrayed as accused no.1 while appellant -Jalindar in Criminal Appeal No. 69 of 2001, was arrayed ::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 04:38:52 ::: (3) CR.APPEAL 361/2000 + JUDGMENT as accused no.2 in the said Sessions Case.::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 04:38:52 :::In the situation, on 13/2/1999, complainant PW1 Somnath alongwith PW2 - Gopi with driver PW3 -::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 04:38:52 :::About 200 feet on the dirt road, said Sushilabai Pardhin alongwith one lady was found.Said Sushilabai enquired, as to whether the amount was ::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 04:38:52 ::: (5) CR.Both the ladies took the personal search of the prosecution witnesses by confirming as to whether they were having any weapon.About 6-7 persons from the Pardhi community surrounded the prosecution witnesses.::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 04:38:52 :::In the circumstances, the prosecution witnesses anyhow went by the jeep to Shirdi.They halted there in a lodge for the whole night and when the shock of the incident worn out, on 14/02/1999, they went to Kopargaon and filed the complaint at 4.15 pm.5] The investigation in the case was started.The present appellants, being known to the complainant were arrested.From the person of the accused no.1 -Balu, an amount of Rs.25,000/- was recovered.It was having a slip of a bank.From the person of accused no.2 - Ashok Chavan @ Jalindar, an amount of Rs.25,000/- was recovered, which also had a slip of the bank.Rest of the accused were also searched.Some ::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 04:38:52 ::: (6) CR.APPEAL 361/2000 + JUDGMENT more accused were absconding.In the circumstances, the chargesheet came to be filed.::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 04:38:52 :::6] Before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon, in all 10 witnesses were examined.So far as the present appellants are concerned, PW1, PW2 and PW3 were examined to give the details of the earlier transactions with them and also as eye witness to the incident of looting.PW4 - Adinath is the employee of the bank, who identified the slip of the bank.PW5 - Baban was examined as the panch witness in whose presence, according to the prosecution, both the present appellants were arrested and from their person, the currency notes were seized.7] The learned Additional Sessions Judge disbelieved the case of cheating, however, he found that the present appellants had role to play in the dacoity and, therefore, the conviction and sentences, as detailed supra came to be recorded.::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 04:38:52 :::APPEAL 361/2000 + JUDGMENT 8] Mr. Zia-Ul-Mustafa, learned counsel for the appellant - Jalindar in Criminal Appeal No. 69 of 2001 and Mr. G.A. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the appellant appointed for appellant - Balu in Criminal Appeal No. 361 of 2000 took me through the evidence on record.It was submitted that the charge framed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was vague, as it was recited in the charge that all the accused with the aid of absconding accused have committed the dacoity.It was submitted that when rest of the accused nos.3 to 5 were acquitted and when it was not definitely known as to how many accused were absconding, offence punishable under section 395 or section 397 of the Indian Penal Code would not have been made out.Further, on merit, it was submitted that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.9] On the other hand, learned A.P.P. submits that the statement of PW1 to PW5 would squarely go to show ::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 04:38:52 ::: (8) CR.APPEAL 361/2000 + JUDGMENT that the present appellants were very much involved in the offence.He submits that since some of the accused were absconding, merely because their numbers were not detailed in the charge, since 5 accused were arrayed during the trial, no prejudice have been caused due to the defective charge.On merit, it was submitted that the evidence of the relevant witnesses has been rightly believed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 04:38:52 :::10] On the basis of this material, following points arise for my determination :-I) Whether the prosecution has proved that the present appellants alongwith other accused committed dacoity regarding cash of Rs.3,50,000/- on 13/02/1999 near village Padhegaon and that the dacoits were armed with weapons ?My finding to the said point is in the negative.Both Criminal Appeals are therefore allowed and the appellants are therefore acquitted of the offences for the reasons to follow.::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 04:38:52 :::period of about 1 year prior to the incident of dacoity, Ashok Chavan was pestering him for the purchase of the gold.Ultimately, it was agreed that the complainant would purchase the gold for the price of Rs.7,00,000/- from the mother of said Ashok.In the complaint, however, there is no recital that accused no.2 had told that the treasure trove was with his mother.On the other hand, in the complaint, it is alleged that the said gold was with one Sushilabai Pardhin of Padhegaon.PW1 Ashok thereafter gave narration of the collection of the amount from the bank while proceeding to Kopargaon with PW3 - his driver, where PW2 - Gopi met them there.12] According to the complainant, he alongwith PW2- Gopi went at the spot, where the incident of dacoity has occurred.::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 04:38:52 :::APPEAL 361/2000 + JUDGMENT 13] PW2 - Gopalkrishna alias Gopi has corroborated this fact.It was however brought on record that in his earlier statement before the Police, he has stated that he remained with PW3 - the driver of the vehicle and did not go to the spot.Not only this, PW3 -Deepak during cross-examination has again corroborated that PW2 Gopi did not go to the spot and remained with him.14] The learned Additional Sessions Judge has disbelieved the case of cheating either by accused no.2 or accused no.1 and found them guilty for the offence of commission of dacoity.According to the prosecution, cash of Rs.25,000/- with the label of the bank fixed to the van, were seized from them.15] PW5 - Baban Sasane was examined to show that in his presence, both the appellants were arrested and from them, those bundle of currency notes were seized.His deposition would show that there were several accused persons in the Police Station and he could not ::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 04:38:52 ::: (11) CR.APPEAL 361/2000 + JUDGMENT identify any of the accused person.To a leading question in the examination-in-chief, he admitted that amount was seized from Balu Bhosale (appellant) however in the next breath, he deposed that he can not identify accused no.1 or Ashok Chavan out of the accused.::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 04:38:52 :::During Further examination-in-chief of the witness, he admitted that he signed several panchanamas prepared by the Police and the bundles of the currency notes were kept on the table by the Police.The police simply pointed him the arrested persons and asked him to sign the panchanamas.16] Thus, the very fact of seizure of currency notes from these appellants is not proved.17] There are some variances between the statements of the witnesses.While the complainant states that they proceeded by a jeep of Marshal make, PW2 Gopi deposed that they proceeded by Tata Estate car.Further, there is a contradiction, as to whether the dacoits were wielding sticks or iron bar and axe.::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 04:38:52 :::the prosecution, the incident has occurred on 13/02/1999 at about 11.30 pm in the night, the FIR came to be filed on 14/02/1999 at about 4:15 pm.The belated FIR is in the face of the admitted fact that PW1 - complainant did not return to his village Paranda after the incident but halted in a lodge at Shirdi i.e. near Kopargaon, where the FIR was to be filed.19] If all these facts are taken into consideration, in my view, the learned Additional Sessions Judge ought to have extended benefit of reasonable doubt to the accused in the present case.In the circumstances, the following order :-: ORDER :20] Both the Criminal Appeals are hereby allowed.21] The impugned judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon, convicting the present appellants for the offences punishable under ::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 04:38:52 ::: (13) CR.APPEAL 361/2000 + JUDGMENT section 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby set aside.::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 04:38:52 :::Fine amount, if any, deposited by them be refunded to them, after a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of this order.22] Fees of Mr. G.A. Kulkarni, Advocate appointed for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.361 of 2000, is quantified at Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) and the same be paid to him by the High Court Legal Services Sub Committee at Aurangabad from the appropriate funds.23] Both Criminal Appeals stand disposed of accordingly.[M.T. JOSHI] JUDGE arp/ ::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 04:38:52 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 04:38:52 :::
|
['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
22,357,905 |
CRM No. 8044 of 2018 Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 13th September, 2018 in connection with Durgachak Police Station Case No. 108/2018 dated 12.7.2018 under Sections 186/341/333/353/323/325/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re:- Satyen Das ... Petitioner Mr. Amal Krishna Samanta ..for the Petitioner Mr. Antarikshya Basu .. for the State The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Durgachak Police Station Case No. 108/2018 dated 12.7.2018 under Sections 186/341/333/353/323/325/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
22,360,803 |
Heard on admission.Since arguable points are involved, the appeal is admitted for final hearing.No fresh notice is necessary as Public Prosecutor has already appeared for the respondent/State.Also heard on I.A.No.4275/2019, an application filed under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence moved on behalf of the appellants.The appellant No.1 Ghanshyam and No.2 Mannaram have been convicted under Section 148/149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year, appellant No.3 Satyaveer @ Rajesh and No.4 Gappulal have been convicted under Section 325/148 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one yeear wiuth fine of Rs.100/- each (two counts) with default stipulation, appellant No.5 Pappulal and No.6 Mukesh have been convicted under Section 324/149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for six months (two counts) and all the appellants have been 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESEH Criminal Appeal No.4888/2019 (Ghanshyam & Ors.State of M.P.) convikcted under Section 323/149 of IPC (four counts) and sentenced to undergo RI for three months, under Section 294 of IPC sentenced to undergo RI for one month and under Section 506-II of IPC sentenced to undergo RI for six months.Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellants were on bail during trial and they did not misuse the liberty so granted to them.The appellants have already deposited the fine amount before the trial Court.Under these circumstances, prays for suspension of their remaining jail sentence and grant of bail.Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application.Considering the rival contentions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, without commenting on the merits of the case, it appears that the case of appellants appears fit for granting benefit of suspension of jail sentence.Consequently, I.A. No.4275/2019 is allowed and it is ordered that firstly on depositing the relating fine amount by the appellants and thereafter on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty Thousand only) each with a solvent surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, their jail sentences shall remain suspended till disposal of this appeal and they be released on bail.The appellants are 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESEH Criminal Appeal No.4888/2019 (Ghanshyam & Ors.State of M.P.) further directed to remain present before the Registry of this Court firstly on 16.09.2019 and, thereafter, on such subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry of this Court for the same purpose in future.Office is directed to list this appeal for final hearing in due course.Certified copy as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava) Judge vv VALSALA VASUDEVAN 2019.06.18 VALSALA VASUDEVAN 2018.10.26 15:14:29 -07'00' 12:11:08
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
135,051,812 |
(i) P.W.2 Ramalingam and deceased Thangammal are spouses.P.Ws.3 and 4, Rajaram and Rajasekar are their sons.They were residing in Gandhi Nagar in Kai-kalathur in Veppanthattai Taluk in Perambalur District.(ii) On 15.4.2008, at about 8 a.m., Thangammal left for her brother P.W.5 Nallthambi's house in Pillankulam.At about 5 p.m., she was found hanging in a Neem tree in the land of one Periyasamy along the Pillankulam - Kai-kalathur Road.P.W.1 Subramanian, Village Administrative Officer, Pillankulam, P.Ws.3 and 4 and the villagers seen the dead body.Her golden ear-rings and screw (M.Os.7 and 11), golden nose-screw(M.O.8), golden thali and balls(M.Os.9 and 10) were found missing.(iii) At about 8 p.m., at the Kai-kalathur Police Station, P.W.1 gave Ex.P.1, complaint to P.W.17 Chandrahasan, Sub-Inspector of Police.He registered this case under Section 302 and 379 IPC (Ex.P.9 FIR).He send the original FIR to the Court and a copy of the same to P.W.18 Ayyanar, Inspector, Arumbavur Circle.(iv) P.W.18 took up his investigation.He visited the scene place.P.W.12 Munavar Khan photographed the dead body.In the presence of P.Ws.8 and 9 Thangarasu and Subramanian, P.W.18 prepared Ex.P.2 Observation Mahazar.Drew Ex.P.10, Rough Sketch of the scene place.Seized wire-bag(M.O.1) and chappals(M.O.2) under Ex.P.11 Mahazar.P.W.18 examined the witnesses and recorded their statement.In the presence of panchayatdars, he held inquest over the dead body [Ex.P.12 inquest report].Send the dead body through constable Jothivel to the Government Hospital, Perambalur for conducting post-mortem.(v) On 16.4.2008, at about 12.30 a.m., at the said hospital, P.W.11 Dr.Saravanan conducted autopsy on the dead body of Thangammal and noticed laceration of = x = x = cm with blood stains on both her ear lobes and ligature mark of 27 cm length x 1 cm width on the front side of her neck.(vii) P.W.11 opined that she died of asphixia due to strangulation between 12 to 24 hours prior to autopsy.(viii) On 19.4.2008, at about 8 a.m., near Sirunila bus-stop, in the presence of P.W.10 Thangaraj, Village Administrative Officer, Kai-kalathur and his Assistant, P.W.13 Sivakumar, P.W.18 arrested the accused.He recorded Ex.P.3 confessional statement of the accused.In pursuance of it, at about 10.30 a.m., from near an electrical main box, in his house, the accused produced Thangammal's ornaments (M.Os.7 to 11).In the presence of said witnesses, P.W.18 seized them under Ex.P.4 Mahazar.The accused also produced M.O.12 bi-cycle.In SANGIAH(supra), the deceased owed some money to the accused.On the occurrence day, in front of a shop, the accused demanded his money from the deceased.Sudden fight erupted between them.The accused stabbed the deceased on his neck with M.O.1 knife.The deceased died.P.W.14, the Investigation Officer, in the course of his investigation, arrested the accused.Recorded his confessional statement Ex.In pursuance of it, he recovered M.O.1 knife.In the next case, namely, GANESHAN(supra), the accused suspected the fidelity of his wife.He advised her to mend her behavior.But, she did not.On the night of the occurrence day, the accused assaulted her indiscriminately with an aruval.She died.The appellant is acquitted from both the charges.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Tiruchirapalli is directed to release the appellant forthwith, if his further custody is no longer required in connection with any other case.Fine amount, if paid shall be refunded.rrg Note:P. DEVADASS, J.P.W.18 seized it under Ex.P.W.18 produced the accused to the Court for judicial remand and the case-properties for being sent to chemical lab for analysis.After P.W.18, P.W.19 Elangovan, Inspector perused the investigation.Concluding it, he filed Final Report for offences under Section 302 and 392 IPC as against the accused in the committal court.The Trial Court framed charges under Sections 302 and 392 IPC against the accused.When questioned, he denied the charges.To substantiate the said charges, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 19, marked Ex.The learned Additional Sessions Judge examined the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C on the incriminating aspects appearing in the prosecution evidence.He denied his complicity in this case.He did not examine any witness nor mark any document on his side.During the trial, before the Trial Court, P.Ws.14 and 15 Palanisamy and Thangadurai, who were examined as eye witnesses and P.W.16 Ganesan, who has been examined to speak about an incriminating circumstance have turned hostile.The remaining evidence was Section 27 Evidence Act recovery of M.Os.7 to 11 ornaments of the deceased recovered from the possession of the accused based on his confessional statement Ex.With reference to the said recovery, the Trial Court raised presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 and referring to SANGIAH VS.STATE [2007 (2) MLJ (Crl) 1852] and GANESHAN VS.STATE [2011 (2) MLJ (Crl) 624], the Trial Court also held that for deciding the nature of the offence committed, the confessional statement of the accused can be referred to and accepting the recovery evidence, the Trial Court held that the two charges are proved and found the accused guilty under Section 302 and 392 IPC and sentenced him as stated already in paragraph 2, supra.A.Padmanabhan, the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the recovery of ornaments of the deceased from the possession of the accused on 19.04.2008 has not been established.The evidence of P.W.3, a son of the deceased is that those ornaments were handed over to his father(P.W.2) on 16.4.2008 at the hospital itself.So, the recovery is false.The learned counsel would also contend that in the absence of any evidence to connect the accused with the murder merely based on presumption under Section 114 of Evidence Act, the appellant cannot be convicted.The Section 27 Evidence Act recovery apart from being not established is not sufficient to convict the appellant for murder and robbery.On the other hand, Mr.V.M.R.Rajendran, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that the evidence of P.Ws.10, 13 and 18 clearly establishes recovery of M.Os.7 to 11 ornaments of the deceased from the possession of the accused on the basis of Ex.P3 confessional statement.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would also contend that since the ornaments were recovered shortly after the occurrence, in pursuance of Section 114 of Evidence Act and its illustration (a), presumption of guilt as against the accused can very well be drawn.In this respect, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would also cite LIMBAJI AND OTHERS VS.STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [2001(10) SCC 340].We have anxiously considered the arguments of both sides, perused the entire materials on record, the impugned judgment of the Trial Court and the decision cited.On 15.04.2008, at about 5 p.m., in a Neem tree, in the land of one Periyasamy, near Pillangkulam - Kai-Kalathur Road, Thangammal, wife of P.W.2 Ramalingam and mother of P.Ws. 3 and 4 Rajaram and Rajasekar, was found hanging.Her jewellery consisting of golden ear rings (M.O.7), golden nose stud and screw (M.Os.8 and 11), golden thali and kundus (M.Os. 9 and 10) were found missing.The medical evidence of autopsy Doctor P.W.11 Saravanan disclosed that there were injuries on her ear lobes suggesting sustaining of such injuries on forcible snatching away of her golden ear rings from her.P.W.11 opined that she died of asphysia due to strangulation.14. P.Ws.14 and 15 Palanisamy and Thangadurai, who have been examined as eye witnesses and P.W.16 Ganesan, who has been examined to speak about an incriminating circumstance that at about that time the accused was seen in the vicinity of scene place have turned hostile.What was finally left in the evidence adduced before the Trial Court was certain Section 27 Evidence Act recovery spoken to through the evidence of P.W.10 Thangarasu, V.A.O. and his Assistant P.W.13 Sivakumar and P.W.18 Ayyanar, Inspector, who investigated this case .Through their evidence, it was projected that on 19.04.2008, at about 10.30 a.m., based on Ex.P3 confessional statement of the accused M.Os.7 to 11, ornaments of the deceased were recovered from the possession of the accused.The learned Additional Sessions Judge relied on the said piece of circumstantial evidence and recorded the conviction on the premises that i) the recovery evidence is established, ii) for deciding the nature of the offence committed, the statement of the accused relating to the commission of the offence in his confessional statement can be referred to, and iii) based on the said recovery, as per section 114 of Evidence Act and its illustration (a), the presumption that the accused had murdered the deceased for gain can be raised.On the basis of complaint of the mother-in-law of the deceased, a case for an offence under Section 302 IPC was registered.The Trial Court found the accused guilty under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life.He appealed.A Division Bench of this Court consisting of two learned Judges, to which one of us, my respected brother Mr.K.N.Basha, is a party and who had also authored the judgment, heard the appeal.The Division Bench concluded that the deceased died due to homicidal violence at the hands of the appellant and proceeded further stating that "we are now left with the consideration of the nature of the offence said to have been committed by the accused" and analysed the issue as under:-A perusal of the confession of the accused recorded by the police under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act for the purpose of recovery of M.O. 1, knife, shows that there were frequent quarrels between the accused and the deceased for the last more than a year as the accused went on demanding the deceased to return the amount, but the deceased evading to settle the dues.Apart from the above said materials available on record, the perusal of the confession of the accused recorded by the police under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act for the purpose of recovery of M.O.I. knife, clearly shows that even at the time of fateful occurrence, there was a wordy quarrel between the accused and the deceased and further the deceased pushed down the accused and only thereafter the accused is said to have taken the knife from his waist and gave a single stab on the deceased.P.W. 2, one of the eye witnesses, has categorically stated that the accused cut the deceased only once on his neck.Though the other eyewitnesses stated that the accused cut twice, the doctor P.W. 8 has found only one stab injury on the left neck of the deceased and the second injury is only an abrasion and the doctor, P.W. 8, has stated that that injury could have been caused while the deceased came into the contact of a rough surface.On the complaint of the niece of the deceased, a case for an offence under Section 302 IPC was registered.In the course of his investigation, P.W.17, the Investigation Officer arrested the accused.In the presence of a Village Administrative Officer, P.W.17 recorded Ex.A Division Bench of this Court heard his appeal.It found him to have attacked the deceased with M.O.1 aruval and caused her death.Thereafter, the Division Bench proceeded as under:-P.7 pointed out that the deceased had relationship with one Raja, co-brother of the accused, six months prior to the occurrence and on seeing them in a compromising position, the accused warned the deceased, to which the deceased promised that she would not behave like that in future.However, the deceased continued her relationship with the said Raja.In the background of the above said facts, the conviction and sentence recorded are wholly unsustainable.In this case, no doubt, M.Os.7 to 11 gold ornaments belongs to the deceased and she was seen with those articles when she left her house on the morning of 15.04.2008 and according to the prosecution on the evening they were found missing from her body when she was found dead.But, none of them were examined.P.W.18 did not request any one of them to witness and attest the recording of Ex.P3 confessional statement.In Ex.P3 confessional statement it is stated that the accused had concealed the jewels in a part of his house.But, the evidence of P.Ws.10 and 13 is to the effect that they were recovered from an open place.It is also evident from Ex.P4 recovery mahazar wherein it is stated that they were recovered from the verandah in the house of the accused.Thus, the fact that they were found concealed in his house as stated in Ex.P3 confessional statement is not reflected in the recovery mahazar and the evidence adduced for this purpose.There is yet another disturbing feature in the Section 27 Evidence Act recovery pressed into service by the prosecution in this case.Thangammal was found dead on 15.04.2008 at about 5 p.m. Then her husband P.W.2 Ramalingam was in Bangalore.Her dead body was sent to Government Hospital, Perambalur.On 16.04.2008, at the said hospital, post-mortem was conducted.On message, on 16.04.2008, P.W.2 visited the hospital.In his cross examination, P.W.3 Rajaram, son of P.W.2 had stated that police handed over his mother's ornaments, namely, M.Os.7 to 11 to his father at the hospital.Thus, the prosecution version that her jewels were recovered on 19.04.2008 from the house of the accused based on his Ex.P3 confessional statement recorded from him on 19.04.2008 is far from truth.So, we have no occasion here to consider the arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor made in the light of the Apex decision in LIMBAJI(supra).Thus, as we have already stated at the outset, the three premises upon which the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 and 392 IPC of the Trial Court, namely, i) the incriminating aspects in Ex.P3 confessional statement can be referred to decide the nature of the offence committed.ii) based on the recovery evidence, presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act raised and iii) the recovery of jewels from the possession of the appellant has been established are fallacious.Dehors the so called Section 27 of Evidence Act Recovery, about which we have seen elaborately, there is no evidence to link the appellant either with murder or robbery or theft or receiving of stolen property.Thus, we have to conclude that suspicion, however, strong may not be a substitute for legal proof.Thus, the finding of the Trial Court that the accused is guilty under Section 302 and 392 IPC and the sentences imposed upon him must go away.In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed.The conviction recorded and the sentences awarded to the appellant in Sessions Case No.77 of 2010 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur are set aside.As this judgment deals with some important aspects of Section 17, 25, 27, 114 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 299, 300, 302, 304 of IPC., this judgment may be placed before My Lord, the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice for obtaining orders to circulate the copies of the same to the Judicial Officers in the Subordinate Courts.1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Perambalur.2.The Additional Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur.3.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Perambalur.4.The District Collector, Perambalur.5.The Superintendent of Police, Perambalur.6.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Tiruchy.7.The Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.8.The Inspector, Kai-Kalathur Police Station, Permpalur District.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
135,054,959 |
Whereas the Central Government is empowered under Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013 to order investigation into the affairs of any company in Public Interest and to appoint one or more competent persons as inspectors to investigate the affairs of the company.2. AND whereas there are very Serious Complaints against the affairs of the company i.e. M/s Sunair Hotels Limited.WP(C) No.3444/2016 Page 3 of 44(Swadhin Barua) Joint Director"The facts as are necessary for the adjudication of the present writ petition are adumbrated hereinbelow:a) The Petitioner Company is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1956 Act').WP(C) No.3444/2016 Page 4 of 44b) VLS Finance Limited/Respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as 'VLS') is one of the shareholders of the Petitioner Company.c) By way of Letter No. 7/123/99-CL.II, dated 05.07.1999, Respondent No.1 ordered the inspection of books of account etc., of the Petitioner Company, under the provisions of section 209A of the 1956 Act. Pursuant to the said inspection, violations/contraventions under the following provisions were found to have been committed by the Petitioner Company, as per the Inspection Report.i. Section 227 of the 1956 Act read with provisions under The Manufacturing and other Companies (Auditor's Report) Order, 1988;registered at Police Station, Connaught Place, Delhi, at the instance of VLS, against the promoters of the Petitioner WP(C) No.3444/2016 Page 5 of 44 Company.A chargesheet for the offences punishable under the provisions of sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'), has been filed before the concerned Court.WP(C) No.3444/2016 Page 5 of 44An FIR bearing No.99/2002, dated 19.02.2002, was also registered at Police Station, Connaught Place, Delhi, at the instance of VLS, against the promoters of the Petitioner Company.A chargesheet for the offences punishable under the provisions of sections 406, 409, 420, 424, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 120-B of the IPC, has been filed before the concerned Court.e) Further, at the instance of VLS, an FIR bearing No.148/2002, dated 28.02.2002, was registered at Police Station, Defence Colony, Delhi, against the promoters of the Petitioner Company.A chargesheet for the offences punishable under the provisions of sections 384, 406, 409, 417, 422, 465, 468, 471, 500, 120-B of the IPC, has been filed before the concerned Court.f) A writ petition being W.P.(Crl.) 1300/2004 also came to be instituted by VLS, praying for directions of this Court for registration of an FIR, qua the factum of stealing of 21 original files, prepared by Respondent No.1, in relation to the Petitioner Company.g) Creation of two fictious assets that have been pledged as security to the Bank in order to obtain loan.h) Stealing of official files prepared by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs pertaining to the Petitioner Company, in order to scuttle the process of law and escape legal consequences.SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.The present writ petition instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks to assail the order dated 29.02.2016 (hereinafter referred to as the 'impugned order'), rendered by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Union of India (hereinafter referred to as 'Respondent No.1'); whereby, they, whilst exercising power under the provisions of Section 212(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2013 Act') have ordered an investigation into the affairs of the Petitioner Company, in the public interest, to be carried out by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (hereinafter referred to as 'SFIO').The following reliefs have been sought by Sunair Hotels Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Petitioner Company') by way of the present writ petition:"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or directions for quashing of the order dated 29.02.2016 passed by the respondent, ordering an investigation into the affairs of the petitioner company, under section 212 (1) (c) of the Companies Act, 2013, to be carried out by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office, as being illegal, unjust, arbitrary, bad in law and in WP(C) No.3444/2016 Page 2 of 44 contravention to the settled proposition of law and also contrary to the stand taken by the respondent that the complaints made against the petitioner are in the nature of a private dispute.WP(C) No.3444/2016 Page 2 of 44(b) Issue a writ, order or directions in the nature of mandamus, certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or directions for quashing of any subsequent act done by the respondents on the basis of the impugned order dated 29.02.2016 and to produce all record in connection with and on the basis of which impugned order dated 29.02.2016 has been passed."For the sake of felicity, the impugned order dated 29.02.2016 is reproduced hereinbelow:Now, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 212(1)(c) of the Act, the Central Government hereby orders investigation into the affairs of M/s Sunair Hotels Limited, to be carried out by the Serious Fraud Investigation office.The inspectors shall complete their investigation and submit the report to the Central Government within a period of Six (6) months from the date of issue of this order.Further, if any information is required during the course of Investigation, you are requested to depute some officer to co- ordinate with the Ministry for obtaining the desired documents/information.This order is issued for and on behalf of the Central Government.WP(C) No.3444/2016 Page 6 of 44By way of its order dated 24.08.2005, this Court directed the registration of an FIR in this behalf.Consequently, FIR No.315/2005 for the offences punishable under the provisions of sections 380, 411, 120-B of the IPC was registered at Police Station, Naraina, Delhi.Pursuant thereto, a chargesheet came to be filed before the concerned Court.g) VLS instituted a company petition being C.P.No.45(ND)/1998 seeking investigation into the affairs of the Petitioner Company.The Company Law Board, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'CLB') vide order dated 13.06.2001, dismissed C.P.No.45(ND)/1998 filed by VLS.An appeal, being Co.The Company Appeal came to be disposed of vide order dated 16.12.2005 and the matter was remanded back to CLB.An appeal, being Co.A.(SB) 41/2013, has been instituted by VLS challenging the order of the CLB dated 04.09.2013 and the same is pending adjudication before this Court.WP(C) No.3444/2016 Page 7 of 44h) However, on 25.08.2003, an application being C.A.No.172/2003, came to be filed by VLS before the CLB in the said C.P. No.45(ND)/1998, under the provisions of section 340, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking a preliminary inquiry into the purported violation of the provisions under Sections 193, 196, 199, 200, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with 120-B of the IPC alleged to have been committed inter alia by the Petitioner Company.No.45(ND)/1998, also seeking investigation into the affairs of the Petitioner Company under the provisions of section 237(b) of the 1956 Act. The said intervention application was converted into C.P. No.1(ND)/2004 under section 237(b) of the 1956 Act.The said order dated 23.04.2012 came to challenged by way of SLP No.27437/2012 filed on behalf of VLS.SLP No.27437/2012, was however dismissed in limine, by way WP(C) No.3444/2016 Page 8 of 44 of order dated 21.01.2013, whilst granting liberty to the Ld. CLB to take up the issue with regard to prayer for investigation, under the provisions of section 237(b) of the 1956 Act.j) On 31.08.2005, a writ petition, being W.P. (C) No. 14300/2005, came to be filed by VLS against the Petitioner Company and Respondent No.1, seeking a direction therein to the effect that Respondent No.1 be directed to initiate appropriate proceedings under section 401 of the 1956 Act against the Petitioner Company.A Special Leave Petition being SLP No.3317/2009 came to be instituted by VLS, in order to challenge the said order dated 29.09.2008 passed by the Division Bench of this Court.In the said proceedings in SLP No.3317/2009, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, on 22.01.2016 directed Respondent No.1 to file an affidavit clarifying whether it would be initiating any proceedings or undertaking any WP(C) No.3444/2016 Page 9 of 44 action against the Petitioner Company, in accordance with law.The said order dated 05.12.2016 is reproduced as hereunder:"I.A. NO.5 OF 2016 IN SLP(C) NO.3317 OF 2009 I.A. No.5 of 2016 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.3317 of 2009 is dismissed with the observation that the High Court is free to decide the matter as it considers WP(C) No.3444/2016 Page 15 of 44 appropriate in the light of the order dated 22nd July, 2016 passed by this Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.3317 of 2009, which is self explanatory."In view of the foregoing discussion, the issue raised in the present petition is answered in the negative and against the Petitioner Company.The application is accordingly dismissed as not pressed.SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J APRIL 26, 2017 dn/sb/ap WP(C) No.3444/2016 Page 44 of 44
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
135,074,860 |
Heard Shri S.P. Dharmadhikari, Senior Advocate with Shri U.P. Dable, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri N.B. Jawade, learned APP for the non-applicant - State, through video conferencing.The applicant is said to be arrested on 23.10.2019 in Crime No. 332 of 2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999, (hereinafter referred to as MPID Act) registered at Bajaj Nagar Police Station, Nagpur.The First Information Report came to be filed by the informant Vilas Vitthalrao Bobade stating therein that he invested his hard earned money with the present applicant on the say of one Ajit Reddiwar, ::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2020 02:11:23 ::: 2008ba333.20 2 on the promise by the applicant to receive handsome interest and other benefits as it was stated that the applicant was doing business in the name of Active Growth Forex Trading.It is stated that the other depositors also deposited lakhs of rupees with the hope that they will get 33.33% return.In this way, an amount of around Rs. One crore came to be deposited.::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2020 02:11:23 :::It is further stated that the depositors including the applicant also signed the agreements on the stamp paper mentioning post dated cheques with all details issued by the present applicant.However, when the present applicant did not return the said cheque amount with interest as promised and the cheques came to be bounced, FIR for the aforesaid offence came to be lodged.The charge sheet runs into hundreds of pages and 50 witnesses have been cited by the prosecution for examination.::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2020 02:11:23 :::The learned APP, however, strongly opposed the application in view of prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the MPID Act and the offence of cheating under the IPC.I have considered the submissions made on behalf of both sides and also perused the records.In the charge sheet, the statements of around 50 witnesses are shown to have been recorded and there are multiple documents to be brought before the Court.While considering the application for bail, apart from seriousness of the offence and the nature of accusations, the possibility of the accused fleeing from justice or tampering with the evidence is also to ::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2020 02:11:23 ::: 2008ba333.20 4 be looked into.In the instant case, the prosecution could not point out that the applicant did not cooperate during investigation or tried to tamper with the evidence.::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2020 02:11:23 :::In addition to this, the whole case is based on documentary evidence and it is stated that the prosecution has already seized all the documents and those are part of the charge sheet.The learned APP, however, submitted that the co-accused, who is the wife of the present applicant, is absconding.On this, the learned Senior Advocate made a responsible statement that she would surrender before the Special Court.Considering the aforesaid facts, the presence of the applicant during trial can be secured by imposing stringent conditions.For the reasons aforestated, I find this to be a fit case for grant of bail on the following conditions :The applicant - Ganesh s/o Shriram Kaikade, be released on bail on executing Personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. Two lakh only) with one surety in the like amount.The applicant shall not enter the vicinity of the area where the witnesses reside.He shall supply mobile number and the residential address where he shall reside during the bail period, to the concerned police station.::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2020 02:11:23 :::The applicant shall deposit his passport with the concerned police station.The applicant shall not pressurize or issue threats to the witnesses.The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence of the prosecution.The applicant to attend concerned police station once in a month i.e. on every first Thursday of the month between 12.00 Noon and 2.00Criminal Application is disposed of accordingly.JUDGE *GS.::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2020 02:11:23 :::
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
135,075,752 |
By invoking the inherent powers of this Court, petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code') seeking quashment of FIR registered at Crime No.167/2014 at Police Station Rannod District Shivpuri for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 294, 452 and 506-B/34 of IPC.Initially, respondent No.2/complainant has lodged an FIR against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 294, 452 and 506-B/34 of IPC but thereafter since good sense prevailed between the parties, therefore, they have amicably settled their dispute.From perusal of report of Principal Registrar in regard to factum of compromise, it is clear that parties have amicably settled their dispute and have arrived at compromise without any fear and coercion.Present matter is at the stage of investigation.The offence committed by petitioners does not affect the society adversely.Since the matter is at the stage of investigation and complainant and 2 MCRC.No.10684/2014 petitioners have settled the dispute, therefore, dragging the petitioners to face the trial will be meaningless and it will consume the previous time of the Court.In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioners is allowed.FIR registered against the petitioners at crime No.167/2014 at Police Station Rannod District Shivpuri for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 294, 452 and 506-B/34 of IPC is hereby quashed on the basis of compromise.Copy of this order be sent to the police station and concerned Court.(B.D. Rathi) Judge Anil
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
135,076,742 |
of the Indian Penal Code being charge sheet No. 364/15 dated 30.11.2015 under Sections 341/326/307/34/302 of the Indian Penal Code.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Debi Prosad Dey, J. ) 3
|
['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
135,084,184 |
This revision is filed against the dismissal of discharge petition filed by the petitioner.The main ground of attack made by the learned counsel for the petitioner was on the ground of limitation.Since there was some discrepancy, the original charge sheet was returned.5. Heard both parties.The revision petitioner succeeds on the ground of limitation.On this ground, the revision deserves only to be dismissed.But at the same time, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, I am inclined to treat this as a original petition and to exercise the power of this Court under sections 482 and 483, Cr.P.C., to quash the entire proceedings.On that ground, the revision is dismissed.At this stage, the revision petitioner pointed that since there is a palpable wrong, this criminal revision could be converted as an original petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the charges.This Court sees merits in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.Hence, this criminal revision is converted as an original petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the charges are quashed.1.The Sub Inspector of Police,Adhiyer Mankottai Police Station,Dharmapuri2.The Judicial Magistrate No.2, Dharmapuri.3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court B. RAJENDRAN, J.R.C.No.1277 of 200923.6.2015
|
['Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
135,084,531 |
PW.1 is her granddaughter.Both the accused and PW.1 arelabourers.On account of her work, PW.1 used to speak to her employer andothers over cell phone.Some time before the occurrence, PW.1 spoke tosome one over cell phone.This was noticed by the accused.Enraged over thesame, he slapped PW.1 on her cheek.On the same day, at about 2.00p.m., PW.1, PW.3 and the deceased were at the house of the deceased.At thattime, the accused came to the house of the deceased.This resulted in a quarrel.In the course ofquarrel, the accused suddenly attacked the deceased with a hammer on her head,left eye brow and left wrist.The deceased fell down.PW.1 attempted torescue the deceased.The accused attacked her also with the hammer on her headand forehead.Then the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence.PW.3took the deceased and PW.1 to Eral Government Hospital in an auto.P13 is the wound certificate.Both PW.1 and the deceased were admitted inthe hospital for treatment.(iv) On receiving intimation from the hospital, PW.12 went to theGovernment Hospital at Tuticorin on 15.1.2010 at 6.00 p.m.,.He found thedeceased in unconscious state.Based on the said statement/complaint, PW.12 registered the casein Crime No.17 of 2010 under Sections 294 (b), 307, 324 and 506(ii) IPC.P5is the FIR.He sent Exs.P1 and P5 to Court and handed over the case diary tothe Inspector of Police for investigation.(v) PW.18 was the then Inspector of Police, attached to Eral PoliceStation.He took up the case for investigation.On 15.1.2010 at 10.30 p.m.The deceased was still unconscious.Therefore,PW.18 could not examine her.Then, he examined a few witnesses.On 17.1.2010,he arrested the accused beneath Eral Serman Kovil river bridge in the presenceof PW.7 and another witness.On such arrest, he gave a voluntary confession inwhich he disclosed the place where he had hidden the hammer.Now, turning to the quantum of punishment, the appellant is an oldman.He had no previous motive or premeditation.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU, J) The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.96 of 2010 on the file of thelearned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Tuticorin.He stoodcharged for the offences under Sections 294(b), 302, 324 and 506 (ii) IPC.The husbandof the deceased joined them on their way.PW.1 and the deceased were givenfirst aid treatment at Eral Government Hospital from where they were referred tothe Government Medical College at Tuticorin.(ii) PW.17 was the Assistant Surgeon, attached to Tuticorin GovernmentHospital.At that time,she was unconscious.But, PW.1 informed that the deceased had been attacked bya known person with a hammer.He noticed the following injuries:- (1) A laceration 8 x 2 x 2 cm present left side of scalp (2) Bleeding from left ear oral cavity present (3) Swelling in right forearmEx.P12 is the Accident Register.She also told the Doctor that she was attacked by a known person with ahammer on 15.1.2010 at about 2.00 p.m.,.He noticed the following injuries:-(a) Sutured wound present in left side of forehead(b) Sutured wound present in left side of scalp.In pursuance ofthe same, the accused took the police and witnesses to the said place andproduced the hammer.PW.18 recovered the same.(vi) While so, the deceased died in the hospital.On 21.01.2010, PW.18received the intimation regarding the same at 11.25 a.m., and therefore, healtered the case into one under Sections 294, 302, 324 and 506 (ii) IPC.Ex.P15 is the alteration report.Then, he conducted inquest on the body of thedeceased at 1.30 p.m., on the same day and prepared Ex.P16 Inquest Report.During the inquest, he examined PWs.1 to 3 and a few more witnesses and then,handed over the case diary to his successor.(vii) PW.19 the succeeding Inspector of Police took up the case forinvestigation and on completing the same, he filed charge sheet against theaccused under Sections 294(b), 302, 324 and 506(ii) IPC.Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed charges asdetailed in the first paragraph of this judgment.The appellant pleadedinnocence and therefore, he was put on trial.In order to prove the charges,on the side of the prosecution as many as 19 witnesses were examined, 16documents were exhibited and 3 Material Objects were marked.Out of the said witnesses, PWs.1 to 3 are the eye-witnesses to theoccurrence.PW.6 is the husband of the deceased who has spoken to the factthat he joined PW.1 and PW.2 when they were proceeding to the hospital.PW.7has spoken about the arrest of the accused and consequential recovery of thehammer from his possession.The others are official witnesses.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused underSection 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false.However, he has neitherchosen to examine any witness nor to mark any document on his side.Havingconsidered the above materials, the Trial Court found the accused guilty underSections 302 and 324 IPC and accordingly, punished him.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that, in this case,Ex.He would further submit that PW.17, the Doctor who treatedthe deceased at Government Hospital, Tuticorin had noticed 3 external injurieswhereas according to the Doctor who conducted post-mortem, there were 7 externalinjuries.We have considered the above submissions.The post-mortem certificate and the evidence ofPW.16 would go to reveal that there was skull fracture and injury to brain.The medical evidence also corroborates.The weapon was also notbrought for the purpose of attack.Having regard to these facts andcircumstances, in ourconsidered opinion, imposing sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 7 years witha fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 304 (I) IPC would meet theends of justice.Insofar as the quantum of punishment for the offence underSection 324 is concerned, we confirm the sentence imposed by the Trial Court.In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed in the following terms:-(i) The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant for the offenceunder Section 302 IPC is set aside, instead he is convicted under Section 304(I) IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay afine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two weeks.(ii) The conviction and the sentence imposed for the offence under Section324 IPC is hereby confirmed.(iii) The sentences are directed to run concurrently and the period ofsentence already undergone by the accused/appellant shall be given set off.1.The Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Thoothukudi.2.The Inspector of Police, Eral Police Station, Turicorin District.(Crime No.17 of 2010)3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High court, Madurai.
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
135,086,209 |
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 343 of 2019, under Section 376 IPC, P.S. Faridpur, District Bareilly, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the victim herself has lodged the FIR against the applicant and two other persons for the incident which said to have taken place on 19.05.2019 and its FIR was lodged on 24.05.2019 at 6.43 p.m. The story culled out in the FIR that it is intercaste relationship between the victim and the applicant.They are in dense affair with each other and they have crossed all the limits during period of affairs.He has next submitted that when he has declined to marry with her, she has lodged the FIR against the applicant and two other persons.As per the medical report, she is aged about 19 years.He has next submitted that in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. she has stated that she want to marry with the applicant and she remained one month with the applicant as husband and wife.He has next submitted that the victim has lodged the FIR just to create pressure upon the applicant and his family members to solemnize marriage with her.He lastly submitted that the applicant is in jail since 03.06.2019, is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial.Per contra learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and 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- Taslim, 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. 343 of 2019, under Section 376 IPC, P.S. Faridpur, District Bareilly, with the following conditions:-(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY 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 THEIR COUNSEL.IN CASE OF THEIR ABSENCE , WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
135,087,338 |
Smt. Indu Pande with Shri Mohsin Wali, counsel for the Objector.sh Heard.As per prosecution case, the allegation against the applicant M is that she alongwith other co-accused persons abused the complainant party and caused injuries and also threatened them of to life.She is a lady.ou The offences punishable under Sections 294, 323 and 506 of the IPC are bailable and there is no allegation that the applicant C knowing the fact that complainant party belong to SC/ST h community committed the aforesaid offence or abused them in the ig name of caste.Therefore, prima facie no offence punishable H under the SC/ST Act is made out.In the incident both the parties assaulted each other and caused injuries and lodged the FIRs.The applicant's custody is not required for the purpose of investigation.Hence, she be enlarged on anticipatory bail.If she failed to do so, the effect of this order shall be vacated automatically.The applicant-accused is directed to join the investigation sh immediately and fully co-operate with the investigation.She shall e further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-section ad (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.Certified copy as per rules.Pr a (J. P. GUPTA) hy JUDGE ad M of rv REENA H Digitally signed by REENA H SHARMA DN: c=IN, o=High Court of Madhya rt Pradesh, ou=Administration, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh, SHARMA 2.5.4.20=e9aa19147bc19edeb6d0fc8d2f db2329b6e856ed33cfd7a510d22026ca2 ab440, cn=REENA H SHARMA Date: 2018.04.03 05:51:51 -07'00' ou C h ig H
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
134,610,578 |
Lastly, he was posted at Jalna.Since there was some dispute about his performance and behaviour, by the letter dated 15.05.2009, it was informed to him that his services stood terminated with immediate effect.By another letter dated 21.05.2009, which was styled as 'Relieving letter', it was informed to him as under :"With reference to your letter of resignation dated May 21, 2009 this is to inform you that your resignation has been accepted.RESERVED ON : 15th November, 2017 PRONOUNCED ON : 05th December, 2017 JUDGMENT : (Per Mangesh S. Patil, J.) :-The Rule is made returnable forthwith.These are the Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash and set aside one and the same order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalna (hereinafter referred to as 'CJM') dated 27.07.2016 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.151 of 2010, directing ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:20:00 ::: 4 Cri.W.P.1142-16.odt investigation under section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') and also to quash and set aside the FIR registered with Sadarbazar Police Station, District Jalna on 08.08.2016 pursuant to such order and registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 464, 469, 470, 471, 504, 506, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and the offences added subsequently punishable under Sections 191, 193, 195, 196, 197, 499, 500, 501 of the IPC.Since Respondent No.2 in both these petitions is the original complainant at whose instance the impugned order was passed and the FIR has been registered against the persons holding the post in the Management of the same Company, we propose to dispose of these Writ Petitions by this common judgment.::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:20:00 :::In Criminal Writ Petition No.1142 of 2016, petitioner No.1 is the Managing Director and the Chief Executive Officer of the Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Company').Petitioner No.2 therein is the Founder and presently the Chairman ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:20:00 ::: 5 Cri.W.P.1142-16.odt Emeritus of the Company.Petitioner No.3 therein is the Executive Director of that Company.Whereas in Criminal Writ Petition No.1368 of 2016, Petitioner No.1 is the Ex-Head of the Human Resource Department, Respondent No.2 is the Independent Director and Petitioner No.3 is the Director of the same Company.::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:20:00 :::Shorn of details the facts leading to the filing of these Writ Petitions can be summed up as under :On behalf of MNYL, I wish you all the best for your future endeavors ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:20:00 ::: 6 Cri.W.P.1142-16.odt Regards."::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:20:00 :::Apparently, Respondent No.2 was shocked since he had not tendered any resignation as mentioned in the letter dated 21.05.2009 (Exh-I).The partner, Operation Head of the Company by name Mr. Rajesh Ramavatar Dubey lodged a complaint with Sadarbazar Police on 08.06.2009 alleging that Respondent No.2, inspite of having been terminated from the employment by the company, was coming and trying to forcefully enter the office regularly and was also giving threats on phone.On 11.06.2009, Respondent No.2 also lodged a complaint Exh-K to the same Police Station alleging that Rajesh Ramavatar Dubey had orally informed him about he having been removed from the employment.But his dues were not cleared and when he tried to reach him, the watchman at the office abused and drove him out.Later on Respondent No.2 served a notice addressed to Mr. Rajan Kaliya, Executive Vice President ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:20:00 ::: 7 Cri.W.P.1142-16.odt and Head Human resource and Mr. Rajesh Ramavatar Dubey Office Head (Partner) dated 08.07.2009 (Exh-M) through his Advocate Mr. R.C. Saboo alleging that the services of Respondent No.2 were terminated illegally and that all his dues were not cleared, he was not allowed to enter the office from 21.05.2009, that it was falsely mentioned in the earlier correspondence about he having resigned from the job when he had not and that a cheque for Rs.83,385.34/- was sent to him as full and final payment.It was also mentioned that a balance amount which was due to Respondent No.2 till 20.06.2009 amounting to Rs.65,810/- should be cleared in 8 days of the notice.::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:20:00 :::There was further correspondence between the parties i.e. the company on the one hand and Respondent No.2 on the other hand.After repeating the above facts it is alleged in this complaint that he had not resigned from the job and he was terminated illegally by preparing false documents.He was abused and restrained from coming to the office.Some other allegations were also made against Mr. Rajesh Ramavatar Dubey to which we are presently not concerned since he is also not before us.Respondent No.2 supported his allegations with an affidavit.::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:20:00 :::It is necessary to note that this order passed by the learned CJM was challenged before this Court and the learned Single Judge by his judgment and order dated 31.03.2016 in Criminal Writ Petition No.437 of 2010 and Criminal Writ Petition No.505 of 2010 set aside the order of the learned CJM and directed the learned ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:20:00 ::: 9 Cri.W.P.1142-16.odt CJM to pass the order afresh after hearing the complainant, since the order suffered from non- application of mind.Pursuant to such direction, the learned CJM by the impugned order once again directed the matter to be investigated by invoking the power under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. This is how these Writ Petitions have been filed impugning the order dated 27.07.2016 and the FIR registered in pursuance thereof.::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:20:00 :::We have heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners, Respondent No.2 in person and the learned APP.We have also heard Advocate Mr. Tawshikar, who has been appointed as an amicus curiae.According to the learned Advocate for the petitioners, a purely civil dispute resulting from termination of employment of Respondent No.2 is illegally being brought under criminal law.Even going by the facts which are broadly admitted, a mistaken reference in the relieving letter dated 21.05.2009 wherein apparently out of human error word ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:20:00 ::: 10 Cri.W.P.1142-16.odt 'resignation' was used, has been tried to be made capital of, to pressurize the company and its officials to recover alleged dues.There is absolutely no criminality involved.The allegations are inherently improbable.Even if they are accepted at their face value, they do not constitute necessary ingredients of the offences registered against these petitioners.The allegations in the complaint qua the petitioners are vague and general in nature.The petitioners who are directors and have no control over the day-to-day affairs of the office of the company at Jalna cannot be fastened with criminal liability vicariously.::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:20:00 :::The learned advocate for the petitioners also cited catena of decisions in support of his various arguments.He particularly referred to the decisions in the cases as mentioned in the list as follows :::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:20:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:20:00 :::Thus according to him, the learned CJM, having passed the impugned order after scanning ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:20:00 ::: 13 Cri.::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:20:00 :::A careful reading of the complaint lodged by Respondent No.2 reveals that after narrating the facts as to how he was appointed in the company it is alleged that Accused No.4 therein i.e. Mr. Rajesh Ramavatar Dubey was his superior in the office at Jalna.Mr. Dubey, in collusion with other employees, started harassing him.He had not resigned.The accused had not followed any legal procedure before terminating him.It is alleged that the accused without any reason started ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:20:00 ::: 16 Cri.W.P.1142-16.odt mentally harassing him.Accused No.4 (Mr. Dubey) pressurized him to execute certain writings and at the instance of all the accused, Accused No.4 (Mr. Dubey) prepared false reports and by misusing his post, physically and mentally harassed him.The other accused without conducting any verification of the facts and by accepting whatever was being informed to them by Mr. Dubey to be true indirectly instigated him.When he sent letter to accused Nos.1 to 3 informing them about the harassment being meted out to him, they ignored it.As a result, Accused No.4 (Mr. Dubey) continued to harass him more.Respondent No.2 has then referred to the subsequent correspondence, issuance of legal notices.::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:20:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:20:00 :::We are referring to all these contents in detail to ascertain as to if all the necessary ingredients for constituting the offences or any of them are discernible.However, going by the facts in the matter in hand, we do not see as to what else could have been incorporated in the complaint other than what has been mentioned therein.Therefore, what we find from the averments in the complaint that a very broad and vague statements have been made against the rest of the accused and particularly the petitioners herein.Primarily, the allegations have been levelled against the Accused No.4 (Mr. Dubey) alone and it has been only vaguely mentioned that Accused No.4 (Mr. Dubey) was acting at ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:20:00 ::: 18 Cri.::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:20:00 :::The very emphasis of the allegations levelled by Respondent No.2 which are germane to this dispute is the reference in the 'Relieving letter' dated 21.05.2009 that his resignation was being accepted, when he had not tendered any such resignation.::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:20:00 :::It is apparent that in this letter subject has been written as 'Relieving letter' and it is thereafter in the contents it has been mentioned that resignation has been accepted.It is apparent that if it was supposed to be a relieving letter, there could not have been logically any question of communication of acceptance of the resignation.Therefore, to our mind it seems to be clearly a human error.There is another aspect of the matter to which we must refer and which clinchingly points out that Respondent No.2 was also aware that it was only ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:20:00 ::: 20 Cri.W.P.1142-16.odt mistake.In response to such relieving letter (Exh-I), dated 21.05.2009, when Respondent No.2 lodged a written complaint (Exh-K) with the P.I. of Sadarbazar Police Station, Jalna on 11.06.2009, he did not conspicuously mention about any resignation and only mentioned in the complaint that on 21.05.2009 Mr. Rajesh Ramavatar Dubey, Branch Manager had orally informed him that he was removed from the job.Again, according to Respondent No.2, along with letter dated 21.05.2009 a cheque for an amount of Rs.83,385.34/- was paid to him towards full and final settlement.It is thereafter that Respondent No.2 sent a letter dated 08.07.2009 (Exh-M) through his advocate Mr. Saboo and addressed to Mr. Rajan Kalia, Executive Vice President and Head Human Resource and Mr. Rajesh Dubey, Office Head Partner.Even in this letter, it was alleged that the services of Respondent No.2 were terminated illegally and Mr. Dubey was not allowing him to work, to enter the premises and with an intention to harass and defame Respondent No.2 Mr. Dubey had lodged a false complaint with police.::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:20:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:20:00 :::If such is the state of affairs, we are unable to apprehend as to what else was there to constitute making of a false documents or forgery.There are absolutely no allegations about there being any other instance of forgery indulged into by the accused named in the complaint and the impugned FIR.::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:20:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:20:00 :::22 Cri.W.P.1142-16.odtWe now deem it appropriate to refer to another important circumstance which would demonstrate the intention of Respondent No.2 in lodging the complaint, which to our considered view speaks in volumes about the complaint having been engineered to wreck vengeance.Admittedly, Respondent No.2 through his Advocate Mr. Saboo had repeatedly issued letters / notices and also issued a publication in a newspaper.Similarly, even Respondent No.2 himself personally lodged a complaint on 11.06.2009 with the P.I. of the Sadarbazar Police Station and followed it up by lodging similar subsequent complaint.In the initial complaint (Exh-K) lodged on 11.06.2009, he has conspicuously mentioned only about he having been terminated from the employment and his dues were not being paid and that he was not allowed to enter the office and was driven out.Then in the first letter sent through Advocate Mr. Saboo dated 08.07.2009 a grievance is only made about such wrongful termination and no resignation have been tendered and that the company was liable to pay the balance amount of his dues ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:20:00 ::: 23 Cri.W.P.1142-16.odt amounting to Rs.65,810/-.There was no question of any compulsion to tender any resignation and the services of Respondent No.2 were terminated.Advocate Mr. Saboo again sent another letter dated 01.09.2009 on behalf of Respondent No.2 and even in this complaint the allegations were repeated by saying that the termination was illegal and the company should clear his dues.Later on, Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint with CJM, Jalna bearing S.T.C.No.1764 of 2016 on 16.11.2009 against Mr. Rajesh Ramavatar Dubey alleging that Mr. Dubey had abused and threatened him.Repeating the allegations that Mr. Dubey was preventing him from entering the office and was harassing him and that since last six months he was not allowed to come to the office on the ground that his services were terminated.In all probabilities, if at all there would have been such a forgery or other acts involving criminality, the Respondent No.2 would not have hesitated even for a moment to make allegations against them.::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:20:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:20:00 :::Similarly, even in a subsequent complaint (Exh-W) lodged with Sadarbazar police on 03.02.2010, after a lapse of almost 9 months he had simply alleged that on 21.05.2009 at the instance of Accused Nos.1 to 3 therein i.e. Analjit Sing, Rajesh Sud and Rajan Kalia, accused No.4 Mr. Rajesh Dubey had abused him and by informing him orally about his services having been terminated he was not allowed to enter into office.It was also alleged that a false complaint was lodged against him and inspite of repeated notices issued through his ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:20:00 ::: 25 Cri.W.P.1142-16.odt lawyer his dues were not cleared.Again, even in this complaint no allegations have been levelled constituting any offence like forgery using a forged document.The role of rest of the accused, which is attributed to them is that they had directed Accused No.4, not to allow Respondent No.2 to work.::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:20:00 :::The fore going circumstances referred to herein above clearly show that even if the contents of the complaint are taken at their face value, no offences can be made out against the petitioners.The learned CJM has apparently committed a gross error in not appreciating all the afore mentioned facts and circumstances in their proper perspective and has passed the order directing investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. by the impugned order ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:20:00 ::: 26 Cri.W.P.1142-16.odt which is not sustainable in law.::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:20:00 :::As has been rightly submitted by the learned Advocate for the Petitioners, a pure Civil dispute touching termination of the employment of Respondent No.2 has been attempted to be blown out of proportion and a lame attempt is made to bring it in the purview of criminal law.In the result, both the Writ Petitions succeed and are allowed.::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:20:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:20:00 :::
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
134,669,657 |
This Criminal Revision has been filed under section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 9.7.2018 passed by ASJ, Jawad, District Neemuch whereby charges under section 395 r/w sec.397, 307/149 of IPC have been framed against the applicant.As per prosecution story, on 19.07.2015 complainant Ayub Khan lodged a Dehati Nalishi report before P.S. Jawad, District Neemuch that his relative Tayyub Khan is licensee contractor of poppystraw at village Shyampura Golai, Thana AJK where there is a godown of poppystraw looked after by security guards.As per the complaint, in the midnight on 19.07.2015, 30-40 persons came with deadly weapon and fired gunshot injuries to security guards.However, their attempt to commit loot of poppystraw was failed as security guard fired back.Complainant raised a suspicion over the applicant-Kamal Rana as attempt to loot was carried out at the behest of Kamal Rana with whom complainant had old rivalry.Police thereafter arrested co-accused persons and recovered fire arms and other weapons from them.Applicant 2 could not be arrested.Arrest warrant was issued against him and subsequently he was arrested.Trial court framed the charges against the applicant along with other co-accused persons as already discussed.Learned counsel for applicant in his revision application has submitted that complainant has raised suspicion against him because of old enmity whereas there was no involvement of the applicant.He was not present on the spot.Nothing has been seized from him.However, such memorandum statements are inadmissible against the applicant.No such statements have been recorded by the applicant.Per contra, though the prayer is opposed by the learned counsel for State, however, he has not disputed the fact that the accusation against the applicant is based on the disclosure statement allegedly made by Mahendrasingh implicating him in the matter and that there is no other connecting link against the applicant.In Dehati Nalishi report lodged by the complainant Ayub Khan, a suspicion 3 has been raised against the applicant-Kamal Rana on the basis of previous enmity of the complainant with the applicant.In the subsequent investigation carried out, statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses Bherulal, Raju, Ayub Khan have been recorded in which they have stated that applicant was having old rivalry with the complainant and it is he, who had sent the other co- accused persons for committing loot.However, accused persons on whose memorandum various weapons have been recovered, have not named the applicant in their memorandum and it appears that it is co-accused Naveen Patidar who along with another co-accused Jaswantsingh Sondhiya had hatched conspiracy with other co-accused persons for committing loot, pursuant to which weapons were seized and vehicles were also seized which had been arranged for transporting the looted property in case of success in loot.Applicant has not been named in the memorandum statements of Naveen Patidar, Jaswantsingh, Arvind, Nirbhaysingh, Munnalal, Nanuram, Gopal and Mitthulal.From all these co-accused persons, recovery of arms and vehicles has been made.No recovery has been made from the applicant and applicant has not been named by rest of the co-accused persons.Lateron one accused namely Mahendrasingh has been arrested and he has named the applicant as the person who hatched the conspiracy along with this Mahendrasingh and his brother Pappu Sondhiya.However, Pappu Sondhiya in his memorandum has not named the applicant.No recovery pursuant to this memorandum has been made from the applicant.Memorandum of the applicant has also not been recorded.As regards conspiracy, there has to be prima facie proof of meeting between the accused persons for doing of unlawful act or offence.However, as already seen, none of the accused persons apart from accused Mahendrasingh has stated that they met applicant and hatched a conspiracy to loot the complainant's godown.In view of such situation, it appears that effort has been made to somehow implicate the applicant in the offence purportedly committed by other co-accused persons.There is no incriminating piece 5 of evidence available against the applicant.Applicant has not been found to be present on the spot or has been found to have hatched a plan to commit the offence of loot.Consequently, he deserves to be discharged.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
134,702,363 |
Dental examination shows presence of complete 8 sets of permanent teeth inall 4 quadrants.Report of Radiological Examination-MukarrabMedical end of clavicle fused-age>more than 22 yearsXiphoid process not fused with sternal body-age<40 yearsManubrium not fused with sternal body-age<50 yearsComplete fusion of sacral bodies-age>32 yearsSaggital suture obliterated in posterior 1/3rd and coronal sutureobliterated in lower ½-age<40 years.ArshadMedical end of clavicle fused-age>more than 22 yearsXiphoid process not fused with sternal body-age<40 yearsManubrium not fused with sternal body-age<50 yearsComplete fusion of sacral bodies-age>32 yearsSaggital suture obliterated in posterior 1/3rd and coronal suture intact-age<40 years.R. BANUMATHI, J.The present appeals by special leave impugn the judgment dated27.05.2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, whereby theappeal filed by the appellants herein was dismissed affirming theirconviction under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 and Section 148 IPCand also sentence of imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC andrigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 148 IPC.Totally six accused including the appellants herein were convicted.Case of the prosecution is that on 22.03.1994, present appellants,Mukarrab and Arshad alongwith four others viz. Babban, Moazzam, Jahangirand Jamil had a quarrel with the deceased, Azamul Haq while he was comingback to his house from the market at around 5.30 p.m., the accused personsabused the deceased on the pretext that he was causing obstruction inMangal Bazaar.Deceased tried to escape from the clutches of the appellantsand other accused; but he was caught and attacked by tamanchas/guns andknives and killed.The occurrence was witnessed by five eye witnesses whowere coming behind the deceased.The accused Moazzam, Jahangir, Jamil, Mukarrab (appellant), Babbanand Arshad (appellant), were charge-sheeted under Sections 147, 148, 149,302 IPC and the case was committed to the Court of Session.Trial wasconducted and a number of witnesses were examined on behalf of theprosecution as well as the defence.Vide judgment and order dated16.09.1995 passed by the VIIIth Additional District and Sessions Judge,Moradabad in Session Trial No. 484 of 1994, all the accused were convictedunder Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and Section 148 IPC andsentence of imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC and rigorousimprisonment for two years under Section 148 IPC was imposed.All thesentences were to run concurrently.The accused challenged their convictionand sentence imposed on them by filing three separate appeals before theHigh Court.The High Court disposed of all the three appeals vide commonjudgment and order dated 27.05.2014, thereby affirming the conviction ofthe accused persons and sentence imposed thereof.The above judgment and order dated 27.05.2014 was challenged byfiling special leave petition before this Court.Appellants Mukarrab andArshad for the very first time raised the claim of juvenility before thisCourt.The trial court whichhad conducted the trial was directed to examine the aspect of juvenility ofthe present appellants and submit a report.As noted earlier, the specialleave petitions qua other accused were dismissed.However, on perusal of the above report dated28.10.2014 as well as the objections filed thereagainst, certain doubtswere raised concerning the genuineness of the report.Accordingly, videorder dated 06.04.2016, this Court observing that there is no document fromwhich date of birth of the appellants could be ascertained, directedossification test to be conducted, so as to ascertain the age of theappellants.Accused-Mukarrab and accused-Arshad who were lodged in Mathura andHardoi jails respectively in U.P. were produced before the Medical Boardconstituted at the All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS), NewDelhi on 02.05.2016 for medical examination (ossification test forascertaining bone age).Medical Board constituted at AIIMS, New Delhi inits report dated 05.05.2016, opined that the age of both the accused rangesbetween 35-40 years on the date of the examination.The short question falling for consideration in these appeals is thatwhether the appellants Mukarrab and Arshad were juveniles on the date ofthe occurrence and the question of admissibility and reliability of medicalopinion in age determination under the Juvenile Justice (Care andProtection of Children) Act, 2000 vis-à-vis juvenility of the accused atthe time of committing the offences.We have heard the parties before us and have perused the materialsand the medical report available on record.Appellant-Mukarrab has claimed that he was born on01.07.1978 and thus, on the date of the incident i.e. 22.03.1994, he was achild aged 15 years 8 months 22 days.Likewise, appellant-Arshad hasclaimed that he was born on 05.02.1979 and thus on the date of the incidenti.e.22.03.1994, he was a child aged 15 years 1 month 17 days.After perusing the report of the District Judge,by order dated 06.04.2016, this Court has directed medical examination ofthe appellants (Mukarrab and Arshad) to be conducted by a duly constitutedMedical Board of the AIIMS, New Delhi.Accordingly, the doctors of AIIMShave examined the appellants (Mukarrab and Arshad) and given their opinionas under:-Examination Proceedings: Both the accused were examined after taking dueinformed consent along with signature and left thumb impression.Their physical, dental and radiological examinations were carried out.X-ray examination of Skull (AP and lateral view), Sternum (AP and lateralview) and Sacrum (lateral view) were advised and performed.There was noindication for Dental X-rays since both accused were much beyond 25 yearsof age in any case.Physical and Dental Examination: In both cases, general physicalexamination findings are consistent with findings of normal adult male.That apart, even if the age of theappellant was determined by the upper extremity limit i.e. 36 years thesame would have been subject to variation of plus minus 2 years meaningthereby that he could as well be 34 years on the date of the examination.In factin the medical report of the appellants, it is stated that there was noindication for dental x-rays since both the accused were beyond 25 years ofage.At this juncture, we may usefully refer to an article “A study ofwrist ossification for age estimation in pediatric group in centralRajasthan”, which reads as under:-“There are various criteria for age determination of an individual, ofwhich eruption of teeth and ossification activities of bones are important.Nevertheless age can usually be assessed more accurately in younger agegroup by dentition and ossification alongwith epiphyseal fusion.[Ref: Gray H. Gray’s Anatomy.The special leave petitions qua other accused were alreadydismissed vide order dated 12.09.2014 as mentioned hereinbefore.[A.K. SIKRI] .………………………..J.[R. BANUMATHI]New Delhi;
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
134,792,513 |
The appellant has preferred this appeal against his conviction under Section 302 IPC vide judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 30.7.1996 and the order of sentence dated 31.7.1996 for the murder of Khub Ram, whereby he has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of which to undergo SI for one month.A.No.218/1996 Page 1 of 6A.No.218/1996 Page 1 of 6The case of the prosecution is based on the testimony of Vinod Kumar, PW3, who has deposed that the deceased was his childhood friend.Some altercation had taken place between the deceased and the appellant about a year back when the deceased had joked with a girl named Baby living in the J.J. Colony, which led to some quarrel between the appellant and the deceased.In subsequent meetings also there was some quarrel on this account.On the fateful day of 26.4.1992, when the deceased and PW3 were going to the dhobi to get their clothes ironed, they met the appellant on the way and there was exchange of abuses between the deceased and the appellant whereupon the deceased slapped the appellant.The intervention of PW3 cooled down the situation.However, when the deceased and PW3 were returning after getting their clothes ironed and reached near house No.376, J.J. Colony, Madipur at about 5.15 p.m., the appellant again came out of the gali and the appellant and the deceased started abusing each other.The brother of the deceased also reached there and inquired about the matter.It was at that time in the altercation, the appellant took out a kirpan like churri from the right side of his pant and gave a blow on the left side of the ribs of the deceased and ran away.The deceased was rushed to DDU hospital, where he was declared as brought dead.Nand Kishore has appeared as PW2 and partly supported the case of the prosecution, though he on some aspects resiled from his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The post mortem has been conducted by Dr.L.T. Ramani, PW20, who has opined that the injury was caused by a Crl.A.No.218/1996 Page 2 of 6 sharp edged weapon and was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.A.No.218/1996 Page 2 of 6In the course of hearing, learned counsel stated, on instructions from the appellant, who has been produced in the Court, that the appellant admits his guilt of having caused the fatal injury which resulted in the death of the deceased and does not dispute the facts in that behalf.The prosecution case rests mainly on the eye witness account given by PW2 Nand Kishore, brother of the deceased and PW3, Vinod Kumar complainant.Though in the complaint Ex.PW3/A, an averment was made that there was acrimony between the appellant and the deceased because of a year old incident which took place when the deceased joked with a girl named Baby.Even at the time of the incident, as per the testimony of the above witnesses, an exchange of abuses took place between the appellant and the deceased before the knife wound was inflicted by the appellant.Even the brother of the deceased PW2, Nand Kishore, as per the testimony of PW3 had intervened and it was at that time, the appellant suddenly took out the churri and inflicted a single blow on the person of the deceased, which unfortunately Crl.A.No.218/1996 Page 3 of 6 fell on the left side of the chest and proved to be fatal.A copy of this order be sent expeditiously to the Superintendent Tihar Jail.
|
['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.
|
13,482,288 |
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.Applicants apprehend arrest in connection with offences punishable u/Ss. 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 294, 506-B of IPC and S. 3 (1) (x) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act registered as Crime No.11/2015 at Police Station Belgarha, District Gwalior.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 anticipatory bail is made out.The prosecution story, which is apparent from the order of the Trial Court dated 20/4/2015, is that applicant Banti along with other applicants/co-accused namely Ghansu, Rajbahadur, Babbe and Jitu forming an unlawful assembly abused and intimidated the victim.The assault seems to have been commenced by applicant no. 1 Banti, who assaulted victim Hakim Singh on his head with farsa; whereafter the other said four applicants wielding lathi and kulhadi inflected injuries to some other persons in the hand, shoulder and back.
|
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
134,930,436 |
Witness Brijnesh Pawak (PW10) is the most important witness of the prosecution being the eye witness of the incident.In his testimony, he had deposed that about 1`5-20 days before, when they first played cricket in Ashok Vihar side in a park along railway lines, among Jagdish, Sabbir and Tahir and his brother a mild dispute ensured.On 15.08.1998 at about 8 p.m., PW10 and his brother Rajnesh were going to see Janamastmi festival from their house in Ashok Vihar via railway line.When they went to Sukhdev Vihar to offer their prayer in a small temple, they met Jagdish, his friend Tahir and Sabbir near temple.On seeing them, accused persons started abusing his brother and him and said they became "badmash".Thereafter, all the three accused persons forcibly caught the complainant and his brother and took them to railway track.While going there, accused Tahir caught hold the complainant.Accused Jagdish and Sabbir attacked with fists and legs in the abdomen of his brother.Consequently, his brother fell down and became unconscious.On this, PW10 raised alarm and then the accused persons ran away.PW10 brought his parents.They met the brother of PW10 who was falling and standing whom they got medicines but no relief was felt by him.In the morning, Rajnish was taken to Sunder Lal Jain Hospital from where he was referred to Hindu Rao Hospital.PW10 identified all the accused persons/appellants in the Court.On receipt of said information, PW11 along with his wife started running for that play and on the way, his younger son Brajnish met them.Brajnish told him that Tahir had caught hold of him; accused Jagdish and Sabir had caught hold of elder brother Rajnish and that they were beating him with kicks and fist blows.Whent hey reached at some distance, he saw his son Rajnish coming falling.His wife handled his son Rajnish whereas he saw all the three accused persons standing by the side of park.The present appeals bearing Crl.A. Nos.178/2002, 201/2002 and 253/2002 have been filed by the appellants Tahir Ahmed, Shabbir Ahmad and Jagdish respectively against a judgment of conviction dated 29.01.2001 and order on sentence dated 04.03.2002, therefore, all these appeals are decided together.The present appeals have been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 29.01.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 341/304/34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as I.P.C.), and order on sentence dated 04.03.2002, whereby the appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three and half years and fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence under Section 304 Part II/34 of IPC and in default of payment of fine they were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.They were also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days each for the offence under Section 341/34 of IPC.Since the trial of all the applicants was commonly conducted and all the appellants have been convicted by the common impugned judgment and have been awarded sentence by the common order on sentence, therefore, with the consent of the counsel appearing on Crl.A. Nos.178/2002, 201/2002 & 253/2002 Page 2 of 13 behalf of all the appellants, arguments in all the appeals have been heard together and all the appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.A. Nos.178/2002, 201/2002 & 253/2002 Page 2 of 13The present case was registered against the appellants on the statement of complainant-Brijnish, who was brother of the deceased Rajnish.He had stated in his statement that 15-20 days prior to the date of incident, i.e., on 15.08.1998, while playing cricket near Railway line, Ashok Vihar, an altercation had taken place between him, his brother and the accused persons.On that day, at about 8 PM, when he alongwith his brother Rajnish gone to pay obeisance in a temple on the occasion of Janmashtami and reached near the temple at Shahid Sukhdev Nagar, all the accused persons/appellants met them and started abusing them and uttered that they would teach them a lesson and forcibly took his brother Rajnish towards the Railway line, where accused Tahir Ahmad caught hold of him (complainant) and Jagdish and Shabbir started giving blows with fists and legs in the abdomen of his brother-Rajnish, consequent to which, his brother fell down and become unconscious.He raised an alarm and all the accused persons fled away from the spot.Investigation of the case was conducted by Sub-Inspector Randhir singh, who conducted the inquest proceedings and recorded the statements of the witnesses and sent the body for autopsy.A. Nos.178/2002, 201/2002 & 253/2002 Page 3 of 13After completion of investigation, challan was filed before the trial court.The appellants were charged with the offence punishable under Sections 341/304/34 of IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.To bring home the guilt of the appellants, the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses.They are, Constable Surender Singh (PW-1); Shri Gian Singh (PW-2); Constable Basawan Singh (PW-3); Dr. Rajesh Bansal (PW-4); Constable Jai Prakash (PW-5); Dr. Paramjeet Singh (PW-6); Dr. C.B. Dabbas (PW-7); Constable Rakesh Chander (PW-8), Constable Lalit Kumar (PW-9), Brijnesh Pawak (PW-10), Shri Har Lal (PW-11); Constable Deep Chand (PW-12); Head Constable Umed Singh (PW-13); Constable Ravinder Kumar (PW-14); Sub-Inspector Randhir Singh (PW-15); and Head Constable Vijay Kumar (PW-16).After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, entire incriminating material on record was put to the appellants, and their statements under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded, in which they denied the allegations of the prosecution and stated that they are innocent.After considering the facts, evidence led on behalf of both the sides and the material on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held the appellants guilty for an offence punishable under Crl.A. Nos.178/2002, 201/2002 & 253/2002 Page 4 of 13 Section 341/304/34 of IPC vide judgment and sentenced the appellants vide order on sentence, as indicated above.Hence the present appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order on sentence.Vide order dated 13.03.2002, of this court, the sentence of the appellants was suspended.A. Nos.178/2002, 201/2002 & 253/2002 Page 4 of 13It is further urged that at the most the appellant can be convicted for the offence under Section 323 of IPC and the period of sentence already undergone by him would meet the ends of justice.It is further urged on behalf of the appellant that there was no pre-meditation or pre-planning for causing death of Rajnish.Even the appellant had no knowledge that the fist and kick blows given by the other accused were of such nature to cause the death of Rajnish, therefore the petitioner cannot be liable to be convicted for the offence under Section 304/34 of IPC.It is further argued that PW- 13 Head constable Umed Singh admitted before the court that he finished recording the statement of Brajnish on 16.08.1998 at about 8.15 PM whereas the complainant had not alleged any quarrel having taken place 15 days before the incident.It is only after recording of the supplementary statement the motive for the alleged incident on 15.08.1998 has been introduced.A. Nos.178/2002, 201/2002 & 253/2002 Page 5 of 13It is further urged that the deceased remained conscious after alleged occurrence on 15.08.1998 at 8 PM as he walked down to his residence from the place of occurrence and died on 17.08.1998 at 5.40 PM i.e. after 46 hours.While referring to the post mortem report it is contended that the deceased had an enlarged spleen and PW-7 Dr. Dabbas has admitted that if the person with enlarged spleen falls on hard substance it may cause death.It is further urged that it is the admitted case of the prosecution that the appellants have not used any weapon of offence and only fists and kick blows were inflicted and as such injuries were Crl.A. Nos.178/2002, 201/2002 & 253/2002 Page 6 of 13 never intended to cause death and the accused persons had no knowledge that such injuries may cause death of the deceased.A. Nos.178/2002, 201/2002 & 253/2002 Page 6 of 13He Crl. A. Nos.178/2002, 201/2002 & 253/2002 Page 7 of 13 further deposed that his statement Ex.PW10/A was recorded by the police.A. Nos.178/2002, 201/2002 & 253/2002 Page 7 of 13During cross-examination on behalf of the appellants, PW10 had deposed that after leaving his brother on the place of occurrence, he went to inform his parents.They met him on the way.After the arrival of his father on the spot, they had taken his brother to a nearby doctor.On the next date i.e. 16.08.1998, they took the deceased to Sunder Lal Jain Hospital.Though the witness was cross-examined at length, but the defence had failed to put any dent to his testimony.PW11 Har Lal is the father of the deceased and complainant (PW10).PW11 had deposed that on 15.08.1998, his sons Brajnish and Rajnish left their house at about 07.30 p.m. to see the Janamastmi celebrations.At about 8 p.m., he was informed by a person coming from the side of Ashok Vihar that a quarrel was going on with his sons near railway line.When PW11 questioned the accused persons, they said that they had spared them but would not leave him thereafter.He identified all the three accused persons in the Court.A. Nos.178/2002, 201/2002 & 253/2002 Page 8 of 13From the testimony of complainant/eye witness PW10 Brajnish, it is clear that on the day of incident when he along with deceased was going to see the Janamashtmi celebrations, they were wrongfully confined by all the appellants.It is also evident from his testimony that appellant Tahir caught hold of him, whereas appellants Jagdish and Sabbir gave leg and fist blows on the abdomen of the deceased due to which he fell on the ground.Firstly the deceased was taken to a private doctor, then to Sunder Lal Jain Hospital and then to Hindu Rao Hospital where he succumbed to his injuries.There is nothing to disbelieve the testimony of PW10 who is a natural eye witness to the incident and had narrated the incident in a natural way.PW11 Har Lal, father of the deceased has also corroborated the testimony of the complainant (PW10) to the effect that on the day of incident both the complainant as well as deceased had left their home to see the Janamashtmi celebrations and that they were wrongfully confined by the appellants and then the deceased was beaten up by the appellants with leg and fist blows.PW11 had seen the appellants near the spot of incident and he had specifically deposed that when he questioned the appellants as to why they had beaten the deceaed, they told him that they had spared them on that day but would not leave him thereafter.Thus, the testimony of the PW11 is corroborative in nature which further proves the case of prosecution that the appellants had given beatings to the deceased on the day of incident which resulted into his death.A. Nos.178/2002, 201/2002 & 253/2002 Page 9 of 13PW2 had deposed that the deceased Rajnish was his nephey.On the day of incident i.e. 15.08.1998 in the evening when he returned home, he found Rajnish crying in pain.On his enquiry, Rajnish told him that accused Tahir, Sabbir and Jagdish beaten him.The medical evidence further corroborates the case of the prosecution that the cause of death of the deceased was due to beatings given to him.PW4 Dr.Rajesh Bansal, CMO of Hindu Rao Hospital had deposed that on 16.08.1998, patient Rajnish was brought by the police in the hospital and he was examined by him.He found the injuries i.e. tenderness present all over the abdomen and lacerated wound at his left eye brow.PW7 Dr.C.B. Dabbas conducted postmortem on the dead body of deceased.He had deposed that he had found abrasion overe left forehead region, on right side of nose, lower front part of right arm and at upper front part of left leg on the body of the deceased.He also found wound on the front of abdomen in mid-line with two drainage wounds on the right side of abdomen.on internal examination, he found surgical sutured wound adjunction of stomach and jejunum with deudinum missing.The adjoining walls around the suture were congested.As per his opinion, the death of the deceased was caused due to tomaemia and shock consequent to duodenal perforation caused by blunt force impact of abdomen.All the injuries were opined to be ante mortem in nature.He proved his report as Ex.PW7/A.A. Nos.178/2002, 201/2002 & 253/2002 Page 10 of 13From the opinion of the doctor who conducted post mortem on the dead body of the deceased, the cause of death of the deceased was the injuries caused to his abdomen and the same were caused by blung force impact.From a joint reading of the testimony of complainant (PW10) along with testimony of PW7 and his report Ex.PW7/A, the prosecution has successfully established on record that the deceased died due to giving of beatings by the appellants and the beatings given to him on his abdomen area were sufficient to cause his death.Contention of the appellants that there are contradictions and discrepancies in the testimony of PW10 and PW11 and that they are interested witnesses, is without any basis for the reasons that it is not expected from two persons to depose on the same lines as stated by them before the police.Some minor contradictions and discrepancies are bound to occur due to lapse of time and the same are not material and do not go to the root of the matter to the affect the credibility of these witnesses.In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully established on record the guilt of the appellants that on the day of incident they firstly wrongfully confined the complainangt (PW10) and deceased and then gave beatings to the deceased which resulted into his death thereby causing culpable homicide of the deceased not amounting to murder.Therefore, the conviction of the appellants under Section 341/304/34 IPC deserves to be upheld.A. Nos.178/2002, 201/2002 & 253/2002 Page 11 of 13The appellants had faced the protracted trial for about 19 years.It is also apparent from the record that it was the appellants Jagdish and Shabbir who had given beatings to the deceased which resulted into his death, whereas the role of the appellant Tahir Ahmad was that he caught hold of the complainant at that time.Keeping in view the above mentioned facts and circumstances, the judgment of conviction awarded to the appellants is hereby upheld.However, the sentence awarded to the appellant-Tahir Ahmad is modified to the extent of awarding him rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 304/34 IPC, whereas appellants Jagdish and Shabbir are awarded rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years each under Section 304/34 IPC.Remaining sentence awarded to the appellants and the amount of fine shall remain as it is.With the above modification in the order on sentence, the present appeal is disposed of .The appellants are directed to surrender before the trial court concerned within a period of 15 days to serve the remainder of sentence of imprisonment.A. Nos.178/2002, 201/2002 & 253/2002 Page 12 of 13Resultantly, the appeals filed by the appellants are disposed of with aforesaid modifications.A copy of this order be sent to the Trial Court for information and necessary steps.With aforesaid directions, the present appeal is disposed of.(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE JULY 04, 2017 pkb/dd Crl.A. Nos.178/2002, 201/2002 & 253/2002 Page 13 of 13A. Nos.178/2002, 201/2002 & 253/2002 Page 13 of 13
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,350,882 |
2.The appellants, who were arrayed as A-1 to A-7, A-9 and A-10respectively along with A-8, A-11 to A-15 before that court, stood charged,tried and found guilty as detailed below:I Charge - A-8 to A-15 - Section 147 IPC Finding - A-9 and A-10 alone were convicted and sentenced to undergo one year RI A-8, A-11 to A-15 were acquitted.II Charge - A-1 to A-7 - Section 148 IPC Finding - A-1 to A-7 were convicted and sentenced to undergo one year R.I.III Charge - A-1 to A-15 - Section 302 r/w 149 IPC Finding - A-1 and A-2 were convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment each and a fine of Rs.15,000/-, in default 5 years RI.A-3 to A-7 were convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment each and a fine of Rs.10000/-, in default 5 years RI.A-9 and A-10 were convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment each and a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default 2 years RI.A-8, A-11 to A-15 were acquitted.IV Charge - A-3 to A-7 - Section 307 IPC Finding - A-3 to A-7 were convicted and sentenced to undergo 7 years RI along with a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default 2 years RI.P.Ws.2,3,4,5 and 6 allbelonged to the same place.P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 were originally employed in AmbikaSugar mills, Kottur.P.Ws.6 and 7 are also the residents of the said place andall were carrying on agricultural operations.P.W.8 belonged to Kelathurvilalge, where he was serving as village Menial.P.W.9 belonged to KeelasuriyaMoolai village, where he was serving as village assistant. A-1 to A-11 and A-13to A-15 belonged to Padayachi community, out of whom, A-1 and A-2, thoughbelonged to Hinduism originally, they switched over to Muslim faith.A-12belonged to another community.P.Ws.1 to 4 belonged to scheduled caste and theywere all employed, at the time of occurrence, under one Bhaskar.b)On 26.3.2001 at about 5.00 p.m., after finishing work, P.Ws.1 to 4 cameout of the sugar factory and went to a nearby tea stall for taking tea.At thattime, A-1 was plying auto on the road.On seeing sugarcane on the road, P.Ws.1to 4 were able to proceed on the middle of the road.When A-1 came nearby, heuttered "you add four more persons and lie on the road".In reply, P.W.1 toldhim "on hearing the horn of the Auto, we gave way and even then, why are youscolding".There arose a quarrel.The other witnesses, namely P.Ws.2 to 4 heldthe accused and stopped him from attacking.This was also witnessed by thedeceased Thangaraj, who was taking tea in a nearby tea stall.He suddenlyintervened and pacified them.c)A-1 turned the Auto and took the same to Kelasuriyamoolai village.P.Ws.1 to 4 went to Muniyandi Vilas for taking tea.45 minutes later, i.e. atabout 6.00 p.m., when the witnesses along with Thangaraj were at the place ofoccurrence, A-1, A-2, A-4 to A-6 armed with aruvals, A-3 armed with an iron roadand A-7 armed with a knife and the other accused armed with casurina sticks,came there.The deceased Thangaraj tried to pacify them.A-1 cut the deceasedon the left side of the neck.Again A-1 cut the deceased below the left ear.A-4 cut him on the left side of the hip. A-2 cut him with aruval on the leftshoulder.A-5 cut the deceased on the waist.A-7 stabbed him with the knife onthe left armpit and the deceased fell down.A-3 beat P.W.1 on the head with theiron road.A-4 cut P.W.1 on the left waist.The rest of the accused surroundedP.W.1 and cut P.W.1 on the right arm, left shoulder, right thigh and on the backrespectively and they fled away from the place of occurrence.d)One Mohan took P.W.1 to the Government Hospital, Kumbakonam, where hewas admitted by P.W.10, the Doctor, at about 7.00 p.m. He issued Ex.P.11, thewound certificate.A communication was received by P.W.13, the Head Constable,attached to Kumbakonam East Police Station at 19.30 hours, who in turn informedthe same to Panthanallur Police Station, within whose jurisdiction theoccurrence has taken place.On receipt of the intimation on 26.3.2001 at 19.30hours, P.W.16, the Sub Inspector of Police proceeded to the Government Hospital,Kumbakonam at 20.30 hours.He recorded the statement of P.W.1, which was markedas Ex.P.1, on the strength of which a case came to be registered in Crime No.72of 2001 under Sections 147, 148, 324, 307 and 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) ofSC/ST Act. Ex.P.17, the FIR, was despatched to the Court.e)P.W.19, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, on receipt of the copy ofthe FIR on 26.3.2001 at about 11.00 p.m., proceeded to the place of occurrenceand made an inspection in the presence of two witnesses.He prepared Ex.P.2,the observation mahazar and Ex.P.35, the rough sketch.He conducted inquest onthe dead body of the deceased in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdarsand prepared Ex."He has issued Ex.P.16, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he has opined thatthe deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to theinjury to vital organs like carotid artery, spinal cord and left lung.At that time, A-5 came forward to give a confessional statementvoluntarily and the same was recorded in the presence of two witnesses, theadmissible part of which was marked as Ex.Following the same, he produced5 aruvals, one iron rod and one knife in the presence of the witnesses, whichwere recovered under a cover of mahazar, and they were marked as M.O.3 (series),M.O.4 and M.O.5 respectively.h)Pending investigation, P.W.20 took up further investigation in the case.He came to know that A-1 and A-2 surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate,Kumbakonam and hence, he made an application for police custody and the same wasordered.On 11.4.2001, they were enquired.The first accused gave aconfessional statement, which was recorded in the presence of the witnesses, theadmissible part of which was marked as Ex.Pursuant to the same, heproduced 7 casurino sticks and one iron rod in the presence of the witnesses,which were recovered under a cover of mahazar and they were marked as M.O.13(series) and M.O.14 respectively.On 29.4.2001, P.W.20 arrested A-8 to A-11.All the accused were sent for judicial remand.V Charge - A-1 and A-2 - Section 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act Finding - They were acquitted.VI Charge - A-1 to A-15 - Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act.Finding - They were acquitted.Aggrieved over the said finding of conviction and sentence, the appellants havebrought forth this appeal before this Court.P.36, the inquest report.f)P.W.12, the Doctor, attached to the Government Hospital,Thiruvidaimarudur, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Thangaraj and found thefollowing injuries:"1.A deep cut injury with clear and sharp edges covered with blood startsfrom the Postpart of lower 1/3 of the neck on the left side and runningtransversly and anteriorly to the anterior part of the neck, turning the headand face to the right side of the body.It measures 12 cm length x 8 cm depth xBreadth 7 cm at the centre and 3 cm at the edges.2.Another cut injury in the upper part of the left side of the neck justbelow the left ear and extends up to the lower 1/3 of the left side of the faceand measures length 10 cm x Breadth 3 cm at the centre and 1 cm at the edges xdepth 3 cm on (N.C.) Ist injury sterno mastoid muscle cut in the lower 1/3 ofthe neck left carotid artery and left external jugular vein cut.Spinal cord iscut and fractured and dislocating vertebra at c5 c6 level.In the second injurysterno mastoid muscle is cut in the upper 1/3 of neck.3.A stab injury in the left axilla in the anterior axillary line whichmeasures 2 cm length 15 cm depth and 1 cm breadth.2cm/15cm sub cutaneoushaemorrhage.Fracture of left 5th rib present.The injury extends upto the lowerlobe of the left lung with a punctured wound measures 1-1/2 cm breach and 1 cmdepth.4.Cut injury in the left shoulder 4 cm x 2 cm breadth and 3 cm depth.5.A cut injury in the lower part of left side of the chest.Length 2 cm x1 cm breadth x 1 cm depth.6.Cut injury in the upper part of the left hip 1-1/2 cm x .cm x .All the M.Os recovered from theplace of occurrence and from the dead body, and the weapons of crime recoveredfrom the respective accused were subjected to chemical analysis by the ForensicSciences Department.Ex.P.14, the Chemical Analyst's report, and Ex.P.15, theSerologist's report were received.The Investigating Officer had also obtainedcommunity certificates of both the accused and the witnesses and produced thesame before the Court.On completion of the investigation, final report wasfiled.i)The case was committed to Court of Sessions and necessary charges wereframed.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, theprosecution has marched 20 witnesses and relied on 38 exhibits and 14 M.Os.Oncompletion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused werequestioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C as to the incriminating circumstances foundin the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which they flatly denied as false.Nodefence witness was examined.After hearing the submissions and considering thematerials available, the trial court found the accused/appellants guilty as perthe charge and awarded punishment as referred to above, which is the subjectmatter of challenge before this Court.4.Advancing his arguments on behalf of the respective appellants, thelearned counsel have made the following submissions:(a)In the instant case, as per the prosecution case, the occurrence hastaken place on 26.3.2001 at 6.00 p.m. on the road leading to Ambika Sugar Mills.According to prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 4 were the eyewitnesses.They are all closerelatives of the deceased and they belonged to the same community.A closescrutiny of their evidence would also indicate that they could not havewitnessed the occurrence and even they could not have been present at the placeof occurrence.While the occurrence has taken place at 6.00 p.m., according tothe prosecution, P.W.1 was taken to the Government Hospital, Kumbakonam and wasadmitted by P.W.10, the Doctor, at 7.00 p.m. An intimation was given to P.W.13,the Head Constable, Kumbakonam East Police Station, who in turn informed thesame to Pandanallur Police Station.P.W.16, attached to Pandanallur PoliceStation, came to the hospital and recorded the statement of P.W.1, which wasmarked as Ex.The earliest document, which has come into existence, is thewound certificate in respect of the injury sustained by P.W.1 at the time ofoccurrence.P.W.10 has recorded the statement of P.W.1 in the woundcertificate, wherein it is clearly found that according to P.W.1, 50 personswere the assailants and at the time of occurrence, they used aruval, cycle chainand soda bottles.But, it is not the case of the prosecution that 50 personswere the assailants either, or soda bottle and cycle chain were used.(b)Further improvement was made by way of FIR, which came into existenceat about 8.30 p.m., wherein the names of 7 assailants have been mentioned.P.W.1has clearly admitted that he did not know the names of the fathers of theaccused and he has not given any description thereon.If to be so, under thecircumstances, identification parade should have been conducted.Thus, the nonconduct of identification parade is fatal to the prosecution case.5.Added further the learned counsel that FIR reached the JudicialMagistrate at about 5.00 a.m. The Constable has been examined to give someexplanation as to the delay, but that explanation is thoroughly unconvincing andnot acceptable.According to the Constable, he took the FIR to the JudicialMagistrate Court, but he was informed that the Magistrate is in house and whenhe went to the Magistrate's house, he was not available there and therefore, hehanded over the FIR only by 5.00 a.m. The same would clearly indicate that theFIR has not come into existence as put forth by the prosecution.Thus, theinordinate and unexplained delay would assume importance in the instant case,since the Magistrate's residence is situated within 1 Kms.from the Court.If tobe so, it should have been handed over immediately and hence, the explanationtendered through the police Constable is thoroughly improbable and unbelievable.This would go to show that the FIR has not come into existence at 8.30 p.m. asput forth by the prosecution and it has been registered belatedly with alldevelopments and embellishments, wherein number of accused with so many overtacts have been put in.P.Ws.1 to4's evidence was thoroughly unreliable.Apart from that, all the injuriesalleged to have been sustained by P.W.1 were simple in nature as per the woundcertificate.There was a group clash and hence,P.Ws.1 to 4 could not identify the assailants properly.Following his death, a case came to be registered by the respondentpolice.Following the same, the dead bodywas subjected to post-mortem by P.W.12, the Doctor and he has given Ex.Hence, it has got to be recorded so.P.1, which cameinto existence within a short span of time, while he was admitted in theGovernment Hospital, Kumbakonam for treatment.The other witnesses havealso spoken about the fact.Under the circumstances, A-9 and A-10 areentitled for acquittal.The first accused is found guilty under Section 302 IPC and sentenced toundergo life imprisonment. A-2 to A-7 are found guilty under Section 304(II)IPC, for which they are directed to suffer 5 years R.I. A-3 to A-7 are foundguilty under Section 324 IPC and they are sentenced to undergo 2 years R.I. A-1to A-7 are acquitted of the other charges levelled against them.The period ofsentence already undergone by A-2 to A-7 is directed to be given set off.Insofar as A-3 to A-7 are concerned, the sentences should run concurrently.Itis reported that A-1, A-2, A-6 and A-7 are on bail.Hence, the trial court isdirected to secure A-1, A-2, A-6 and A-7 and commit them to prison to undergothe remaining period of sentence.15.As regards A-9 and A-10, the judgment of the lower court is set aside,and they are acquitted of the charges levelled against them.The bail bonds, ifany executed by them, shall stand terminated and the fine amounts, if any paid,are directed to be refunded to them.16.Accordingly, the criminal appeal is partly allowed.1.I Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Protection of Civil Rights), Thanjavur.2.Inspector of Police, Panthanallur Police Station, Kumbakonam Taluk.3.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,351,667 |
There are totally eight accused involved in the crime.The facts of the case in brief relevant for the purpose ofdeciding these appeals are as follows:The accused and the deceased Rengasamy belong to Naidu Community and there was previous enmity between Naidu Community and Adi Dravida Community in the Pommiyampatti Village.According to the prosecution, on 29.3.1997, thedeceased gave electricity for the function conducted by the Adi DravidaCommunity belonging to "Bharatiya Kudiyarasu Katchi".After coming to knowabout this, the accused got infuriated against the deceased for having allowedthe Adi Dravida Community people to take electricity power from his shop A1along with the other accused, came to the shop of the deceased on the night of29.3.1997 at about 10.00p.m., and scolded him.On 30.3.1997, at about 11.00a.m,., all the accused armed with casuarina stick, trespassed into groceryshop of the deceased and at the instigation of A1, A3 , A6 to A8 caught holdof the deceased and A2 Ravi beat the deceased with casuarina stick on the leftside of his head.A4 Mathan beat the deceased with casuarina stick on theright side of the head and A5 Padmanabhan, assaulted the deceased withcasuarina stick on the right side of the face near the eye of the deceased,thus, causing grievous injuries.P. Ws 1 and 2 along with one Govindasamytook the injured Rengasamy to the Omalur Government Hospital on 30.3.1997 at about 12.20p.m., who was treated by P.W.7, the Doctor and issued Ex.P!4 copy of accident register.P.W.7 has referred the injured to Salem GovernmentHospital for further treatment , taking into consideration the gravity of theinjuries sustained by him.P.W.8, the Doctor who had examined the injuredRengasamy at Salem Government Hospital and issued Ex P15 copy of the accident register.Thereafter, the injured was taken to a private hospital by name"Shanmuga Private Hospital" wherein P.W.9 the Doctor admitted at about6.15p.m., and treated him but without responding the treatment Rengasamybreathed his last on 31.3.1997 at 4.00p.m.The point:P.Ws 1 and 2 would depose to the fact that attime of the occurrence, A4 had assaulted Rengasamy on the right side of thehead with casuarina stick and A2 had assaulted Rengaswamy on the left side ofthe head with casuarina stick and A5 had assaulted the said Rengasamy withcasuarina stick on the right eye.The overt act attributed against A6, A7 and A8 is that they caught hold of the deceasedat the time of occurrence to facilitate the other accused viz., A2, A4 and A5to assault him with casuarina stick.But as against A6, A7and A8, P.W1 toP.W.3 in their evidence have not deposed before the Court that they caughthold of the deceased facilitating A2, A4 and A5 to beat with casuarina stick.Immediately, after the occurrence, the deceased was taken to Omalur Governmnet Hospital.Ex P14 is the copy of the accident register issued by P.W7., theDoctor after examining the injured Rengasamy on 30.3.1997 at 12.20p.m., Evenin Ex P14 , it has been mentioned that the injured was assaulted by threeknown persons with logs on 30.3.1997 at 11.30 a.m. Ex P15 is the accidentregister issued by P.W.8, the Doctor who had treated the injured Rengasamy atGovernment Hospital, Salem on 30.3.1997 on 1.15 p.m., ExP16 is the deathintimation issued by P.W.9 a private Doctor working at Shanmuga PrivateHospital, Salem.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, SalemThe Inspector of Police,Deevattipatti Police Station, Salem(cr. No.184/97)The Superintendent ofCentral Prison, Coimbatore.The Inspector of Police,Asthampatti Police Station,(A6 and A7)The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate,Omalur(A8)The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras-104 10 The District Collector, SalemThe Director General of Police,Mylapore, Madras Both appeals have been filed against the Judgment made inS.C.No.59 /2003 dated 11.11.2003 on the file of the Additional DistrictSessions Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No.1, Salem.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN,J) These appeals have been filed against the Judgment in S.C.No.59 of2003 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No.1,Salem., On 30.3.1997 at 8.30p.m., itself ,P.W.1 has preferred a complaint from Salem Government Hospital with P.W.13 who had registered a case in Crime No.184 of 1997 under Section 147,148,452,341and 307 IPC.Ex P29 is the First Information report.Thereupon, P.W.13visited the place of occurrence prepared observation mahazar had drawn roughsketch Ex P30 at 10.00p.m., on the same day, and also collected materialobjects from the place of occurrence and went to the hospital at 11.30p.m.,and examined P.W.1 and recovered blood stained clothes of the deceased.P.W.13 has examined the witnesses and recorded their statement.After thedeath of Rengasamy on 31.3.1997 at 4.00 p.m., P.W.13 altered the charge intothat under Sections 147, 148, 452, 341 and 3 02 IPC.Ex P31 is the Express First Information report.P.W.13 has conducted inqueston 31.3.1997 between 7.00 a.m., and 10.oo a.m., on the corpse of Rengasamy and send the body for post mortem .Ex P32 is the inquest report.P.W.11 is theDoctor who had conducted post mortem on the corpse of Rengaswamy on 31.3.1997 at about 12.40p.m and issued Ex P2 8 post mortem report wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of head injuries.A2 , A3, A4 ,A5and A7 have surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II Salem on2.4.1997 .After taking them into police custody on 10.4.1997, at 5.00p.m.The case was taken on fileas PRC 29 of 1997 by the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Omalur andon appearance of the accused furnished copies under Section 207 Cr.P.c andsince the case is triable by Court of Sessions, the learned JudicialMagistrate had committed the case to the Principal Sessions Court, Salem whoin turn had transferred the case to Fast Track Court No.1, Salem for trial.The charges under Section 147, 148,452, 341 and 302 I.P.C were framed againstthe accused by the learned Additional Sessions Judge(Fast Track Court NO.1)Salem against the accused and when questioned the accused pleaded not guilty.P.Ws 1 to 13 were examined.P1 to P.32 and M.O.1 to M.O.12were marked.When the incriminating circumstances were put to the accused, theytotally denied their complicity with the crime.On the basis of oral anddocumentary evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judgecum- Fast TrackCourt No.1, Salem has convicted A2, A4 to A8 under Sections 148,449 and 302 IPC r/w 149 I.P.C and sentenced under Section 14 8 IPC to pay a fine ofRs.500/- each in default 50 days rigorous imprisonment and under Section 449IPC to under go ten months rigorous imprisonment each and a fine of Rs 500/-in default 50 days rigorous imprisonment and under Section 302 r/w 149 IPC toundergo life imprisonment .Aggrieved by the findings of the learnedAdditional Sessions Judge-cum-Fast Track Court, No.1, Salem, A6 to A8 havepreferred Crl.A.No.1754 of 2003 and A2, A4 and A5 have preferred Crl.Now the point for consideration in these appeals is Whether theconviction and sentence imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum- Fast Track Judge, No.1, Salem in S.C.No.59 of 2003 against A2 , A4 to A8 areto be set aside for the reasons stated in the memorandum of appeals.6.We have heard Mr.R.Shanmuga Sundararm, the learned Senior counselfor A6,A7,A8, Mr.R.Thiagaraj, the learned counsel for A5 and Mr.R.Nelliappan, the learned counsel for A2 and A4 and Mr.V.R.Balsubramanian , thelearned Government Advocate for the respondent.We have carefully consideredtheir submissionsAccording to P.W.9, the injured Rengasamy died on 31.3.1997at 4.00a.m., and thereafter Ex P16 death intimation was given to the police.There is no delay in registering the First Information Report.According toP.W.1, the occurrence had taken place on 30.3.1997 at about 11.00 a.m., ExP1 complaint was preferred on 30,.3.1997 at 7.00p.m., by P.W.1 to P.W.13 atShanumuga Private Hospital, Salem and a case has been registered under Crime No.184/1 997 under Section 307 I.P.C. and after the receipt of Ex P16 deathintimation, the charge has been altered to 302 IPC.The occurrence had takenplace at Pommiyampatti, the injured Rengasamy was taken to Omalur Government Hospital from where he was referred to Government Hospital, Salem and later hewas admitted in a private Hospital by name Shanmuga Private Hospital, salem.Since the injured was taken to Omalur Government Hospital and from there toGovernment Hospital, Salem and then to a private Hospital at Salem, FIR wasregistered at 7.00 p.m., .So the delay is only due to the injured beingtaken to three hospitals one after another soon after the occurrence.In Ex P14, three injuries were mentioned to Rengasamy.One at theright side of the head measuring 10 x 1 x = cm., another on the left side ofthe head measuring 8 x 1 x = cm and another contusion measuring 4 x 3 c.m on the right upper eye lid.The Doctor who had conducted post mortem wasexamined as P.W.11 who had issued Ex P28 post mortem certificate.The doctor has opined that the deceased would have died due to multiple fractures in theskull.The contention ofthe learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent is that P.W.1 would nothave witnessed the occurrence because the occurrence said to have occurred ona holiday will have no bearing at all because there is no rebuttal evidencelet in on the side of the fifth respondent to show that P.W1 's shop wasclosed on the date of occurrence and P.W.1 was not present at the place ofoccurrence.The prosecution has proved the guilt against A2,A4 and A5 beyondany reasonable doubt and hence A2, A4, and A5 are liable to be convicted underSection 302 r/w 34 IPC instead of 302 r/w 149 IPC.The prosecution has notproved the guilt against A6 to A8 beyond any reasonable doubt and hence A6 toA8 are liable to be acquitted.The point is answered accordingly.In the result, Crl A.No.1754 of 2003 is allowed and the convictionand sentence imposed against A6 to A8 are set aside and they are acquitted ofall the charges.The bail bonds stand cancelled.A.No.1868 of 2003 isdismissed and A2, A4 and A5 are convicted for the offence punishable underSection 302 IPC r/w 34 I.PC instead of 302 IPC r/w 149 I.P.C. to undergo lifeimprisonment each.In other respects, the Judgement in S.C.No.59 of 2003 isconfirmed.The trial Court is directed to secure the presence of A2, A4 andA5 to under go remaining portion of the sentence.The Additional SessionsJudge-cum-Fast Track Court No.1,SalemThe District and Sessions Judge, SalemThe Judicial Magistrate No.1,Salem(A2, A4 and A5)
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.